President Redefines ‘Victory’ - Doyle McManus, Los Angeles Times
For more than four years since the invasion of Iraq, President Bush most often has defined his objective there with a single, stirring word: "Victory."
"Victory in Iraq is vital for the United States of America," he told cadets at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in May. "Victory in this struggle will require more patience, more courage and more sacrifice," he warned National Guardsmen in West Virginia in July. But this week, the word "victory" disappeared from the president's lexicon. It was replaced by a slightly more ambiguous goal: "Success."
"The success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States," Bush said Thursday evening in his brief televised address from the Oval Office…
On the Nation's TVs, A Familiar Picture – Tom Shales, Washington Post
In what NBC's Brian Williams said was George W. Bush's eighth speech on the Iraq war since he began it, the president finally talked about reducing American troop strength in that country. In a 24-minute address from the Oval Office that aired live last night on all the major networks, Bush said a total of 5,700 troops should be home by Christmas and, watching this on television, one could almost hear a nation shout hurray.
Katie Couric of CBS News called the speech a "state-of-the-war report," but Chris Matthews, looking more dignified than usual on MSNBC, compared Bush to Lucy in the "Peanuts" comic strip as drawn by the late Charles Schulz. Every autumn Lucy swore to Charlie Brown that she wouldn't pull the football away when he tried to kick it, and every year Charlie Brown fell for it and landed on his posterior. Matthews said Bush had been dealing in "false promises and false arguments again and again and again."
Even on Fox, the channel considered to be kindest to the Bush administration, opponents of the war were heard and few, if any, sounded impressed by Bush's speech or what he said in it.
Bush said his announcement could bring together opposing factions -- not opposing factions in Iraq so much as "people who've been on opposite sides" in the "difficult debate" about the war in this country…
Just the Facts – Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal
We are at a new point in the American experience of the Iraq war. It is also a decisive one: We have to decide, now, what to do. Stay. Go. Stay in a certain way, or at a certain size. But the mood of the moment, the mood of many Americans, is at odds with one of the demands of decision making.
Big decisions require a certain spirit, a certain do or die--the faith and wildness to roll the dice, throw 'em, watch and roll again. That's gambling, of course, not decision making, but many big decisions are to some degree a gamble. Our president must think this, for he so often doubles down. The Decider is The Gambler.
I was thinking this week about how the mood now, among normal people and political figures, is so different from the great burst of feeling that marked the early days of the war--the 17 days to Baghdad, the unstoppable Third Infantry Division, the dictator's statue falling. The relief that Saddam didn't use poison gas, as he had against the Kurds, that he collapsed like an old suitcase and got himself out of Dodge. There was a lot of tenderness to those days, too--the first tears at the loss of troops, the deaths of David Bloom and Michael Kelly. Still, the war seemed all triumph, a terrible swift answer to what had been done to us on 9/11.
Then occupation, the long slog, the beginning of bitterness. They thought they could do a war on the cheap? They thought shock and awe would stun ancient enmity into amity? And the puzzlements. Sometimes you looked at the war and wondered, Is Washington's plan here that good luck began this endeavor and good luck will continue? But how can you lean so much on luck! At this point, about 18 months ago, Americans started thinking, It's strange to assume good news. Bad news happens. Those guys in Washington must never have faced a foreclosure.
The American people are not impatient, but they are practical. They have a sense of justice and duty to which appeals can be addressed; they will change themselves to better themselves; and they are very proud of their country. But they have sacrificed in Iraq. And they didn't do it to make it worse. It's not that the U.S. hasn't won quickly. It's that the people of the U.S. can't see a path to winning.
And so last week spirits on all sides and among all sorts of players were relatively low, and statements seemed less like a debate than a sigh. But great nations can't sit around sighing, and all of us know this.
At the end of last week it seemed we know the immediate future--the administration will get what it asked for, more time--but have no greater sense of long-term outcomes…
A ‘Realistic Chance’ of Success – Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post
As always, the inadvertent slip is the most telling. Discussing the performance of British troops, Gen. David Petraeus told Sen. Joe Biden of the Foreign Relations Committee that he'd be consulting with British colleagues in London on his way back "home." He had meant to say "Iraq," where he is now on his third tour of duty. Is there any other actor in Washington's Iraq war drama -- from Harry Reid to the Joint Chiefs -- who could have made such a substitution? Anyone who not only knows Iraq the way Petraeus does but feels it in all its gravity and complexity?
