Iraq appeals to Iran for help defusing the Kurdish crisis

As tensions ratchet up between Turkey and Iraq over PKK terrorists who find safe haven in Iraq from which to stage cross-border raids and kill Turkish soldiers, and the United States stands by helplessly, unable to even comprehend the scope of the clusterfuck created by the hubris of George Bush, Iraq is reaching out to Iran for help.

That's gonna go over like a pregnant pole vaulter.

On Wednesday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki met with Iranian foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki and asked him to help present Iraq's positions at a regional summit meeting in Istanbul scheduled for Thursday. “The prime minister asked the Islamic Republic to present their full support to Iraq during the Istanbul meeting and also to participate in solving the border crisis between Turkey and the P.K.K.,” a statement from Mr. Maliki’s office said. The summit will be attended by representatives from countries in the region, including Syria, Iran, Iraq andTurkey. The United States will be represented by Condoleeza Rice, and U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, and a number of other foreign ministers are also expected to attend.

[keep reading]

P.K.K. terrorists have killed over 35,000 Turks since launching their most recent separatist terror campaign in the 80's. For perspective, consider that in 2 decades, the P.K.K. has killed ten times the number of Turks that America lost on September 11.

Turkey, tired of the terrorists who attack them finding safe haven in Iraq, hiding beneath the petticoats of Turkey's NATO ally the United States in the Kurdish north of Iraq, has massed troops on the border and announced that they will pursue Peshmerga and P.K.K. fighters across the border, engage them and kill them.

Iran has been sympathetic to the Turkish position, because the P.K.K. launches terrorist raids into Iran as well. But the situation is not that simple. Iran and Iraq are both Shi'ite majority countries, and the Iraqi government is Shi'ite majority (al Maliki spent many of his years in exile in Tehran).

From the New York Times:

Iraqi diplomats said they were worried that after the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, met with President Bush on Nov. 5, Turkey may take action against the Kurdish guerrillas, a step that could further antagonize Iraq’s Kurds.

“They are under a lot of pressure from the public, so we think they will do something,” said a senior Iraqi official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter. “We hope they will not.”

Mr. Erdogan has asked the United States to help the Turks take “concrete steps” to reduce the P.K.K. threat.

In Washington, Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon spokesman, confirmed that the United States military was giving “lots of intelligence” to Turkey in its effort to halt the rebel attacks.

As if the situation were not complicated enough, the American forces are still holding five Iranians that were taken into custody in January. Iran says they are diplomats, the United States insists they are members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. “The arresting of Iranian consular officials is a very big strategic mistake,” said Mr. Mottaki. Mr. Mottaki also expressed his displeasure at a comment made by General Petraeus that the Iranian ambassador in Baghdad was a member of the Quds Force, an elite unit of the Revolutionary Guard.

And I would like to point out, again, that Petraeus really hasn't done much, if anything, right. Last summer, he managed to piss Maliki off to the point that Maliki threatened to have the General recalled. Generals have to be politicians, that's how they get past the rank of Captain. But this is 4G warfare. They need to be diplomats. And lets differentiate right now: diplomacy and ass kissing are two completely different things. Petraeus has a handle on the latter, there's no doubt. But the former? Not so much.

There's more: "Iraq appeals to Iran for help defusing the Kurdish crisis" >>

Parsing the Petraeus Promenade™

For two days they appeared before open congressional committee meetings, answering questions from the legislative branch. Five of the members they faced are running for the presidency, and one of the inquisitors today will likely be the commander in chief they will answer to come January 2009. Another Senator was the opponent Petraeus sided against in 2004. That Senator did not bring up the infamous op-ed, but Senator Boxer did.

On balance, Tuesday was certainly not Monday. The man-crushes were, for the most part, kept in check - unlike Monday, when I feared that some of the overt, gushing, adoration would get the General in trouble under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

There were significant moments in the testimony Tuesday. Petraeus went on the congressional record that there was no connection between the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and Saddam Hussein. When pressed, he could not say that America’s involvement in Iraq makes Americans safer.

But there was one question that Petraeus either could not – or would not – answer. It was the one he asked in 2003 as the invasion ramped up. “How does this end?”

"Are we going to continue to invest American blood and treasure at the same rate we are doing now, for what? The president said let's buy time. Buy time? For what?" said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a Vietnam veteran who also will retire next year.

Most experts argue that stabilizing Iraq requires two things above all: political reconciliation among Shiite Muslims, Sunnis and Kurds, and Iraqi security forces that can stand on their own.

Petraeus and Crocker could promise neither.

As the day wore on, the unspoken consensus emerged that, yeah, George Bush really is a phenomenal fuckwit. And boy, did he ever screw the pooch when he charged headlong into this mess, and it should never have been done, and can’t be undone…All he can do is punt it to the next president and then start trying to cast blame. The men who were sitting in front of congress the last two days are, unenviably, charged with salvaging something from it.

By the end of the day, the testimony made it clear that there will still be a hundred thousand American G.I.’s in Iraq when Bush abdicates to Paraguay on 19 January 2009. And the war in Iraq had been moved front and center in the 2008 election campaign.

Starting today, it's a whole new campaign...

