THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

Bush's Proposal of 'Benchmarks' for Iraq Sounds Familiar

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 26, 2006; Page A17

The text of President Bush's news conference yesterday ran to nearly 10,000 words, but what may have been more significant were the things he did not say.

The president talked repeatedly about "benchmarks" for progress in Iraq, using that word 13 times. But he did not discuss the consequences of the Iraqi government missing those targets. Such a question, he said, was "hypothetical."


That response left unclear how the benchmarks would be different from previous times when the United States has set out intentions, only to back down. For example, the original war plan envisioned the U.S. troop presence in Iraq being cut to 30,000 by the fall of 2003. Last year, some top U.S. commanders thought they would be able to significantly cut the U.S. troop level in Iraq this year -- a hope now officially abandoned. More recently, the U.S. military all but withdrew from Baghdad, only to have to have to reenter the capital as security evaporated from its streets and Iraqi forces proved unable to restore calm by themselves.

President Bush also spoke several times yesterday about his flexibility, apparently as a way of countering critics calling for a major change in his approach to Iraq. But he made it clear that he was talking about tactical adjustments, rather than the kind of sweeping strategic revision being mulled by the Iraq Study Group led by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former representative Lee H. Hamilton, and also being urged by a host of members of Congress and political pundits.

More briefly, he touched upon establishing Iraqi security forces. But he did not use his old favorite phrase about U.S. troops "standing down as they stand up." He mentioned the goal of training about 325,000 Iraqi soldiers and police officers, but he did not address the paradox that as that goal is neared, violence has intensified and the insurgency appears as robust as ever. Nor did he note that after U.S. forces stood down in Baghdad, they had to stand back up again. Instead, without offering much explanation, he said that "we are refining our training strategy for the Iraqi security forces."

At the same time, the president's tone has changed markedly. Gone was the talk of past Bush administration news conferences about "steady progress" in Iraq and all the good news that the media was said to be ignoring there. Instead he began yesterday's session with a straightforward and even grim account of the events of the past month in Iraq. He noted the deaths of 93 U.S. soldiers over the past 25 days. "I know many Americans are not satisfied with the situation in Iraq," he said. "I'm not satisfied either." So, he said, the American effort in Iraq is "constantly adjusting our tactics."

Yet under his sober mien and a newfound insistence on adaptability, he appeared to be quietly digging in his heels. "Our goals are unchanging," he emphasized in his opening remarks. "We are flexible in our methods to achieving those goals."

His bottom line was that "we'll work as fast as we can get the job done." That open-ended commitment to an unchanging goal doesn't seem different from the answer being given by Bush administration officials three years and 2,802 U.S. military deaths ago -- that the U.S. effort in Iraq would last "as long as it takes."

Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), the ranking minority member on the Armed Services Committee and a member of the intelligence committee, said Bush "has dropped the rhetoric, but the policies are the same."

Kurt Campbell, a Clinton-era Pentagon official and co-author of a new book on defense politics, interpreted the president's comments as an effort to patch up differences within the Republican Party over Iraq and to aid candidates facing close elections in two weeks. "It was meant to appeal to both the 'stay the course' crowd and the 'we need a responsible change' crowd," he said. But Campbell said he expected a major strategic revision on Iraq soon after that vote, predicting that "the political dynamics are going to change radically after the election."

Vin Weber, a lobbyist and former Republican member of Congress with ties to the White House, said he thought the president more broadly was trying to appeal to the American public as it loses faith in his Iraq policy. "Basically, the bottom has fallen out," he said. "The public is on the verge of throwing up its hands over Iraq." He agreed with Campbell that the domestic politics of the Iraq situation are going to alter in a few weeks, perhaps in unpredictable ways that will be shaped by the outcome of the midterm elections.

But former New York governor Mario M. Cuomo (D) said he thought that the president actually was laying the groundwork for disengaging from Iraq. "I think the war is virtually over," he said. By emphasizing benchmarks, Cuomo said, "what he is saying is, 'We are going to leave it to the Iraqis.' "

Under a barrage of sharp questions from reporters, pointing again and again to contradictions and problems in his stance on Iraq, President Bush clung to his most basic line of defense -- his own faith and confidence in his approach. He used the word "believe" 21 times in the course of the hour-long news conference.

"I believe that the military strategy we have is going to work, that's what I believe," he said to one reporter.

Staff writer Walter Pincus contributed to this report.

And it is not complicated. I've explained it two or three times. The president did an excellent job of explaining it yesterday.

And the situation is this. It is that the United States, in the persons of our ambassador and the Embassy and General Casey and his team, have been, over a period of time, in continuous discussions with the Iraqi government at various levels. And they've been discussing the way forward through the rest of this year and next year. That's a perfectly logical thing for them to do.

[…]

Now, you're looking for some sort of a guillotine to come falling down if some date isn't met. That is not what this is about.
This is complicated stuff. It's difficult. We're looking out into the future. No one can predict the future with absolute certainty.

