George Will : By Bush's Own Standard, Surge Has Failed

RealClearPolitics ^ | 09/11/2007 | George Will

[SirLinksalot]

Before Gen. David Petraeus' report, and to give it a context of optimism, the president visited Iraq's Anbar province to underscore the success of the surge in making hitherto anarchic areas less so. More significant, however, was the fact that the president did not visit Baghdad. This underscored the fact that surge has failed, as measured by the president's and Petraeus' standards of success.

[theBuckwheat]

>>
This underscored the fact that surge has failed, ...
<<

In declaring the surge as having “failed” just as it gets traction, George Will yet again fails to retain the earlier respect I used to hold for his opinions. He is drifting leftward which helps to explain why the MSM is publishing more of his pieces of late.

[rhombus]

First, measuring sectarian violence is problematic: The Washington Post reports that a body with a bullet hole in the front of the skull is considered a victim of criminality; a hole in the back of the skull is evidence of sectarian violence.

Didn't Petraeus discredit this yesterday?

[alloysteel]

Has the surge failed? George Will’s logic is a little shaky here, by first applying the standards set by the Democraticans in Congress, MUCH more harsh than that called for by Bush. And more importantly, for not taking into account the report that General Petraeus delivered to Congress.

[dfwgator]

Go back to writing books about baseball, George.

[rockrr]

STFU George. Go to a ballgame and leave the heavy thinking to those that can.

[Rennes Templar]

“What is the U.S. military mission in Iraq?”

Hey Georgie, W has said this about a billion times: the mission is to keep Iraq secure enough until the new Iraq military is able to take over and provide security for their country. The purpose of this is to anchor a government in the middle east that does not sanction terrorism, which will make the world safer for our grandchildren. W has said another billion times that this will take as long as it takes, and that this is a goal worth sacrficing and waiting for.

[gusopol3]

the president visited Iraq's Anbar province to underscore the success of the surge in making hitherto anarchic areas less so. More significant, however, was the fact that the president did not visit Baghdad.

This kind of selective story-telling by a man who is not stupid, indicates how worried he is that success by the US in Iraq will undermine his credibility. My understanding of why Bush went to Anbar was to force Maliki to leave Baghdad to meet with the tribal leaders on their own ground (for only the 2nd time?)and to show him how willing we are to pursue a bottom up strategy, including dealing with Sunni tribes. The visit to Anbar is part of the surge strategy. Mark George Will as someone, like Harry Reid, who has bet his reputation on defeat of the US, and cares more about his ego than the good of the country.

[TexanToTheCore]

George,

You need to do some homework. Listen less to the press.

[tomnbeverly]

George Will is retarted.. by his own explaination he shows his ignorance.

To Parapharse we have undertaken a surge in troops to give the Iraqis security (read breathing room) in order for them to get laws passed and reconcile their government...

The surge is working therefore it is NOW... time for the Iraqis to get to work...

NO ONE said this is going to happen overnight... the surge worked... NOW is the time for Iraqis to get thier stuff together...

If the fail NOW from this point forward we will not talk of another surge....

Everytime I see the left reporting on this I can’t stand their negative spin.

[Eddie01]

STFU

agreed. must need more retirement dollars from MSM.

[billbears]

STFU George. Go to a ballgame and leave the heavy thinking to those that can.

Of course. Heavy thinkers like William F Buckley. Wait, George Will was the editor of the National Review back when it was a conservative magazine. Should Buckley leave the 'heavy thinking' to others since he is against the police action as well? Why don't we put together a list of all the old conservative pundits and former members of Reagan's administration that should leave the 'heavy thinking' to others as well. I mean after all either they're all right (after decades of work for conservatism what could they know?) or hawkish new conservatives that have little respect (and knowledge) for history of the region are...hmmmm....

Wow this is fun!! We can throw literally decades of conservative thought under the bus to advocate continuing the police action. What's next? Expansion of the federal government's domestic policies under the auspices of 'conservatism'? Oh wait.....

[nuconvert]

When and why did George Will make a left turn?

[SittinYonder]

By conservative standards, George Will has failed.

[Tennessean4Bush]

George Will is retarted.

I disagree. He may be retarded, but he is definitely not retarted. I don't think he was ever tarted to begin with, so it would be impossible for him to be retarted.

[George W. Bush]

Congressional Democrats should accept Petraeus' report as a reason to declare a victory, one that might make this fact somewhat palatable: Substantial numbers of U.S. forces will be in Iraq when the next president is inaugurated. The Democrats' "victory" -- a chimera but a useful one -- is that Petraeus indicates there soon can be a small reduction of U.S. forces.

To declare this a substantial victory won by them requires Democrats to do two things. They must make a mountain out of a molehill (Petraeus suggests withdrawal of only a few thousand troops). And they must spuriously claim credit for the mountain. Actually, senior military officers have been saying that a large drawdown is inevitable, given the toll taken on the forces by the tempo of operations for more than four years.

Good strategery points here. Given that Bush got the Dims to support and finance the surge, we're approaching the point where they will face their antiwar base in the next elections with having increased U.S. presence in Iraq and trying to claim that reducing to about the same levels as in November 2006 is a "victory" for their antiwar movement.

Somehow, I think those MoveOns aren't going to buy it. LOL.

The end of the war will, however, be bitter for Americans, partly because the president's decision to visit Iraq without visiting its capital confirmed the flimsiness of the fallback rationale for the war -- the creation of a unified, pluralist Iraq.

After more than four years of war, two questions persist: Is there an Iraq? Are there Iraqis?

I'm sure many FReepers will take issue with this. But the question of the extent to which Iraqis think of themselves and behave politically and in public life and in private life as Iraqis first and foremost instead of Shi'ites/Sunnis/Kurds is a very relevant question, one that goes directly to the necessity of creating a public common interest and good that the peoples of Iraq can unify around. Failing to do so will set the stage for a civil war and the ascension of another dictator to fill the void left by Saddam, one not yet filled by the elected Iraqi government.

[markman46]

btt

[badpacifist]

George Will’s logic is a little shaky here

Been shaky for about seven years.

[eureka!]

"He is drifting leftward which helps to explain why the MSM is publishing more of his pieces of late."

Ed Morrissey does a good job of dissecting George Will's latest naval gazing here: http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/

That said, I think that George Will is enjoying the DC cocktail circuit and has not received any invites to the White House for a very long time. Hence, this tripe. I wish you would take his collection of bow ties and stick them in his pie hole/keyboard until we finish the job in Iraq...

[tomnbeverly]

As I must be it is one of the hardest words for me to spell correctly...

LOL...