There's more: "Parsing the Petraeus Promenade™" >>

Some Questions for General Petraeus

Ever since the Surge™ plans rolled off the presses at the American Enterprise Institute and the escalation got underway, any time anyone has brought up withdrawal of troops and drawing down in Iraq, Resident Evil™ and his slavering lackeys have engaged in a stall tactic. “Wait for September.” is the rote refrain. “Wait to hear what General Petraeus has to say.” Well, it's September.

(As if we could count on receiving the unvarnished truth about success on the ground! Ha! I inwardly roll my eyes. I’ve read that op-ed before – right before the last presidential selection, in fact.)

Well, we know he is going to spin and mince and parse and do a soft-soap routine extraordinaire. None the less, when he is in front of the congressional committees, I would dearly love to see him asked to answer the following questions – and for the committees to make him answer them in a forthright manner.

Start at the beginning.

General Petraeus, could you start by defining the mission of the U.S. military in Iraq? How does that correspond with the original grounds for the invasion?

What was the population of Iraq in March 2003? What was the unemployment rate? GNP?

What is the population now? Unemployment rate? GNP?

How many Iraqis have fled the country as refugees? How many people have fled violence in their neighborhoods and home districts, but remain in the country as internally displaced persons? How many internal refugee camps have sprung up in recent months?

Of the population remaining in Iraq, how many would you estimate are actively involved with violence toward other Iraqis? Toward American troops?

Would you provide the names of and background on groups which the U.S. maintains have engaged in violence against Americans?

al Qaeda in Iraq

Of the jihadist/resistance fighters in Iraq, how many claim an affiliation with al Qaeda? How many are members of the main al Qaeda organization, and would take direct orders from ObL? Of those claiming membership in AQI, how many are Iraqis? How many are foreign nationals? Of the foreign nationals, where do they come from? How many jihadist fighters do you estimate come from each of these other nations? How many were loyal to al Qaeda before the United States invaded Iraq? Can you provide names and background information on those claiming to be AQI leadership? Are any of the professed leaders Iraqi? How many? How many people in Iraq professed membership in or allegiance to al Qaeda in March 2003.

The Insurgency

Can you provide the statistics on insurgents by sect? Can you give us this information for each province? Of the insurgents in Iraq today, how many have been active since the invasion? How many have taken up arms since the bombing of the al-Askiri Shrine in February 2006? What provinces have seen attacks committed against American forces since the “Surge™” achieved >50% of the troop buildup. What provinces have been violence free in this time period?

Iraqi Casualties

How does the U.S. count Iraqis killed by gunshots? How are Iraqis killed by explosions counted? How are Iraqis killed by American air strikes counted? Do you feel the slightest pang of conscience when you parse death statistics by whether a victim died execution style, or facing their killer? Do you think that matters to the decedent or their family?

Iraqi Perceptions

How many Iraqis oppose continuing the American military presence in that country? Of Iraqis not engaged in violence against Americans, how many nonetheless do not object to attacks against American forces?

The Missing Millions

How much cash was airlifted to Iraq after the invasion of 2003? We know that at least $110 million went missing from your command in Mosul. What happened to that money, General? How much of that missing money has been used to fund the insurgency, either directly or indirectly?

The Missing Weapons

We know that fully half of American casualties in Iraq are the result of the failure to secure munitions (al Qua Qua) in the early days of the invasion. Were you in any way responsible for the decisions that led to that failure? Who was? Have they faced any accountability?

The GAO estimates that approximately half of all light weapons supplied by American forces to Iraqi military and police forces – 190,000 AK-47’s and handguns – have gone missing. Who got those weapons? Have they been turned against American forces? Used against other Iraqis in sectarian attacks? Used in criminal acts?

Infrastructure

How many bridges have been attacked since the troop buildup got underway?

How many hours of electricity does the average Iraqi experience in a day? What was the average before the invasion in March 2003? What was the average temperature in Iraq this August? How do Iraqis cool their homes? How many times has the electrical grid been attacked by insurgents since the start of the escalation? Who is responsible for the security of the grid? How many hours of electricity does your headquarters enjoy per day?

How many Iraqi homes, on average went without water for more than 24 hours during the month of August? What is the status of the water delivery system? How safe is the water to drink, when it is available? Hypothetically: If your family came to visit you in Iraq, would you feel comfortable with them drinking the water?

***

And then, after a brief restroom break, I would start asking even tougher questions about the status of the Iraqi security forces. And I would segue into the ten and twenty year occupation predictions and projections. But that is me – and I am not a lily-livered poltroon afraid of being perceived as being mean to a poor little helpless four-star general.

(Hat tip to one of the commenters at Political Animal for posting many of these same questions, and many more. Reading that comment, I was able to pull all the disparate strands of outrage together and write a post that passes for cogent.)

There's more: "Some Questions for General Petraeus" >>

You weren't really sucked in, were you?

About that Petraeus “Report” that he assured all he would be writing himself after it leaked out that the report would be coming from the White House?

Yeah, scratch the indignant “I'll be writing my own report” bullshit – and by the way, I will remind you here and now that anyone familiar with the mans body of work knew he was blowing smoke.

