Preparing for Petraeus (UPDATED)
The New Republic has posted a useful primer on the myriad Iraq reports that have already been issued. It’s worth reading before General Petraeus delivers his tomorrow.
Also worth reading: today’s New York Times editorial on the general’s report.
As Congress waited anxiously for General Petraeus’s testimony, a
flurry of well-timed news reports said that he told the White House he
could go along with the withdrawal of about 4,000 American troops
beginning in January but wanted to maintain increased force levels well
into next year — just like Mr. Bush. Democrats who once demanded a firm
date for the start of a troop pullout immediately started backpedaling.
Withdrawing
4,000 troops and dangling the prospect of additional withdrawals is a
token political gesture, not a new strategy. If it proves enough to cow
Congress into halting its push for a more robust and concrete exit
strategy, that would be political cowardice at its worst.
We hope
that General Petraeus can resist the political pressure and provide an
unvarnished assessment of the military situation in Iraq. He is an
important source of information, of course, but he is only one source —
and he is not the man who sets American policy. If Mr. Bush insists on
listening only to those who agree with him, Congress and the public
must weigh General Petraeus’s report against all data, including two
new independent evaluations sharply at odds with the Pentagon’s claim
that things in Iraq are substantially better.
Still more to read: the Washington Post‘s important front-page story on the surge and its discontents (registration req’d). It’s too long to excerpt usefully here, but give it a look.
Update: Watch the live video of the hearings and follow the NY Times blogger’s reports right here.
The Wash Post story is full of the details of disagreements within the administration and between it and the Pentagon. But it ends up where many of these pre-analyses do: Bush will get to extend the war into 2009.
Maybe more of us should go beserk?
Gene:
I thought you already were. But not to worry: The Democratics are on the right track, because the latest OBL communication agrees substantially with their stance, and into the bargain, contains a sneer or two at capitalism. Christmas in September?
Time to act. Call your Senators. Here are the numbers for New York.
Senator Charles Schumer
Phone: 202-224-6542
Senator Hillary Clinton
Phone: 202-224-4451
Bill:
You don’t need to call your senators; Osama BL has already told them what to do in that communique’. From your perspective, the problem is that the Democrats lack the political will to do what he has told them to do.
Bob,
I guess even the devil can quote scripture which does not invalidate it. I did not even watch nor read the BL tape.
Have you called the Republican leaders to end this terrible war started with deceit, lies and grand larceny now that billions go wasted while people die daily?
Bob,
I tried to warn you privately but apparently you didn’t get the message, so here it is publicly: you’re trolling. This is a warning. Do it again and you’ll find yourself banned.
Mr. Gallico:
I believe that I was being ironic in an admittedly sarcastic way; is that how trolling is defined? This is not a rhetorical question, as I really am not familiar with the term.
My self-imposed mission on the Commonweal blog is to provoke what I call “self-revealing” reactions from liberal Catholics, that is, to force responses that reveal deeply rooted beliefs and emotions. I do this both as a means of educating other readers and as a way to confirm or deny to myself certain theories I have constructed about why LC’s think and react the way they do.
I post my name, and if asked, will (and have) post my home address and phone number as a way of establishing my good faith.
If what I have said above is defined as trolling, then I’m guilty as charged, but I need to know exactly what the rules are so that I can adhere to them.
I deeply resent what seems to me to be a double standard here: I have been called a bigot, among other things, on this blog. That’s OK with me, but how come the perpetrator(s) get away with that, while I get nailed to the cross?