When asked about Shiite militia domination of southern Iraq, Petraeus patiently went through the four provinces, one by one, displaying a degree of knowledge of the local players, terrain and balance of power that no one in Washington -- and few in Iraq -- could match.
When Biden thought he had a gotcha -- contradictions between Petraeus's report on Iraqi violence and the less favorable one by the Government Accountability Office -- Petraeus calmly pointed out that the GAO had to cut its data-gathering five weeks short to meet reporting requirements to Congress. And since those most recent five weeks had been particularly productive for the coalition, the GAO numbers were not only outdated but misleading.
For all the attempts by Democrats and the antiwar movement to discredit Petraeus, he won the congressional confrontation hands down. He demonstrated enough military progress from his new counterinsurgency strategy to conclude: "I believe we have a realistic chance of achieving our objectives in Iraq." …
The Least Bad Plan – Washington Post editorial
President Bush’s explanation of his latest plans for Iraq last night was marred by a couple of important omissions. First, the president failed to acknowledge that, according to the standards he himself established in January, the surge of U.S. troops into Iraq has been a failure -- because Iraqi political leaders did not reach the political accords that the sacrifice of American lives was supposed to make possible. Instead he focused on the real but reversible military gains achieved in and around Baghdad and on the unexpected decision of Sunni tribes to take up arms against al-Qaeda, a development facilitated but not caused by the surge.
Mr. Bush also failed to mention one of the principal reasons for the drawdown of troops he announced. The president said that the tactical military successes meant that American forces could be reduced in the coming year to pre-surge levels. What he didn't say is that the Pentagon has no choice other than to carry out the withdrawals, unless Mr. Bush resorts to politically explosive steps such as further extending deployments. Another way of describing Mr. Bush's plan is that it leaves every available Army and Marine unit in place in Iraq for as long as possible. If the war were going worse than it is, the deployment schedule probably couldn't have been much different…
No Exit, No Strategy – New York Times editorial
This was the week in which Americans hoped they would get straight talk and clear thinking on Iraq. What they got was two exhausting days of Congressional testimony by the American military commander, hours of news conferences and interviews, clouds of cut-to-order statistics and a speech from the Oval Office — and none of it either straight or clear.
The White House insisted that President Bush had consulted intensively with his generals and adapted to changing circumstances. But no amount of smoke could obscure the truth: Mr. Bush has no strategy to end his disastrous war and no strategy for containing the chaos he unleashed.
Last night’s speech could have been given any day in the last four years — and was delivered a half-dozen times already. Despite Mr. Bush’s claim that he was offering a way for all Americans to “come together” on Iraq, he offered the same divisive policies — repackaged this time with the Orwellian slogan “return on success.” …
Political Tug of War – Terrence Jeffrey, Washington Times
Watching Gen. David Petraeus testify before Congress inspired several thoughts.
The first is that he has taken on one of the most difficult missions ever given a U.S. commander: building a nation in a region of the Middle East already involved in an incipient ethno-sectarian war. Gen. Petraeus unambiguously identified this as the core struggle we face.
"The fundamental source of the conflict in Iraq is competition among ethnic and sectarian communities for power and resources," he said. "The question is whether the competition takes place more — or less — violently."
The second thought is that it would be difficult to find a man better suited to this monumental challenge. Gen. Petraeus is very smart, honest and tough.
The third is that the courageous troops Gen. Petraeus leads are performing as well as military forces can be expected to perform in such a situation…
Hiding Behind the General – Joe Klein, Time Magazine
California Senator Barbara Boxer almost asked a good question at the Petraeus-Crocker festivities on Capitol Hill this week. She was reminiscing, as most of her colleagues did, about time spent on the ground in Iraq with General David Petraeus, but it was not a recent visit. It was back in 2005, when Petraeus was in charge of training the new Iraqi army. An aide pulled out a blown-up photograph of the Senator and the general. "You were so upbeat, General," Boxer said. "You said, 'You're about to see some terrific troops.'" There were 100,000 of them "ready to go ... You were as optimistic as anyone I've seen on the planet ... and I believed you!" The stage was set for Boxer to point out that the Petraeus effort to train the Iraqi army had failed and to ask, "So why should we believe your optimism now?" But she wandered off into an antiwar diatribe and never got around to asking it.