Today we learned that the only hard-copy Petraeus will be working from will be his opening statement. He will bring a stack of PowerPoint graphs and charts – the sort of thing that sucked in the lame-brained Brian Baird – but Petraeus won’t be writing, nor will he be presenting, a “Petraeus Report” because no such animal exists.

Yes, I realize full well that the text of PL 110-28 says:

“the President, having consulted with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, and the Commander of U.S. Central Command, will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress.”

“[T]he United States Ambassador to Iraq and the Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of the Congress.”

…so save the slavering wingnuttery. Especially since you probably didn't know yourself until some right-tard fatassed-fascist chickenhawk war-blogger with no skin in the game gave you the petticoat to crawl under within the last 72 hours. For the record, I read the text of the law in May, have known what it said for months and I've been waiting for the wingnuts to crawl out of the woodwork. I have my can of Raid at the ready for the vermin.

In other words, I am in no mood to tolerate having my leg pissed on and being told it’s raining.

Now, riddle me this, Batman (nice cowl, by the way) : What do you think got through to more people: The actual text of the law? Or the lawmakers talking on the TeeVee? (I’m going with the TeeVee, because there is no possibility of a boob-shot if you are reading the text of the legislation that rules our lives, and Galileo knows that Americans will always go for boobs over substance.) I am guessing that MAYBE .5% of Americans who consider themselves well informed read the text.

(h/t John Amato @ Crooks & Liars for the rundown)

Senate Minority Leader McConnell:

Let me remind the Senate of what we agreed to…We voted, and put into law, that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker would report in September on progress. The benchmarks report and the timeline we set in May was clear. It gave us, the troops, and our allies, clarity on what was expected.

Senator McCain:

The war will be discussed in September again—we all know that—when General Petraeus is ready to report to the Senate…General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will come to Washington in September to report on the status of their efforts and those of the Iraqis.

Senator Sessions:

To press the point further, I strongly believe that whatever the inclinations of Senators on the conduct of the war in Iraq, to change our strategy now before we even hear from General Petraeus in September would be a colossal blunder for a host of reasons. To do so would be unthinkable…I am anxious to hear General Petraeus’s report.

Senator Coleman:

Fifty-four days ago we sent a message to General Petraeus: Go forth with the surge, and then come back and report to us.

Senator Chambliss:

I have never been more convinced that waiting for General Petraeus’s report in September was more right than yesterday afternoon…

Senator Craig:

That’s why when we confirmed General Petraeus unanimously in the Senate, we said to him very clearly, you go to Iraq in relation to a surge that is being implemented and you come back to us and give us your honest and fair assesement in September.

Senator Cornyn:

But the fact is, Gen. David Petraeus…will come back and report to us in September.

Senator DeMint:

The Democrats agreed on that funding, but they requested that we have a report from General Petraeus in the middle of September to find out what progress we were making. We all agreed to that.

Senator Bunning

I promised in person, in my office, to General Petraeus, that I would wait to hear his report this fall.

And of course I couldn’t leave out everyone’s favorite Republican:

Senator Lieberman

In fact, this amendment should not even be considered now…Because in that bill we required General Petraeus, along with our Ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, to come back in September and report to us…I made a personal pledge to him. I am going to give him and the troops a fair chance, which this amendment would deprive him of, and I am going to give him until September to come back and tell me how it is going.
[All emphasis mine]

So lets do a rundown, shall we? Refresh our memories on the high- (and low-) lights of the past 12 weeks:

First, Resident Evil™ and his minions in the Senate systematically set out on a disinformation campaign designed to pin all hopes on a “Petraeus Report” that every last mother-fucking one of them knew was actually going to be written by the White House. (This is called lying. It ought to be called Treason when it involves a war and the lives of other peoples children.)

When the citizenry began to grumble about being lied to, wingnut congresscritter from Virginia ,Tom Davis tried to tamp down the controversy by explaining that the report would be Petraeus’ but the White House would probably “tweak” it, but, he insisted, it would be Petraeus’ report.

(Another lie from a wingnut Republican. Surprise, surprise, surprise! They always fall back to their default position, don’t they?)

There will be no written report from the Surgin’ General. His statements to Congress will be made public, but there will be no public record of what information he provides to aWol. This obscuring process doesn’t go very far toward discrediting the reports we got this week that pull the masks off the bandits, does it?

I am left with one conclusion: Petraeus did such a good job of producing Kabuki this summer, they are extending the run into the fall!

(H/T to the bloggers at Think Progress. Their archives were relied on heavily for this post.)

There's more: "You weren't really sucked in, were you?" >>

Statistical Gymnastics Come Under Close Scrutiny, Outed as Bullshit

Recent assertions by the U.S. military that violence in Iraq has markedly decreased in recent months has come under severe scrutiny from experts both inside and outside the government. Consensus is that that statistics offered by the military are questionable at best, as the pattern emerged that the military simply ignores negative trends. (Before anyone screams "Outliers are tossed all the time!" let me save you the humiliation of a lecture - I actually know what an outlier is. For the record, an outlier is a data point that is more than three standard deviations from the mean. You can't just call any data point you don't like an outlier and omit it to get the result you want and expect your findings to be taken seriously.)

