The beginning of the end, or more fudging?

flogen

So the Democrats finally seem to have found their balls/teeth and voted for troop withdrawal in the House - obviously it'll be vetoed if it comes within one mile of Bush's desk, but it seems that was never the point.

The Democrats' recent moves have largely been to force Republicans on the defensive - get them to stand shoulder to shoulder with an unpopular president or break party ranks and vote against continuing the war. As a result the whole exercise seems to have made Republicans realise that Bush is largely the reason for their losses in the last election and they are becoming increasingly agitated with the damage he's doing the party.

But does anyone think the Republican party will start to turn on Bush or will things change enough that they won't have to? And are the Democrats doing themselves any damage by being so anti-war (after all this time), or will it be a boost for their eventual candidate?

Manic Moran

The political realities are that if there is no sign of improvement by mid earlyish/mid-2008, the US troop withdrawl will begin anyway regardless of what the Democrats will do or say: The Republicans can't go into the next election with over 150,000 troops in country and have a chance of winning. That, and the Army really is starting to get a little stretched. Of course, no matter what happens, both sides will say it's a vindication of their position. If the withdrawl is for time reasons, the Democrats will say they were right all along, and the Republicans will say that it was worth the shot but that only after the shot was taken should the withdrawl have happened. If the country starts to sort itself out and the troop drawdown happens, the Republicans will say that they were right all along and the Democrats will say that their insistance on a withdrawl provided the incentive for the Iraqis to fix themselves.

Bemusingly, this is the same Congress that interviewed Patraeus for the job of fixing Iraq, asked him about his plan (especially as he wrote the manual), and then gave him their blessing with no dissenting votes at all, yet suddenly they're voting against his plan before it has a chance to be put into place (According to the report, it's not even in place yet), given time to be effective, and then reported upon? This vote isn't about Iraq. It's not about the lives or expense, it's about making political capitol off today's report in order to try to get into the White House next time around. I listened to the Bush conference about the report on the car radio this morning (the whole hour, less traffic reports!), and am worried somewhat that the perception is that the troop surge will either work or not work as soon as boots are on the ground, at least such was the impression I was getting from the questions by the reporters, but the surge has only really kicked off in practical terms in the last four weeks (and at that, it still isn't in full swing), and it has not yet had time to take any major effect. The media aren't interested in the winning of the peace, and don't care that the real fight only begins once the shooting stops. Baqabah was the biggest fight since Fallujah. Only two reporters were present when the fighting started three weeks ago. Shooting starts, the media all arrive. As soon as the shooting stops, which is when the difficult work begins, they all leave. There's only one print reporter left to see whether or not the all important 'hold' part of 'clear and hold', which is integral to Patraeus' plan is going to work. http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/baqubah-update-05-july-2007.htm. So in other words, Patraeus was confirmed without objection because he had a strategy which was markedly different from that which went before, but the first time it is really placed into operation, nobody's even paying attention to see if it's working or not. (And it seems to be)

The report in full is here. http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/07/12/final.benchmark.report.pdf. These are the benchmarks Congress wanted.

The short version: Eighteen benchmarks.

