Backpeddling from expectations of progress

If you read between the lines of David Sanger’s feature on the front-page of today’s New York Times, it becomes clear that the administration has resigned themselves to the fact Iraq is not going well and they are scaling back expectations of progress. (Probably a good idea since there isn’t any to point to.)

They are laying the groundwork to pass this mess off to the next administration. (We have known that was the plan, but now the house of cards is taking shape.)

“He is trying to fight fires coming from every direction,” Ryan C. Crocker, the newly arrived American ambassador to Iraq, said of Mr. Maliki this week, speaking by telephone. “We have to be clear to him on where our priorities are, so that we can buy him the time he needs. And we have to buy the time now because he is going to need it in the future.” (Hmmm….You know, if you change “Ryan Crocker” to “Mitch McConnell” and “Mr. Maliki” to “Mr. Bush” that sentence works just as well...)

Mr. Crocker said that he had told Mr. Maliki that evidence of progress “is important in American terms” because “to sustain American support we have to be able to see that Iraqis are stepping up to hard challenges.”

“To sustain American support that is as close to an acceptance of reality as I have seen yet. And the month of September is featuring prominently for both Democrats and Republicans.

By the time Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus complete a comprehensive assessment of progress in September, three months after the troop increase has been fully in place, American officials are hoping that some of the pieces of crucial legislation will have passed.

Yeah – like that oil law that puts Exxon-Mobile ion the catbird’s seat, letting them charge Iraqi’s in perpetuity for infrastructure that will never be paid for. Get that puppy signed, and maybe we’ll start talking about drawing down…

But Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates found himself pressing Mr. Maliki last week to keep Parliament from taking a two-month summer break. If lawmakers remain in Baghdad, said one senior American official who did not want to be identified because he was discussing internal White House deliberations, “we’ll have some outputs then.”

He added, “That’s different from having outcomes,” drawing a distinction between a sign of activity and a sign of success, which could take considerably longer.

Yeah – the American public has had it, and is ready to call it a day in the desert. Politicians are beating the drum about September, and the Iraqi Parliament had to be forced to stay in session rather than take a two month break – while their freakin’ country is going up in flames.

Here is what I think – I think the Iraqi’s in charge don’t give a damn – they think Americans are staying forever because of the god-damned oil. (Could be they are correct in that). As long as there is oil under the desert and America’s appetite for it can not be sated, they think they can just continue to screw around and remain feckless.

For Gods sake, I’ve had enough. What the hell do you people who support this spectacular cock-up purport to be supporting, exactly? And how the hell does your wanting it for them translate into them wanting it for themselves?

[The PG-13 version of this post can be found at Blue Girl, Red State]