The administration has pinned everything on the reduction of violence metric to prove that finally they have a strategy that is working! That is what Gen. David Petraeus is going to say in front of congress next week when he comes to give his aWol's report on the state of security in Iraq. He is expected to try to convince the congress that there has been a 75% decrease in sectarian attacks. (Problem there: I do not think that word actually means what they want us to believe it means.)

When others look at the full range of data, they find that the military cherry-picks the data for positive indicators and ignores the negative. "Let's just say that there are several different sources within the administration on violence, and those sources do not agree," Comptroller General David Walker told Congress on Tuesday in releasing a new Government Accountability Office report on Iraq.

Meanwhile, military officials would have us believe that the CIA, DIA and GAO are all using flawed methodologies that give an inaccurate picture.

The intelligence community has its own problems with military calculations. Intelligence analysts computing aggregate levels of violence against civilians for the NIE puzzled over how the military designated attacks as combat, sectarian or criminal, according to one senior intelligence official in Washington. "If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian," the official said. "If it went through the front, it's criminal."

"Depending on which numbers you pick," he said, "you get a different outcome." Analysts found "trend lines . . . going in different directions" compared with previous years, when numbers in different categories varied widely but trended in the same direction. "It began to look like spaghetti."

One of the troubling trends is the ommission of violence attributed to Shia militias fighting other Shia militias, which has gripped Basra and last month resulted in the assassination of two southern provincial governors.

According to a spokesman for the Baghdad headquarters of the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I), those attacks are not included in the military's statistics. "Given a lack of capability to accurately track Shiite-on-Shiite and Sunni-on-Sunni violence, except in certain instances," the spokesman said, "we do not track this data to any significant degree."

Attacks by U.S.-allied Sunni tribesmen -- recruited to battle Iraqis allied with al-Qaeda -- are also excluded from the U.S. military's calculation of violence levels.

Here it might be beneficial to remember that the Iraq Study Group report that was released in December identified "significant underreporting of violence," noting that "a murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack. If we cannot determine the sources of a sectarian attack, that assault does not make it into the data base." The report concluded that "good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals."

They are bringing their wares to the Capitol next week and the hucksters, pitchmen and carnival barkers are hocking the cherry-picked data in a most full-throated manner.

I just have two words for my countrymen, especially the 535 of 'em that control the pursestrings: Caveat Emptor.

There's more: "Statistical Gymnastics Come Under Close Scrutiny, Outed as Bullshit" >>

Updating the Potemkin Legend for the 21st Century

When Catherine the Great went to tour the Crimean region forcibly annexed by the Russian military in the late 18th century, she saw fabulous and elegant villages along the desolate banks of the Dnieper. But the fabulous villages were hollow facades, erected at the behest of the Russian military commander in the region, Grigori Potemkin, put in place to wow the empress and her traveling party as they sailed by; and to raise his stature in her eyes in the process.

In a colder calculus - they were supposed to create the illusion that the conquest of the region was worthwhile.

One could say that the saying "there's no 'there' there" dates to 1787. (But one would need to say it in Russian.)

To this day, we use the word Potemkin as a modifier whenever something is less than it seems on the surface.

Now, we have a modern equivalent to the Potemkin Village in the Dora Market, and General Petraeus is certainly giving ol' Grigori a run for his money in the creating-illusions-to-snow-the-potentates department.

BAGHDAD -- Nearly every week, American generals and politicians visit Combat Outpost Gator, nestled behind a towering blast wall in the Dora market. They arrive in convoys of armored Humvees, sometimes accompanied by helicopter gunships, to see what U.S. commanders display as proof of the effectiveness of a seven-month-long security offensive, fueled by 30,000 U.S. reinforcements. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. military leader in Iraq, frequently cites the market as a sign of progress.

"This is General Petraeus's baby," said Staff Sgt. Josh Campbell, 24, of Winfield, Kan., as he set out on a patrol near the market on a hot evening in mid-August.

...Even U.S. soldiers assigned to protect Petraeus's showcase remain skeptical. "Personally, I think it's a false representation," Campbell said, referring to the portrayal of the Dora market as an emblem of the surge's success. "But what can I say? I'm just doing my job and don't ask questions."

...Still, the Dora market is a Potemkin village of sorts. The U.S. military hands out $2,500 grants to shop owners to open or improve their businesses. The military has fixed windows and doors and even helped rebuild shops that had burned down, soldiers and others said.

"We helped them a lot. We gave them money, security, even the locks on their doors," said a 36-year-old Iraqi interpreter at the outpost whom U.S. soldiers call Jimmy for security reasons. He asked that his real name not be used. "Everything we gave them. That's why the violence has stopped. That's why they cooperate with us."

Some shopkeepers said they would not do business in the market without U.S. support. "The Americans are giving money, so they're opening up stores," said Falah Hassan Fadhil, 27, who sells cosmetics.

1st Lt. Jose Molina, who is in charge of monitoring and disbursing the grant money, said the U.S. military includes barely operating stores in its tally. "Although they sell dust, they are open for business," said Molina, 35, from Dallas. "They intend to sell goods or they may just have a handful of goods. But they are still counted."

