Apr 7, 2008 at 7:21 PM by David Pleasant
If Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham participate in Gen. David Petraeus’ and Ambassador Ryan Crocker’s report to Congress over then next two days, it will be a serious waste of time on the their part. The already know everything that is important (and not important).
Accordingly, they have dutifully reported their formal findings to the Wall Street Journal. And it should come as no surprise that these two distinguished Senators determined things are going swimmingly well in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, excepting Iran. Forget al-Qaeda, Iran is the most heinous villain on Planet Earth according to Lieberman.
As a matter of fact, according to John-McCain-water-carriers Lieberman and Graham, their report is flawless, objective, and "no one can deny the dramatic improvements in security in Iraq achieved by Gen. Petraeus."
Indeed. Dissension is tantamount to treason.
Lieberman and Graham’s piece is absolutely worthless. They proudly cite three statistics — void of any citation — that are so broad and misleading they are not only meaningless, but downright laughable. And as for the remainder of their Iraq-specific conclusions, it ranges from pure political rhetoric BS to falsehoods.
From June 2007 through February 2008, deaths from ethno-sectarian violence in Baghdad have fallen approximately 90%. American casualties have also fallen sharply, down by 70%…
Al Qaeda in Iraq has been swept from its former strongholds in Anbar province and Baghdad….
In the past seven months, the other main argument offered by critics of the Petraeus strategy has also begun to collapse: namely, the alleged lack of Iraqi political progress….
In recent months, the Iraqi government, encouraged by our Ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, has passed benchmark legislation on such politically difficult issues as de-Baathification, amnesty, the budget and provincial elections. After boycotting the last round of elections, Sunnis now stand ready to vote by the millions in the provincial elections this autumn. The Iraqi economy is growing at a brisk 7% and inflation is down dramatically….
And, in launching the recent offensive in Basra, Mr. Maliki has demonstrated that he has the political will to take on the Shiite militias and criminal gangs, which he recently condemned as "worse than al Qaeda."
…Most importantly, Iran also continues to wage a vicious and escalating proxy war against the Iraqi government and the U.S. military. The Iranians have American blood on their hands. They are responsible, through the extremist agents they have trained and equipped, for the deaths of hundreds of our men and women in uniform. Increasingly, our fight in Iraq cannot be separated from our larger struggle to prevent the emergence of an Iranian-dominated Middle East.
While it is hard to argue that the surge did not yield improvements, there is no evidence to suggest the improvements were solely attributable to the surge or are sustainable, as the Senators aptly imply. Instead, there is evidence strongly suggesting the situation in Iraq is anything but a sprawling Madinat Jumeirah resort, which is substantially closer to the image Lieberman and Graham prefer to convey
The recent Basra incident alone, contrary to the enlightened duo’s assertion, is more than enough evidence to demonstrate Iraq’s poor political and security status. Furthermore, this graph from the Boston Globe piece I mentioned earlier today, clearly indicates an instability trend that the two Senators prefer to not reveal nor discuss.
Click image to enlarge
But facts, Constitutional leadership, nor soldiers’ welfare are relevant to Lieberman and Graham. They conclude, "the next steps in Iraq should be determined by…Gen. Petraeus," who is obviously our country’s Commander in Chief.
Apr 7, 2008 at 11:24 AM by David Pleasant
Farah Stockman and Bryan Bender have an excellent piece in the Boston Globe on the war in Iraq. The timing is also perfect since General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker are scheduled to give Congress a report on the war tomorrow.
Overall, the piece is a superb high-level analysis on how successful the surge has been (or not) and primarily references facts and metrics, rather than anecdotal evidence — the administration’s gold standard for reporting since the war began.
From a quantitative perspective, the piece highlights two items — suicide bombings and Iraqi casualties, mostly civilians — that reportedly top military officials rely on for determining success or failure.
The number of Sunni insurgents who blew themselves up with suicide vests doubled between last December and February. There were 10 such attacks in December, 16 in January, and 20 in February, compared with just six in October and eight in November of last year. Last month, the attacks declined to 10 - roughly the level they were when Bush announced the surge in January 2007. . .
Meanwhile, explosive-laden cars and trucks detonated with a driver at the wheel - considered a separate type of suicide attack - hit 17 last month after just one in February and five in January. . .
Overall, Iraqi deaths rose from a low of 568 in December and 541 in January to roughly 721 in February to more than 1,082 in March, according to statistics compiled by Iraq’s ministries of health, interior, and defense and confirmed by Smith. The vast majority were civilians. . .
US troop deaths have also crept up, from 23 in December - the lowest number since 2004 - to 40 in January, 29 in February, and 38 in March, according to icasualties.org, a website that tracks the deaths of US service members in Iraq through Pentagon press releases. Deaths are still lower than their monthly peak last year of 126 deaths in May.
Indeed, the numbers are telling and not readily discredited with anecdotal evidence, which the Bush administration will surely rely on for its rebuttal. Furthermore, when the authors report anecdotally, they frequently deliver a direct blow in George Bush’s belly. For example:
"The surge is prolonging instability, not creating the conditions for unity, as the president claims," retired Lieutenant General William E. Odom told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week.
Odom said it "placed the United States astride several civil wars and it allows all sides to consolidate, rearm, and refill their financial coffers at the US expense."
The United States now faces the difficult choice of drawing down troops - and risking a return of major violence - or continuing to keep a large troop presence in Iraq that backs factions that are in open conflict with one another, said Martin Indyk, who served as assistant secretary of state for near east affairs during the Clinton administration.
"If we draw down our forces further, all of these factors that we have managed to suppress are going to emerge in full force," Indyk said. "But if we don’t, these forces are going to develop in all sorts of ways we can’t control."
Unfortunately, that also lands a direct hit on getting out of Iraq anytime soon.
The public’s focus on Iraq has dropped significantly since the presidential campaigns when into full swing. Only 28 percent of Americans realized the American casualties in Iraq were approaching 4,000 last month. Not good, and I am also guilty to a degree. I read, but post little on the matter.
I would like to know how realistic are the promises made by the Democratic presidential candidates. To varying degrees, I think there is considerably more pandering than truth-telling. But I believe neither candidate’s approach is nearly as far off as John McCain’s Iraq and Iran Forever Plan.
Getting out of Iraq will be bloodier than most probably perceive today and will cost many more lives than anyone currently imagines. It simply will not be a matter of folding up a tent and going home.
