The White House, along with the Iraqi government, put together 18 benchmarks for judgment of the surge's effectiveness. Congress did not put these benchmarks together. In effect, they gave Bush the chance to write his own exam. Why would the White House and the Iraqi government put together a list of benchmarks that they thought they could not meet? The answer is obviously they thought the surge would be a glorious success, the benchmarks would be met, and Iraq would be looking more or less peaceful by the time the September report came around. This is just one more example of the unwarranted optimism Bush employs in every aspect of his Administration. When asked after the surge was proposed why he thought this effort would succeed where the previous efforts had not, Bush replied, "Because now it has to". Oh, okay. So virtually any strategy could be justified under this reasoning, because now it has to work.
Republicans were convinced that the surge would yield great progress by the September report's release, and so kept deferring judgment on the surge until then. They surely were told by the White House that the Iraq strategy would be vindicated by Petraeus, and that they could take victory to the polls in November '08. Instead, it was more of the same. The public remained unconvinced of the 'progress', and the report only gave Republicans some small, dubious cover. But the die was already set. The Republicans had gone too far down the imaginary road of Bush's vision, and there is not enough time nor is there the courage for the GOP to back away from Bush now.
When you write the "exam", and have to quibble over getting 'partial credit' over the "questions" you got wrong, and make up your own definitions as you go, then one would not regard that as a sign of 'progress' on your part. When you fail the exam that you wrote, and ask for six more months before taking the "exam" again, then you are merely stalling.
It has nothing to do with wanting to "win" or "lose". I concede there was a possibility of post-invasion success, but the White House destroyed that possibility quickly in the early months of the occupation, and never really regained its balance since. They failed. Whether we want them to succeed or fail does not matter; they failed, completely and miserably. They continually made glowing predictions of imminent success, but they never came to pass. Bush certainly wanted to "win", but merely wanting to win is not enough. Bush got every dime that he asked for, and more, from the Congress. Bush boldly laid out a course and ignored public opinion, always believing that he would be rewarded with big success for his patience. He gambled and lost, but is still unwilling to accept the consequences of his failed wager. He could have succeeded, but he didn't. He failed, and we are stuck with the bill. And like a failed gambler, he is still hitting us up for more time and more money until he gets his big score. Just one more throw of the dice, and you'll see. He'll win big, because now he has to. And he really, truly expects that this approach will work on the American public, not to mention our allies. His judgment is impaired, and if you want to be the Decider, then good judgment is essential.
story from China Daily:
US report offers no solution: Arabs
DUBAI: The report by the top US general in Iraq offers no new ideas on ending bloodshed and suggests Washington has lost the war whether its troops stay in Iraq or go, according to analysts in the Arab world.
General David Petraeus, facing Democratic lawmakers and many voters demanding a quick end to the US engagement in Iraq, recommended cutting American troops by 30,000 in the next year but not fundamentally changing strategy in the war.
The reduction would return US troop strength to roughly the same level it was before an increase ordered by US President George W. Bush from February to June.
Analysts from across the Arab world were disappointed by the reports from Petraeus and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, which they said seemed calculated only to shore up Bush's policy and preclude any substantial shift in approach on Iraq.
"Washington wants to bring the situation in Iraq back to square one, to the pre-surge period, which means there is no improvement. Things are not really moving forward," said Khaled al-Dakhil, a political sociology professor in Saudi Arabia.
Gulf Research Center's Sulayman Awad Ibrahim said it was worrying that Washington was relying on tribal leaders to push out Al-Qaida. "How can a few tribes, and these are really militias, in Anbar do what 160,000 US soldiers could not do? There must be something wrong. The US is, after all, the world's only superpower," he said. "When a government loses credibility, not just with the occupied people but with their own people, it is very difficult to regain the confidence that they can fulfil their mission."
With sectarian violence in Iraq raging and Washington apparently unwilling or unable to change course, some analysts said they feared Iraq would crumble into three parts - a Kurdish north, a Shi'ite south run by parties and militias close to Iran and Sunni tribes controlling the center.
Source: China Daily/agencies
No comments:
Post a Comment