Security measures in the market are rigorous. Vehicles are not allowed inside for fear of car bombs. Customers are body-searched at checkpoints. Humvees constantly patrol the area, which is the sole focus of the 50 or so soldiers of Combat Outpost Gator.

I have been to a lot of open air markets in my life, including Agoras and Bazaars, and I have NEVER been frisked before buying my hummus ingredients, I don't care what Representative Pence says, or what kind of deal Lindsey got on his rugs.

There's more: "Updating the Potemkin Legend for the 21st Century" >>

I think Dick Cheney must be referring to some other “Surge™”

Last week on CNN, Dick Cheney was adamant that “The Surge ™” was working – if you will.

He is optimistic that the report to Congress by Petraeus and Crocker next month will be positive. (We’re winning!!!) "The reports I'm hearing from people whose views I respect indicate that the Petraeus plan is in fact producing results," insisted Cheney, employing the same shift-the-blame meme that has been peddled furiously of late. Of course this is not Petraeus’s plan. The “Surge™” was actually dreamed up by some fatassed armchair generals at the AEI, and everyone who has been paying attention knows it. (Emphasis on paying attention…given the state of awareness we currently realize, the mendacious pricks will likely get away with everything to date, and more into the future.)

It is going so swimmingly that the very next day, the appeal for help attempting to unscrew the pooch was made to the United Nations.

Two days after Mr. Cheney and his Midas delusions were singing paeans to Iraq, and freedom, and independence delivered at the barrel of a gun; Secretary of Defense Robert Gates continued dialing back expectations and admitting that the political process that the Surge™ was supposed to enable had not moved forward, and now the parliament is off on holiday until September.

Not only had stalemate and squabbling set in before the recess, but the Sunni al-Tawafuq bloc withdrew from the government of Nouri Kemal al-Maliki. They vacated five of the six ministry posts held by them in Maliki’s cabinet.

Secretary Gates admitted the lack of political progress. "In some ways we probably all underestimated the depth of the mistrust and how difficult it would be for these guys to come together on legislation," Mr Gates said. (Speak for yourself, Bob. This is exactly what *We* said was going to happen.)

Adding insult to injury, the electric grid is so decrepit that it can’t keep the water pumping, and it is 120º in Iraq this time of year. Some areas have been without water for a week.

Much hay has been made of the reduced American body count for the bloodiest July yet – violence adhered to the established pattern. It abated in July, but it has already ticked back upward the first week of August.

And if all that wasn’t enough…approximately half of all light weapons supplied by American forces - 190,000 AK-47’s and handguns – have gone missing. That is a lot of firepower unaccounted for. The BBC reports on the World Service that the weapons are certainly being used against coalition and Iraqi forces. In October of last year, it was revealed in a GAO report that 1 in 25, or 14,000 weapons had gone missing, and there was great hue and cry about it. And guess who was in charge when those weapons went missing?

Yep.

Dave Petraeus.

I wonder what lesson they took from last falls weapons scandal? If I were a betting woman, I would wager that the lesson they seized on has nothing to do with securing the weapons caches. Instead, I would wager that the lesson they learned was to keep the lost weapons out of the media, which is preternaturally willing to comply with this craven administration.

There's more: "I think Dick Cheney must be referring to some other “Surge™”" >>

Generals Have to be Politicians, But They Need to be Diplomats

The relationship between General David Petraeus and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Kemal al-Maliki is so strained that Mr. Maliki may ask Washington to withdraw the general.

Mr. Maliki, a Shi’ite, is a seemingly reluctant leader. He spent years in exile during the Hussein regime, and he vociferously protests arming Sunni insurgents under the guise of “fighting al Qa’eda.” His loud complaining has come to little – It has resulted in a pledge by U.S. forces to let al Maliki’s security vet the recruits. Aids say he complains bitterly about delivery delays of promised materiel.

And while he is at loggerheads with Petraeus, the United States forges ahead with the arming of Sunni Sheiks.

In short, al-Maliki is feeling put upon and unduly burdened, and not entirely without justification.

From Air Force Times

Petraeus says his ties with al-Maliki are “very good” but acknowledges expressing “the full range of emotions” on “a couple of occasions.”

U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who meets together with al-Maliki and Petraeus at least weekly, concedes “sometimes there are sporty exchanges.”

Al-Maliki has spoken sharply — not of Petraeus or Crocker personally — but about their tactic of welcoming Sunni militants into the fight against al-Qaida forces in Anbar and Diyalah provinces.

As for Petraeus, he really is facing a nightmare scenario. The Iraqi police and military forces are only nominally under the control of al Maliki, and in many cases those forces act not in the interest of the Iraqi government, but in sectarian – that is to say Shi’ite – interests. In addition, al Maliki has proven unwilling to cut his ties to fundamentalist Shi’ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who controls the Mahdi Army militia.

Meanwhile, Ambassador Ryan Crocker has his own issues with the stagnation of the political process. (Imagine. The Iraqi parliament is not bending over backwards to meet externally set benchmarks.) Crocker can not continue to insist that American G.I.’s are fighting and dying to give the Maliki government “breathing room” when al Maliki either can not or will not make an opportunity from it.

