A tale of two reports
Today was a day eagerly awaited by every politician this side of the Atlantic, every political junkie, and every soldier's family.
Today, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker delivered "their" report on the state of things in Iraq and, in particular on the intermediate results of the much talked about "Surge".
The General swore the Surge, or more narrowly, the military part of the Surge worked. He offered numbers to show civilian deaths were down (even though, the National Intelligence Estimate, the General Accountability Office Report, General Jones' report, and the various other reports quoted in Washintong Post and New York Times disagreed), which were seriously questioned by the Senators present both on veracity and the methodology, suggested the Anbar Province tribes were allying themselves to US forces (a true enough statement, although this had started happening a couple of months before Surge was even conceived) and suggested that eventually, within 6 or 8 months, we could take 30,000 or so soldiers out of Iraq.
Now, the Math would suggest that by taking 30,000 soldiers out of Iraq would merely bring our numbers in that country back to the pre-Surge strength, which means very little in grand scheme of things. Secondly, Gen. Petraeus and the Pentagon have no choice: they have to draw down by April the very latest, or they would miss the absolutely latest possible rotations (and they have no troops to replaced the forces rotated out)
These, among others, consideration is what prompted the leading Democrats to distrust this report. As Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA), the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said: "The fact remains that the administration has sent you here today to convince the members of these committees and the Congress that victory is at hand. With all respect to you, I don't buy it."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said in a statement, "Today, despite overwhelming evidence that neither goal has been achieved, Gen. Petraeus testified that the surge would last at least until next summer. This is simply unacceptable."
This underlines my attitude towards this report.
Now the Ambassador Crocker's report is a different story. The Ambassador stated succintly, that:
1. No political progress occurred in Iraq during Surge
2. Iraqi government is incapable of creating conditions for national reconciliation
3. Iraqi government is incapable of protecting itself and defending its citizens.
Straight to the point. And these points were supposed to be the main aims of the Surge. Not how we can best engage ourselves in a game of Wack-a-mole but how we can reach a point where Iraqis can stand up so we can stand down. That hasn't occurred. And it was so blatant that Iraqi Legislature even chose to take a two-month vacation during the Surge. Surely, our goals and the Iraqis goals are different. So, what are we doing that country?
Just another example of the many White House deceptions to date.
Today, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker delivered "their" report on the state of things in Iraq and, in particular on the intermediate results of the much talked about "Surge".
The General swore the Surge, or more narrowly, the military part of the Surge worked. He offered numbers to show civilian deaths were down (even though, the National Intelligence Estimate, the General Accountability Office Report, General Jones' report, and the various other reports quoted in Washintong Post and New York Times disagreed), which were seriously questioned by the Senators present both on veracity and the methodology, suggested the Anbar Province tribes were allying themselves to US forces (a true enough statement, although this had started happening a couple of months before Surge was even conceived) and suggested that eventually, within 6 or 8 months, we could take 30,000 or so soldiers out of Iraq.
Now, the Math would suggest that by taking 30,000 soldiers out of Iraq would merely bring our numbers in that country back to the pre-Surge strength, which means very little in grand scheme of things. Secondly, Gen. Petraeus and the Pentagon have no choice: they have to draw down by April the very latest, or they would miss the absolutely latest possible rotations (and they have no troops to replaced the forces rotated out)
These, among others, consideration is what prompted the leading Democrats to distrust this report. As Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA), the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said: "The fact remains that the administration has sent you here today to convince the members of these committees and the Congress that victory is at hand. With all respect to you, I don't buy it."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said in a statement, "Today, despite overwhelming evidence that neither goal has been achieved, Gen. Petraeus testified that the surge would last at least until next summer. This is simply unacceptable."
This underlines my attitude towards this report.
Now the Ambassador Crocker's report is a different story. The Ambassador stated succintly, that:
1. No political progress occurred in Iraq during Surge
2. Iraqi government is incapable of creating conditions for national reconciliation
3. Iraqi government is incapable of protecting itself and defending its citizens.
Straight to the point. And these points were supposed to be the main aims of the Surge. Not how we can best engage ourselves in a game of Wack-a-mole but how we can reach a point where Iraqis can stand up so we can stand down. That hasn't occurred. And it was so blatant that Iraqi Legislature even chose to take a two-month vacation during the Surge. Surely, our goals and the Iraqis goals are different. So, what are we doing that country?
Just another example of the many White House deceptions to date.