-(i) Forming a Constitutional Review Committee and then completing the constitutional review.. Rated "Satisfactory progress to date" though given a caveat that it is depenant on other issues.
-(ii) Enacting and implementing legislation on de-Ba’athification reform.. Rated "Unsatisfactory progress", though it also points out that as it's an issue of major sensitivity, this one should not be time-driven.
-(iii) Enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources to the people of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, and enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shi’a Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner. The Oil Laws. Rated "Unsatisfactory" as the Iraqis didn't meet the May 31st deadline, but does say that the process has moved forward and that no changes in US policy are required.
-(iv) Enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions. "Satisfactory." The law has been passed.
-(v) Enacting and implementing legislation establishing an Independent High Electoral Commission, provincial elections law, provincial council authorities, and a date for provincial elections. Rated in those four subsections as "Satisfactory" (Comission established), "UnSat" (Law only recently began being drafted), "UnSat" (Law is in its third reading) and "UnSat" (No date for elections yet set). Overall, "UnSat", though the report says "Has seen progress in key areas"
-(vi) Enacting and implementing legislation addressing amnesty. Rated "UnSat", though the report also points out that it's pretty irrelevant as there's nobody interested in being amnestied right now.
-(vii) Enacting and implementing legislation establishing a strong
disarmament program to ensure that such security forces are accountable
the central government and loyal to the constitution of Iraq. Rated "Unsat", though it also says that even the UN has considered this to be an irrelevant benchmark at this time.
-(viii) Establishing supporting political, media, economic, and services committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan. Rated a shaky "Satisfactory", due to the variations of effectiveness of those committees.
-(ix) Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations. Rated Satisfactory. In fact, the Iraqis had to send more than three brigades in order to make the manpower requirements as the three brigade flags were understrength, but the requested troops are there.
-(x) Providing Iraqi commanders with all authorities to execute this plan and to make tactical and operational decisions in consultation with U.S. Commanders without political intervention to include the authority to pursue all extremists including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias.. Rated "UnSat". The authories are officially in place, but there are mid-level shennanigans going on which sometimes prevent them from being implemented, especially amongst the police. The report notes a willingness for the Iraqi government to replace anyone considered unbiased, and that no change in direction is required, as it falls under 'training the Iraqis' which is happening anyway. There is progress, but it is "too uneven" to warrant a "Sat" rating.
-(xi) Ensuring that Iraqi Security Forces are providing even-handed enforcement of the law.. Rated as "Unsat" because although there have been major improvements (especially in units which have embedded Coalition troops), they're being held to a particularly high standard and just haven't gotten there yet.
-(xii) Ensuring that, as Prime Minister Maliki was quoted by President Bush as saying, “the Baghdad Security Plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation.”. Rated as "Satisfactory", and notes that it still has a potential for even greater improvement as the troops get deployed.
-(xiii) Reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq and eliminating militia control of local security.. A Two-parter. "Satisfactory" (with Coalition help, at least) for the former, but "Unsatisfactory" given that the local militias are still relied upon by neighbourhoods until the situation stabilises sufficiently.
-(xiv) Establishing all of the planned joint security stations in neighborhoods across Baghdad.. Rated as "Satisfactory" as 60 have been created, and the other 30 are on the way. It says they have been successful where they've been located.
-(xv) Increasing the number of Iraqi security forces units capable of operating independently.. Rated as "Unsatisfactory". Says Iraqi force performance has generally been adequate, but they still perform much better with Coalition troops looking over their shoulder, particularly the police which, depending on unit, can be biased.
-(xvi) Ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected. Rated "Satisfactory."
-(xvii) Allocating and spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis. Rated "Satisfactory", though they're working off of trends as figures for 2007 are not (obviously) available yet.
-(xviii) Ensuring that Iraq’s political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the ISF. Rated "Unsatisfactory", a few competent officers have been forced out possibly/probably on baseless grounds.

So anway, that's the report that has everyone in a tizzy and running around yelling 'The sky is falling.' Frankly, I don't think the report card is that bad. Of the sixteen relevant criteria (Disarmament/amnesty isn't an issue right now as there's nobody to disarm/pardon), they've gotten eight 'satisfactory', a number of 'not yet, but they're getting there', and a couple of 'we're concerneds.'

I really do think that we should hang around and see what Patraeus has to say. Congress asked him to report in Sept. Why would they do that if they were only going to pull the rug out before then?

NTM

Mick86

flogen wrote:

But does anyone think the Republican party will start to turn on Bush or will things change enough that they won't have to? And are the Democrats doing themselves any damage by being so anti-war (after all this time), or will it be a boost for their eventual candidate?

What's the point in turning on Bush now. He has 18 months left in office.

There's an election in the offing and everyone wants to turn all cuddly and peace-loving because that's a vote catcher. Naturally enough nobody is considering what happens to the Iraqis if the new Pressident decides to leave them in the lurch.

Akrasia

Mick86 wrote:

What's the point in turning on Bush now. He has 18 months left in office.

There's an election in the offing and everyone wants to turn all cuddly and peace-loving because that's a vote catcher. Naturally enough nobody is considering what happens to the Iraqis if the new Pressident decides to leave them in the lurch.

The U.S forces in Iraq are directly responsible for at least 10,000 Iraqi deaths a month (that number has likely increased since the beginning of 'the surge'

If the U.S. pull out, these people will no longer be killed, nor will all of the people who get caught in the crossfire of anti occupation insurgents (most of whom are just ordinary Iraqi people who are fighting for freedom)

jaarius

Hey Manic Moran,

Most Republicans have distanced themselves from the White House and some presidential hopefuls have launched a few thinly veiled attacks in the direction of Bush. Mitt Romney attacked his foreign policy and they all are running the line that the USofA has to be a responsible, leading member of the international community rather than just doing what they want and the rest be damned. Whether or not that actually materialises or not remains to be seen.

What can be seen quite clearly is that the Rep. party is running a mile from Washington. The hopeful presidential candidates (as well as non runners) are trying to sell themselves as open-minded, bi-partisan loving, free thinkers that can lead the US without alienating its allies and its provoking enemies.

j

CPT. SURF

You bet they are running away from Bush. During the midterm elections many Republican candidates turned down offers from President Bush to speak at their rallies/fundraisers.

