Posted on 07/12/2007 1:02:38 PM PDT by jazusamo
Thursday, July 12, 2007
You cannot make this stuff up.
All the troops for Gen. David Petraeus' surge have been in place for only a few short weeks . . . almost everyone admits the upshot of U.S. failure will be bloody and far-reaching . . . Petraeus is set to provide an early progress report in mid-September . . . even The New York Times and the BBC are reporting tangible signs of military progress on the ground . . . and a new clutch of panicked Republicans join anti-war, anti-Bush Democrats in saying we need a new strategy.
It's unreal. Congress (literally) cannot wait for Petraeus' September report. Congress' wannabe generals already "know" the surge isn't working or cannot work, and they don't need no stinkin' commander to tell them. Apparently, they've given Petraeus enough time -- a few weeks! -- and the job's not done. Never mind that the Senate unanimously confirmed Petraeus and sent him on his way with baritoned "Godspeeds." They won't give him another two months, much less a chance to succeed. They're too invested in defeat or their own pet theories about the war.
Lawmakers who have opposed the war have every right to do the only thing they can to stop a military action: cut off funds. The same goes for lawmakers who have said from the start that the surge is wrongheaded or cannot possibly succeed.
But what are we to make of the GOP grandees rushing forth now -- just weeks after all the troops are in place, two months before Petraeus provides an initial progress report -- to demand a new course in Iraq? That they're either a little late or a little early. That something other than the situation in Iraq is behind their throat-clearing statements -- say, their long-standing views on foreign policy (Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar) or their political situation at home (New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici).
Whatever, the timing is self-indulgent and irresponsible. After all the chatter, Congress won't pass anything that changes anything in Iraq before it heads off on summer recess. Even if the votes are there to overcome a Senate filibuster of this or that effort to short-circuit the surge -- a funding cut-off, a war deauthorization, a withdrawal timetable -- there won't be enough votes to override a veto.
So why the rush to the microphones? Good question. Sad to say there are no good answers.
Domenici wants everyone to know he's not knocking the military effort. He's upset with the Iraqi government for not meeting certain benchmarks the administration set out. But why bail out on the surge at this particular point on those grounds? The fact is that the Iraqi government has stepped up on the military front, and we'll know in September whether the Iraqi parliament has made headway on the political benchmarks. Also, we're seeing political and military progress on the part of Iraqis at the local level.
Lugar offers three reasons for concluding "the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved." He could have set them out months ago; there's no reason he couldn't have waited another two months -- unless any upbeat news from Petraeus might make them seem dated.
One is "the political fragmentation in Iraq." The second is "the growing stress on our military." But it's the last that's worth mulling. "The third factor inhibiting our ability to establish a stable, multisectarian government . . . is the timetable imposed by our own domestic political process . . . ," Lugar stated. "The president and his team must come to grips with the shortened political timeline in this country for military operations in Iraq. Some will argue that political timelines should always be subordinated to military necessity, but that is unrealistic in a democracy."
In the summer of 2007 -- a few weeks after the surge is complete and few months before the general that these senators voted to confirm reports back -- this is what passes for serious wartime thinking. And from a famously sober senator no less.
But, hey, it's only verbiage for now, right? Congress will debate and debate -- heck, maybe even pass something for Bush to veto -- and then leave sizzling Capitol Hill for August. Everyone will still end up waiting for Petraeus' report. No problem, right? Maybe, unless you're in even more sizzling Iraq fighting in an operation that some lawmakers think has already failed or should end, come what may.
Everyone in the country should have to read this.
I.think.a.lot.of.these.guys.need.to.rethink.the.situation
Pakistan is set to implode. Once it tips, India will kick a$$ as opposed to letting talibanani cavemen get control of the nuclear arsenal. Once Musharaff loses control/gets whacked, which is not far away, the gloves will come off.
Same with Iran/Syria. Excepting our Israeli friends are on the frontline. SO..the politics/resource calls and expectations will change.
Once Pakistan is spanked, HALF of the problem will go away. The other half lies in Iran/Syria.Once the JOOOS deal a nasty spanking,the dynamics will change.
Spank these places good, and the situation will clear
Iraq and Afghanistan will just fall into place.
This global aberation of cavemen philosophy should dry up.
Sure, they have 1400 years into this caveman cult crap...but face it - there is no room for that crap today.
It doesnt work - politically / economically
This is why politicians have no business whatsoever in overseas military affairs. The numeber of combat veterans in Congress is probably the lowest it has been in a long time but all of a sudden everone is a f’n armchair general. Not to mention we have ersatz war heros and legends in their own minds like Murtha and Kerry doing all they can to torpedo of our servicemen. McCain is a liberal $hitbird RINO but at least he supports the military and our troops.
Worry about matters of state and STFU in matters pertaining to the military operations overseas. You have no business there.
Like Rush said, when the Surge of Facts start coming, the left will be tied into pretzels and will be forced to back down.
Well said, I agree.
Bottom line:
If Bush is forced by Congress to shamelessly, cut and run in Iraq... it will only be because REPUBLICANS sealed the deal.
David`s column is in the Thursday and Sunday Oregonian, which is the only thing in that rag worth reading***Warning*** FISH WRAPPED IN THE OREGONIAN SPOIL WITHIN TWO HOURS EVEN WHILE REFIDERATED
Perhaps events will outrun the politicians’ ability to screw things up. I’m hoping, anyway.
You've sure got that right! :-)
They might start by thinking about what it will really mean to walk away from the fight, however long that fight takes.
Walking away will cause a substantial realignment of power in the area, starting with every nation turning their back on anything the US says because the US will no longer have any credible authority. We may have three carriers off Iran, but we dare not use them. They are only targets.
Smaller nations like Jordan and the Gulf States will align with whoever holds promise to oppose Iran. Again, without involving the US. China, Russia and India will have their power and influence increase.
And when we refuse to protect our interest in Iraq, where the cost is so little compared to any past conflict, little dictators like Chavez will be emboldened to become expansionists to move against our interests in their own neighborhoods.
We can only “lose” by walking away. We “win” by staying. We “win” when we can leave Iraq and its government can still keep running a civil society. Given that Saddam destroyed his own country’s ability to stand up civil leaders for about two generations, it will take a while to nurture and develop people who can be leaders.
We are at the cusp of a moment in history like when the French lost dominance of the world to the Brits or when the Brits lost it to the US. We are about to *cut and run* from our role and the vacuum we leave will be filled by the forces of chaos, forces which will lead to nuclear war.
hate.to.mention.this.
there.is.nuclear.war.a.brewing.next.door
but.walk?
urr.right...as.it.will.only.embolden.the.whole.ME.community.
largest.problem.with.all.the.islamics?...To.try.to.civilize.them.will.be..a.200.year.proposition.
it.took.them.1350.years.to.get.them.to.today.which.is.still.700.AD.in.their.time
Incredible.inertia.issue
The.key.is.to.dump.islam/reprogram.the.cultists.
you.can.have.the.first.franchise.of.islamics.anonymous
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.