The ambassador, one of the State Department’s most seasoned Middle East diplomats, appeared to be genuinely fond of al-Maliki and profoundly understanding of the Iraqi leader’s troubles.

“We are dealing with existential issues. There are no second tier problems ... so there is a lot of pressure. And we all feel very deeply about we’re trying to get done. So yeah, sometimes there are sporty exchanges,” he said.

“And believe me I’ve had my share of them. That in no way means, in my view, strained relations. I have great admiration for Prime Minister Maliki, and I know General Petraeus does as well. And I like to think it is reciprocal. Wrestling with the things we’re all wrestling with here, it would almost be strange if you didn’t get a little passionate from time to time.”

Generals, who obtain flag rank and continue to advance with presidential and congressional approval, are politicians. Get your head around that fact. To advance to O-4 takes a degree of political acumen (well – it used to, and it will again) and to go beyond O-4 – you have to display the appropriate political ability; and you have a career.

That’s how it works, in a nutshell.

Generals aren’t just politicians. They are also perpetually fighting the last war. Newsflash fellas – Desert ≠ Jungle. (And by the way, it was stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid to deemphasize counterinsurgency after Vietnam like that was an anomaly, ya morons.)

I would like to say that that is all well and good; but I can’t because it isn’t.

All sides spoke with the critical September reports by Crocker and Petraeus to Congress clearly at the front of their minds — the need to make it clear to an increasingly hostile U.S. legislative branch that progress is being made and it would be wrong to start pulling out troops and cutting support now.

It will be a tough sell, but not for lack of getting their views before the public in advance of walking into Congressional committee rooms about seven weeks from now.

In 4-G warfare, what Generals really need are not so much political skills, but Diplomatic skills.

This is, apparently, not a gift that David Petraeus possesses or that the Army engenders.

Keep this in mind. September is right around the corner.

This is it. They do not get any more Friedmans.

There's more: "Generals Have to be Politicians, But They Need to be Diplomats" >>

Well, it is the summer rerun season

“Wait for September” is the new mantra. It pleadingly falls from the lips of every supporter of continuing the occupation of Iraq; from the fervent true-believers to the craven, profit-driven enablers. “Wait for September. Wait for General Petraeus’ report.” issues forth from many a fetid maw.

Call me cynical, but I know what his report is going to say. What did John McCain say the other day? “I’ve seen this movie before.”?

Well, I have read the Op-Ed before. Six weeks before the 2004 elections, in the Washington Post, to be exact.

I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up.

The institutions that oversee them are being reestablished from the top down. And Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously in the face of an enemy that has shown a willingness to do anything to disrupt the establishment of the new Iraq.

In recent months, I have observed thousands of Iraqis in training and then watched as they have conducted numerous operations. Although there have been reverses -- not to mention horrific terrorist attacks -- there has been progress in the effort to enable Iraqis to shoulder more of the load for their own security, something they are keen to do. The future undoubtedly will be full of difficulties, especially in places such as Fallujah. We must expect setbacks and recognize that not every soldier or policeman we help train will be equal to the challenges ahead.

Hell, he will even re-predict that "the next 60 days will be crucial." That groundwork was laid a couple of days ago when they floated the "November before we see real results" trial balloon. Just like he did before. On May 17th the Politico reported that he was saying then that there would be "nothing Definitive" by September.

Within the next 60 days, six more regular army and six additional Intervention Force battalions will become operational. Nine more regular army battalions will complete training in January, in time to help with security missions during the Iraqi elections at the end of that month.

And he will appeal for patience in September 2007 just like he did in September 2004.

There will be more tough times, frustration and disappointment along the way. It is likely that insurgent attacks will escalate as Iraq's elections approach. Iraq's security forces are, however, developing steadily and they are in the fight. Momentum has gathered in recent months. With strong Iraqi leaders out front and with continued coalition -- and now NATO -- support, this trend will continue. It will not be easy, but few worthwhile things are.

Paul Krugman and I are in total agreement this morning:

I don’t know why the op-ed article that General Petraeus published in The Washington Post on Sept. 26, 2004, hasn’t gotten more attention. After all, it puts to rest any notion that the general stands above politics: I don’t think it’s standard practice for serving military officers to publish opinion pieces that are strikingly helpful to an incumbent, six weeks before a national election.

In the article, General Petraeus told us that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously.” And those security forces were doing just fine: their leaders “are displaying courage and resilience” and “momentum has gathered in recent months.”

In other words, General Petraeus, without saying anything falsifiable, conveyed the totally misleading impression, highly convenient for his political masters, that victory was just around the corner. And the best guess has to be that he’ll do the same thing three years later.

You know, at this point I think we need to stop blaming Mr. Bush for the mess we’re in. He is what he always was, and everyone except a hard core of equally delusional loyalists knows it.

Yet Mr. Bush keeps doing damage because many people who understand how his folly is endangering the nation’s security still refuse, out of political caution and careerism, to do anything about it.