The unasked question was so profound that Petraeus, a proud man, chose to answer it anyway. "I believe that my optimism back when I showed those very fine Iraqi forces to Senator Boxer was justified," he said. The good work was undone, though, in 2006, when Shi'ite militias "hijacked" whole units of the Iraqi military. But, he insisted, we are back on the right track now. Petraeus may well be right—or maybe not. The nature of military leadership is congenital optimism; officers are trained to complete the mission, to refuse to countenance the possibility of failure. That focus is essential when you go to war, but it lacks perspective. That's why civilian leaders—the Commander in Chief—are there to set the mission, to change or abort it when necessary. The trouble is, George W. Bush's credibility on Iraq is nonexistent. And so he has placed David Petraeus, an excellent soldier, in a position way above his pay grade. He has made Petraeus not just the arbiter of Iraq strategy but also, by default, the man who sets U.S. policy for the entire so-called war on terrorism…
The MoveOn Choice – W. Thomas Smith Jr., National Review
The anti-Iraq-war crowd is always quick to say they “support the troops.” But it’s not an expression of support when you accuse the top “troop” of lying, cherry-picking facts, and serving as a uniformed mouthpiece for the president, especially when all evidence is to the contrary.
That’s exactly what MoveOn.org has done with its full-page ad in the New York Times, accusing the top “troop” — four-star Gen. David Petraeus — of “betraying” the nation he has sworn to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic. Many top Democrats — accepting backing from MoveOn and refusing to take a public stance against the organization’s very public condemnation of the general — are also guilty by association.
Worse, during this week’s Iraq-report hearings, many of those same Democrats lied on the record by expressing “respect” for the “distinguished” and “honorable” service of both Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker on the one hand, then accusing both men of presenting a report that required — in the words of Sen. Hillary Clinton — “the willing suspension of disbelief.”
They can’t have it both ways. Petraeus cannot be an honorable man (honorable men only tell the truth), and at the same time a liar who would betray his country. He’s one or the other…
Patchwork in Progress? – Eugene Robinson, Washington Post
Gen. David Petraeus likes to describe the Iraq he envisions as a patchwork quilt. You establish security in a neighborhood over here, bring peace to a village over there, create more and more of these scraps of relative tranquility -- and then stitch the heterogeneous pieces together.
The problem is with the seams. They have a tendency to unravel.
Yesterday, while Petraeus was still in Washington delivering his optimistic progress report, the biggest success he has been touting all week -- the decision by Sunni tribal leaders in formerly hostile Anbar province to switch sides and cooperate with the Americans -- was ominously threatened. A roadside bomb in Ramadi killed Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, the most prominent of the newly cooperative sheiks, calling into question the "political shift of seismic proportions" that Petraeus has advertised…
A Surge, Then a Stab – Paul Krugman, New York Times (subscription required)
To understand what’s really happening in Iraq, follow the oil money, which already knows that the surge has failed.
Back in January, announcing his plan to send more troops to Iraq, President Bush declared that “America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.”
Near the top of his list was the promise that “to give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.”