So you ought to just back off, take a look at it, relax, understand that it's complicated, it's difficult. Honorable people are working on these things together. There isn't any daylight between them. They'll be discussing this and discussing that. They may have a change there, a change here. But it'll get worked out.

Suppose Bush pulls the USA out of Iraq before 1/20/2009, and before the Iraqi government can adequately protect its people.

What problems do you think will be left to his successor?

I bet these are the problems that will be left to his successor:

(1) Stop al-Qaeda from growing in Afghanistan and in Iraq;

(2) Exterminate al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and in Iraq;

(3) Replace the governments in Afghanistan and in Iraq with governments that will not tolerate/allow al-Qaeda to again obtain sanctuary in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

(4) Rapidly develop a domestic defense system that will adequately protect Americans against terrorism.

What do you bet?

ican711nm wrote:

Suppose Bush pulls the USA out of Iraq before 1/20/2009, and before the Iraqi government can adequately protect its people.

What problems do you think will be left to his successor?

I bet these are the problems that will be left to his successor:

(1) Stop al-Qaeda from growing in Afghanistan and in Iraq;

(2) Exterminate al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and in Iraq;

(3) Replace the governments in Afghanistan and in Iraq with governments that will not tolerate/allow al-Qaeda to again obtain sanctuary in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

(4) Rapidly develop a domestic defense system that will adequately protect Americans against terrorism.

What do you bet?

Like us staying there is doing such a good job of protecting the Iraqi people. It just kills me when people say that if we leave things in Iraq are just going to implode. Open your eyes folks, it already has.

It is a good political strategy because it effectively erases how bad things are now with us there to protect into a vague imaginary into how bad things could be.

A Different War
Previous wars were less ambiguous.
By Clifford D. May
National Review on Line - Oct. 20, 2006

Generals prefer to fight the last war for a good reason: The last war
can be studied and understood. In the current conflict, by contrast,
we seem to be wrestling a ghost in a fog.

We can't even name this war. Is it really a "Global War on Terrorism"?
Is Iraq "where terrorists kill civilians every day" part of this war
or not? And who is the enemy? Are they terrorists or "gunmen" or
Militant Islamists or Islamo-Fascists or Radical Jihadis? We don't
appear to know, or at least we can't agree on the answers.

Previous wars were less ambiguous. Certainly, their outcomes were
conclusive. When Robert E. Lee handed his sword to Ulysses S. Grant,
there could be no dispute over who had prevailed. When the Germans and
Japanese surrendered, the Allies could confidently dance in the
streets.

Today, victory and defeat in conflicts such as that recently fought in
Lebanon is a matter of debate. To say it another way: Who wins the
clash of arms is determined by who wins the clash of ideas and
perceptions.

In this war, the physical battlefield is not as significant as it once
was. Those waging what they call a holy war against the United States
target uniformed soldiers only opportunistically; more often they are
content to slaughter civilians.

That may not win hearts and minds but it does weaken knees, it does
frighten people into submission. Equally, the terrorists are
manufacturing images they know the media will distribute for them -- instantaneously and around the world thanks to the advent of 24-hour
cable and satellite television, and the Internet.

Such images are intended to chip away at the political will of
Americans and Europeans. It turns out Pentagon strategists were wrong:
The more effective means of producing "shock and awe" is not with
fireworks in the sky but with bodies in the streets.

In recent days, the Lancet, a medical journal, published a study
suggesting that at least five percent of the Iraqi population has been
killed and wounded over the past two years. The methodology of the
study has been challenged and the timing of its release criticized as
partisan. But what may be more revealing is the spin, the implication
that Americans "not the bombers and those who dispatch them" should be held responsible for the carnage.

Over and over, I've heard journalists assert that if the casualty
figures are anything like what the Lancet estimates, the arguments for
a speedy U.S. withdrawal from Iraq must be given added weight.

Seldom discussed is the possibility that "dire as the situation may
now be" it would become worse were peaceful Iraqis left to the tender
mercies of the foreign terrorists, Saddamist insurgents and sectarian
militias who have been committing the mass murders.

Also given scant attention: How many of those killed may have been
foreign terrorists, Saddamist insurgents and members of sectarian
militias?

One reason these questions can be elided is that in Iraq, the media
have adopted the strange practice of not naming the perpetrators of
killings -- unless the perpetrators might happen to be Americans. As
the scholar Michael Rubin has pointed out, the use of the passive
voice in the media has become routine. For example, a recent McClatchy
story read: "Nearly 2,700 Iraqi civilians were killed in the city in
September."

"Well, who killed them?" Rubin asks. "Baathist insurgents or
Iranian-backed militias? If the public read that Iranian-backed
militias killed nearly 2700 civilians, we might be less willing to
reward their murderers."

Another example, this one from the New York Times: "Most of the 500
municipal workers who have been killed here since 2005 have been trash
collectors." Rubin notes: "Again, someone did the killing. Why hide
it? It's important to know what we are up against."