Now I am not going to come right out and call the General a Loyal Bushie, but there is certainly a case that could be made if one were to assert that position. I have heard some grumbling that Petraeus got the billet and the fourth star because “he can be counted on.” That he will do the presidents bidding and allow him to run out the clock while ~30 Americans in his command are sacrificed to that end every single week from here on out. That is 2100 more between now and the end of this presidents term. An affable Westmoreland is no less a craven prick than the original.

And this infuriates me. The oath Petraeus took as an officer of the United States Army was to the Constitution of this nation, not to a president, not to a political party, not to a king; not to any man. The Constitution. The Social Contract itself. He also has an obligation to the soldiers who serve in his command. Should he abdicate either for political reasons; that, in my eyes, is tantamount to treason.

It is time to demand an end to this folly, this failed presidency, this threat to the American experiment. The remedy is in the Constitution. It is impeachment. And it is necessary. Not just because I don’t like this guy and want to begrudge him power; but because I do not want any American president to ever have the powers that this one has claimed. The only way to undo the damage, and stop the war, is to impeach this bastard already.

There's more: "Well, it is the summer rerun season" >>

Petraeus: September is no policy deadline date — he has no deadlines at all

Gen. David Petraeus says September is a report deadline and nothing more, one of several insights in a British interview.

“That is a deadline for a report not a deadline for a change in policy, at least not that I am aware of. Ambassador Crocker and I intend to go back and provide a snapshot at that time, however focused the photograph is at that time and begin to describe what has been achieved and what has not been achieved and also to provide some sense of implications of courses of action. Neither of us is under any illusion.”

Really? Wonder if Dems will smell more coffee on the next Iraq supplemental?

And, he doesn’t expect “total victory”:

Will [the surge] be enough to restore security?

“You are never going to eliminate sensational attacks in Baghdad. That cannot be your metric of success. What we have to do is reduce their number and their impact. We had done quite well until the attack yesterday that killed a number of innocent civilians.”

And, apropos of the headline, he’s very open-ended about deadlines:

Would you like the surge to continue indefinitely?

“It depends on what the sense is for the prospects of achieving Iraq’s constitution. I hope that we can put time back on the Washington clock. Al-Qaeda is keenly aware of the Washington clock. They are obviously going to have a surge of their own.

And, he continues to “pump up the volume” about the importance of Iraq:

What about the leadership in Iraq?

"It is still led by foreigners called al-Qaeda Senior Leadership (AQSL). Our assessment is that this is the central front for al-Qaeda. They have a global war of terror, and Iraq is the central front. Whether you like it or not.

So, in a nutshell, the top brass in Iraq wants an open-ended commitment and claims we have to fight al-Qaeda there. He goes on to claim Iran has a high degree of backing for rogue elements of the Mahdi Army (I wouldn’t doubt some backing, but question the degree) and that the still-unpassed draft oil law is a key to political reconciliation.

Well, general, if you believe that, you could be waiting a long time.

Cross-posted at Socratic Gadfly and Out of Iraq Bloggers Caucus.

There's more: "Petraeus: September is no policy deadline date — he has no deadlines at all" >>

Petraeus' Letter to the Troops

In light of the disturbing results of a study released by the Pentagon last week indicating a frightening decline in the ethical standards held by America’s fighting forces in Iraq, General Petraeus posted an open letter to all American personnel serving there.

"This fight depends on securing the population, which must understand that we -- not our enemies -- occupy the moral high ground," Army Gen. David H. Petraeus wrote in an open letter dated May 10 and posted on a military Web site.

He rejected the argument that torture is sometimes needed to quickly obtain crucial information. "Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary," he stated.

The survey also found that problems such as anxiety and depression deepen with the length and frequency of tours of duty, a notable conclusion because thousands of U.S. troops recently had their tours extended from 12 to 15 months. "Stress caused by lengthy deployments and combat is not a sign of weakness; it is a sign that we are human," wrote Petraeus, who is on his third Iraq tour.

Petraeus said that he understands "firsthand" the emotions soldiers feel in Iraq, especially when they see a fellow soldier die. "Seeing a fellow trooper killed by a barbaric enemy can spark frustration, anger, and a desire for immediate revenge," he wrote. But he warned against letting those feelings lead to illegal acts. Petraeus also called on unit commanders to ensure that their soldiers follow standards.

The strain our military – especially our Army – is under has brought our fighting forces to the breaking point. Human beings can only take so much; and what they have been tasked with carrying in this war is an unfair, unimaginable load to bear. As the General says, our military personnel are human beings. They have human limitations. Too much has already been given, yet more is still asked.

Enough already. We’re all in. Check and call.

[Cross-posted from Blue Girl, Red State]

There's more: "Petraeus' Letter to the Troops" >>

High Broderism

If David Broder was an amusement park attraction, you would have to be “This Tall” to ride, because he spins furiously.

The gap between public opinion and Washington reality has rarely been wider than on the issue of the Iraq war... (Blogger interjects: Why does Washington get the "reality"? - oh yeah...Broder is the ultimate inside the beltway, out of touch with the real reality pundit.)

Oh the hand-wringing humanity!

...But it is not what will happen -- at least now. The failure of the House last week to override President Bush's veto of an Iraq spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawal made that certain. The Democratic leadership already has signaled its readiness to drop the timetable, and further concessions are likely as negotiations continue with the White House.