There was a reason he placed such importance on oil: oil is pretty much the only thing Iraq has going for it. Two-thirds of Iraq’s G.D.P. and almost all its government revenue come from the oil sector. Without an agreed system for sharing oil revenues, there is no Iraq, just a collection of armed gangs fighting for control of resources…
Obama’s “New Plan” – Frederick Kagan, Weekly Standard
In a speech that will no doubt be hailed by the left as bold and original, Senator Barack Obama today unveiled "his" plan for a "responsible" withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq by the end of 2009. The plan may be bold, but it is certainly not original. In fact, Obama's plan is extremely similar to one unveiled in June by the Center for a New American Strategy called "Phased Transition: A Responsible Way Forward and Out of Iraq." Like the CNAS report, Obama's plan calls for the withdrawal of almost all American combat forces from Iraq by the time the next president takes office (oddly enough), but purports to offer ways to achieve vital American goals in Iraq without using U.S. forces in combat, including continuing the fight against al Qaeda in Iraq, helping the Iraqis achieve political reconciliation, preventing the Iraq struggle from becoming a regional war, and preventing genocide within Iraq (the CNAS report called its objectives "the three nos:" no al Qaeda, no regional war, and no genocide, and also argued that its approach would enable reconciliation within Iraq). Like the CNAS plan, Obama's proposal asserts that U.S. forces can continue to train Iraqi Security Forces even after this withdrawal of combat power (as long as the ISF are non-sectarian). Like the CNAS plan, Obama's proposal is utterly unworkable…
Answers for ANSWER – Washington Times editorial
Tomorrow's antiwar protest on the National Mall is going to be so big, it's gotten notorious activist Cindy Sheehan to come out of "retirement." The nutty left-wing organization Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER) has coordinated a rally at the White House, followed by a march to the Capitol and a "die-in," where 1,000 people are expected to lie down in front of the U.S. Capitol to symbolize the soldiers and Iraqis who have died in the war in Iraq. It is a tasteless and offensive PR stunt.
It's no secret that ANSWER supporters are among the most radical fringe of the antiwar movement. An ANSWER founder is Ramsey Clark, a former U.S. Attorney General, a member of the Communist World Worker's Party and one of Saddam Hussein's defense attorneys. And we can't forget Mrs. Sheehan, from CodePink, who referred to terrorists as "freedom fighters." ANSWER's Web site is plastered with ads for Che Guevara shirts and urges readers that "protesting is not enough." Indeed, the movement is lurching toward civil disobedience, since they can't seem to drum up enough support for their cause among mainstream Americans…
What I Saw in Darfur - Ban Ki-moon, Washington Post
We speak often and easily about Darfur. But what can we say with surety? By conventional shorthand, it is a society at war with itself. Rebels battle the government; the government battles the rebels. Yet the reality is more complicated. Lately, the fighting often as not pits tribe against tribe, warlord against warlord.
Nor is the crisis confined to Darfur. It has spilled over borders, destabilizing the region. Darfur is also an environmental crisis -- a conflict that grew at least in part from desertification, ecological degradation and a scarcity of resources, foremost among them water.
I have just returned from a week in Darfur and the surrounding region. I went to listen to the candid views of its people -- Sudanese officials, villagers displaced by fighting, humanitarian aid workers, the leaders of neighboring countries. I came away with a clear understanding. There can be no single solution to this crisis. Darfur is a case study in complexity. If peace is to come, it must take into account all the elements that gave rise to the conflict…
Repairing Democracy Promotion - Thomas Carothers, Washington Post
U.S. democracy promotion is in a deeply troubled state. The Bush administration's close identification of democracy building with the war in Iraq has discredited the concept both at home and abroad. America's standing as a global symbol of democracy and human rights has been crippled by the many U.S. abuses of the rule of law in the war on terrorism. The glaring gap between the president's sweeping rhetoric about a freedom agenda and his administration's many efforts to secure economic and security favors from autocratic allies around the world multiplies the cynicism and confusion. So great is the current incoherence that the president describes himself as a dissident of his own administration's policies. A generation of work to build consensus at home and legitimacy abroad for U.S. democracy promotion is in disarray.
As the leading U.S. presidential candidates unfold their foreign-policy visions, they have touched on democracy promotion, but not yet gone deeply into what they would do to put it back on track. It is commendable that none has urged an isolationist retreat, yet mere affirmations of a determination to renew America's commitment to advancing democracy are not enough. Although the United States can and should be a force for democracy in the world, repairing the damage and recovering such a role will require deep-reaching changes…
Rethinking the War on Terrorism – Los Angeles Times
Today, the American Conservative Defense Alliance's Bandow and Townhall.com's Hewitt reimagine the war on terror. Previously they debated the meaning of the meaning of Osama bin Laden, the sixth anniversary of Sept. 11 and the Petraeus report. Tomorrow, they'll wrap up with an assessment of the domestic political debate on national security…
-----