Not identifying the killers makes it hard for people to direct outrage
against them -- and easy to direct it against Americans. Has there ever
before been a war in which journalists have given such a gift to their
country's enemies?

But this war is different. In this war, bullets and bombs are used at
least as much to send messages as to kill and maim. And the media are
for manipulating. One side makes full use of these changes. American
political leaders seem not yet to fully comprehend what they are up
against; much less have they begun to respond effectively.


Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is the president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism.

If only we had things such as, I don't know, evidence of who was doing the killings in Iraq, maybe we could make the claims the author wishes.

But when you find a pile of dead, executed bodies - or a bunch just floating in the Tigris - it's not so easy to tell which group killed them, now is it?

Here's a partial list of who our troops should kill or capture. They should kill or capture those they have seen or heard in the act of:
(1) deliberately killing non-combatants;
(2) deliberately killing our troops;
(3) fleeing when told by our troops to halt where they are;
(4) pointing their weapons at non-combatants;
(5) pointing their weapons at our troops;
(6) possessing forbidden ordnance;
(7) planting bombs;
(8) triggering bombs;
(9) seizing non-combatants;
(10) seizing our troops;
(11) planning or teaching any of the above;
(12) recruiting people to do any of the above;
(13) advocating that people do any of the above;
...

We should interrogate those captured and seen or heard in the act of doing any of the above--without killing, maiming, disabling, or injuring them--to learn the locations of other killers not yet killed or captured, who our troops did not yet see or hear in the act of doing any of the above.

People are only 'frightened into submission' because their leaders tell them they should be afraid. The GOP in particular constantly hammers home how afraid all citizens should be and how they should vote the GOP in to protect them.

People naturally are afraid of killers, because they do not want to be killed. People naturally want government to protect them against killers, because they do not think they are individually capable of protecting themselves against killers.

The Republicans are constantly telling the American people who they think their would be killers are and how they intend to stop these killers from killing.

The Democrats are constantly telling the American people that the Republicans are constantly doing the rotten things that the Democrats are actually constantly doing (e.g., pseudologizing). However, the Democrats are not telling the American people who they think their would be killers are and how they intend to stop these killers from killing.

Cycloptichorn

...

Quote:

^10/27/06: The Arithmetic of Failure

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Iraq is a lost cause. It's just a matter of arithmetic: given the
violence of the environment, with ethnic groups and rival militias at
each other's throats, American forces there are large enough to suffer
terrible losses, but far too small to stabilize the country.

...

It's hard to believe that the world's only superpower is on the verge of
losing not just one but two wars. But the arithmetic of stability
operations suggests that unless we give up our futile efforts in Iraq,
we're on track to do just that.

Close to its end, just as at its beginning and all through its execution, the occupation of Iraq has been shaped by miscalculation, haste and deceit. An ill-judged invasion fought on a misleading premise gave way to a chaotic aftermath that placed theory ahead of reality, with consequences that the world will have to endure for decades. For a time, however, even for those who opposed the war, including this paper, real hope lay in the promise of recovery, a slow imposition of order underpinned by a form of democracy that could have allowed western forces to leave Iraq gradually, and without disgrace. The case for running away was never strong while that hope remained.

Now, although they dare not say it, even the war's architects in Washington and London know that there will be no honourable departure. They are preparing to scuttle. Military reality and political expediency are blowing away all talk of patience, reconstruction, "staying the course" and "getting the job done" - the desperate expectation that somehow, despite all the violence and disorder, a better destination would be found for Iraq. The language is still heard, more now from Tony Blair than President Bush. But it has become nothing more than passing cover for a retreat from western engagement that is already under way, a thin disguise draped over defeat.

Advocate wrote:

...

Quote:

^10/27/06: The Arithmetic of Failure

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Iraq is a lost cause. It's just a matter of arithmetic: given the
violence of the environment, with ethnic groups and rival militias at
each other's throats, American forces there are large enough to suffer
terrible losses, but far too small to stabilize the country.

...

It's hard to believe that the world's only superpower is on the verge of
losing not just one but two wars. But the arithmetic of stability
operations suggests that unless we give up our futile efforts in Iraq,
we're on track to do just that.

Krugman, you dummy, if we give up our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq we will have thereby lost two wars.

To avoid losing two wars, we must change our tactics to successfully deal with the reality of the situations we find in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Could anyone remind me, what a "victory" in Iraq would look like? I understand we have to "stay the course", we cannot "cut and run". But, uh, what exactly is the objective?

old europe wrote:

Could anyone remind me, what a "victory" in Iraq would look like? I understand we have to "stay the course", we cannot "cut and run". But, uh, what exactly is the objective?

"peace with honor"

Could anyone remind me, what a "victory" in Iraq would look like? I understand we have to "stay the course", we cannot "cut and run". But, uh, what exactly is the objective?