The question that naturally arises is why the strongly expressed judgment of the people -- responding to news of increasing American casualties in a seemingly intractable sectarian conflict -- cannot be translated into action in Washington.

Part of the answer lies in the Constitution. It makes the president commander in chief of the armed forces, the only elected official whose orders every general and every private must obey. (Blogger interjects: Even a Commander in Chief can not issue an illegal order. Broder knows this. Or he should.)

Congress shares war-making power under the Constitution but can exercise it only through its control of the money the president needs to finance any military operation.

“Failed to override?” Okay – that’s spin. It was a given going in. The failure to override is not cause for consternation and defeatism and pissing and moaning directed at the Democrats. It is the parliamentary process at work. Broder knows this, too. But Broder is a shill. I think the eulogies for the Democrat’s new-found spine are premature. We the People have infused and fortified their backbones..

…Come September, when Gen. David Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, says that he will be able to judge whether the new tactics and the nearly 30,000 additional troops have turned the tide in the effort to reduce the carnage in Baghdad, different political forces will prevail.

If he is successful and if the Iraqis begin to make the political accommodations needed to form a stable government, the president will be in a far better position to rally domestic support for the cause…

There is not now, nor will there be, any rally of support, and everyone knows it. The reasons for the war are not going to suddenly become just and noble. The reason will remain lies, perfidy and mendacity.

Additionally, the death toll among Americans is climbing. Thirty last week, and twelve yesterday. The numbers can only go one way, and every tick upward ticks support downward.

If Petraeus comes back in September and that number is 4000 – all bets are off. A thousand dead kids in eight months is not something this country will abide. In fact, we had an election about just that back in November.

One way or another, public opinion ultimately will be heeded on the war in Iraq. It is hard to imagine the Republicans going into the presidential election of 2008 with 150,000 American troops still taking heavy casualties in Iraq.

But if that should be the case, the likelihood would be that the Democrats would soon take over the White House -- and their president would be the one to end the war.

Wars do end when the American people say they must. Dwight Eisenhower was elected president in 1952 with a promise to end the Korean War. Richard Nixon was elected president in 1968 with a promise to end the Vietnam War. And if George Bush doesn't do it, a Democrat will win in 2008 with a promise to end the war in Iraq.

Why does that piss me off so much? What is it about those words that sets my teeth on edge? Is it just me, or did a shift of responsibility from the Resident to the people just get floated? The tone just seems so…blasé. “Oh, it’'ll stop when the riff-raff get around to stopping it." Yeah, we’ll stop it, but that doesn’t absolve anyone’s responsibility in a criminal war.

The next 650 kids who will die while you “give it to September” are more than political pawns, more than commas, to me. I quite frankly find the entire tone of this piece of High Broderism rep-re-f**king-hensible.

I live in the shadow of the National Headquarters of the VFW…Literally. As the sun sets at certain times of year, the building casts a shadow into my apartment. Lately, the shadow has been falling about the time that the NewsHour presents the dead, in silence. That is kind of creepy. But it is poignant. And it makes me think…I want this to be the last group of veterans that ever qualifies for membership. And in a hundred years, when we are all gone, and the VFW has completed its mission, make the building a center for Peace and Diplomacy studies.

I know that it is not likely to happen, but that is what I wish for as the shadow falls in my window and the dead appear silently on the screen.

There's more: "High Broderism" >>

Nothing New About It

Faced with the reality of the impossibility of enacting Keane & Kagan’s Cock-Up, General David Petraeus has announced his “new way forward” – Baghdad will be walled off into gated neighborhoods in an effort to quell the sectarian violence that claimed 200 in one day last week.

The New York Times calls it a “radical new strategy” in the Saturday edition.

Except it’s not.

It’s basically just a retread of the “Strategic Hamlets” approach that was a horrifying failure in Vietnam.

It has also been a part of the planning from the outset of this current apostasy of ramped-up death and violence. In January, they were pimping it as The Tal Afar Model(!) - before that all fell apart a few weeks ago.

The Sunni’s feel like they are being sequestered; boxed off in ethnic enclaves. A Sunni physician was understandably angry “It’s unbelievable that they treat us in such an inhumane manner. They’re trying to isolate us from other parts of Baghdad. The hatred will be much greater between the two sects.”

I am going to stand up for Dave Petraeus. Not that he needs my help, but damnit, it pisses me off to listen to the all the pissing and moaning that Petraeus is new to the job, give him a chance to make his plan work – especially the pundit class of the right wing media.

They all know damn good and well that this is not Petraeus’ plan. This was laid out in that POS white paper, Choosing Victory, from Kagan and Keane at the AEI last December 14. All of this is in that paper. The record is there.

Hang it around the necks of Kagan and Keane, not Petraeus. He is doing the best he can with a bad situation. He has enough problems trying to apply the lipstick to this pig without getting credit for this cock-up that is wholly the notion of others. Place the blame appropriately.

And by the way - you damn well know that it isn't working, and here is your proof: If it was, don't you think that the real authors of the plan would be falling all over themselves to take the credit on the Sunday morning talk shows?

There's more: "Nothing New About It" >>