Charlie Crist, new Republican governor in Florida, stated to local media that he did want or require Bush's support.

Bush's immigration policy is reviled by virtually the entire republican base. It gives too much to: "Those damn Mexicans!".

Of course Bush is from Texas and understands the sheer inevitability of increased numbers of immigrants arriving in droves for economic opportunities.

I find this quite funny because the hardcore Republicans now think Bush is a liberal because of his immigration policy.

Manic Moran

jaarius wrote:

Most Republicans have distanced themselves from the White House and some presidential hopefuls have launched a few thinly veiled attacks in the direction of Bush.

What can't be determined is whether or not this is just political jockeying. It's acknowledged that being viewed as supportive is a handicap in the upcoming elections. Whether it is the correct position or even their own personal opinion is still open to debate: They're politicians, I never take anything they say at face value. You will note that Senate leader Harry Reid refused to answer the question yesterday "If we pull out, will Iraqis be safer?" The journalist again repeated the question, and Reid bluntly said 'Next question.' All they care about is their approval ratings.

At any rate, the root point still stands: Congress let Patraeus have his chance because it was in their political interest to do so. Now it's today in their political interest to do otherwise (Despite comments from the Generals in Iraq who don't need to worry about elections), they flip over.

NTM

flogen

Manic Moran wrote:

The political realities are that if there is no sign of improvement by mid earlyish/mid-2008, the US troop withdrawl will begin anyway regardless of what the Democrats will do or say: The Republicans can't go into the next election with over 150,000 troops in country and have a chance of winning. That, and the Army really is starting to get a little stretched. Of course, no matter what happens, both sides will say it's a vindication of their position. If the withdrawl is for time reasons, the Democrats will say they were right all along, and the Republicans will say that it was worth the shot but that only after the shot was taken should the withdrawl have happened.

If this is the outcome, it will probably be to the benefit of the Republicans. Not saying that I support this concept, but the general population won't want to hear about giving it their best shot - all the Dems would have to do is list the amount of US dead between their call for withdrawal and the actual withdrawal and they've got the upper hand.
It will also, in my opinion, paint the Republicans into a corner because the Dems will be able to say "you only withdrew when you saw the Presidential elections coming up", ie they didn't care about the troops, just the votes.

If the country starts to sort itself out and the troop drawdown happens, the Republicans will say that they were right all along and the Democrats will say that their insistance on a withdrawl provided the incentive for the Iraqis to fix themselves.

I think this is unlikely but the Republicans would definitely come out on top in this instance - they could easily paint the Dems as cut 'n' runners, just like Bush did in '04.

Bemusingly, this is the same Congress that interviewed Patraeus for the job of fixing Iraq, asked him about his plan (especially as he wrote the manual), and then gave him their blessing with no dissenting votes at all, yet suddenly they're voting against his plan before it has a chance to be put into place (According to the report, it's not even in place yet), given time to be effective, and then reported upon?

True, but politically they'd be foolish to miss this opportunity. Neither party is really thinking in terms of what's best for America in the current vote.

This vote isn't about Iraq. It's not about the lives or expense, it's about making political capitol off today's report in order to try to get into the White House next time around.

No doubt about that.

I listened to the Bush conference about the report on the car radio this morning (the whole hour, less traffic reports!), and am worried somewhat that the perception is that the troop surge will either work or not work as soon as boots are on the ground, at least such was the impression I was getting from the questions by the reporters, but the surge has only really kicked off in practical terms in the last four weeks (and at that, it still isn't in full swing), and it has not yet had time to take any major effect.

I think the US administration is partly to blame for that - they made their surge out to be something which involved instant gratification and failed to explain the realities of the situation. Had they done that they would have lost support, which is why they didn't.

The media aren't interested in the winning of the peace, and don't care that the real fight only begins once the shooting stops. Baqabah was the biggest fight since Fallujah. Only two reporters were present when the fighting started three weeks ago. Shooting starts, the media all arrive. As soon as the shooting stops, which is when the difficult work begins, they all leave. There's only one print reporter left to see whether or not the all important 'hold' part of 'clear and hold', which is integral to Patraeus' plan is going to work.

The media has nothing to do with this, though, and unfortunately for those in charge it's not a tool that can be turned on and off.
That said, the US administration has plenty of sway in many places in the MSM and could easily draw attention, and perhaps the entire debate to the 'hold' aspect if it wanted to.

So anway, that's the report that has everyone in a tizzy and running around yelling 'The sky is falling.' Frankly, I don't think the report card is that bad. Of the sixteen relevant criteria (Disarmament/amnesty isn't an issue right now as there's nobody to disarm/pardon), they've gotten eight 'satisfactory', a number of 'not yet, but they're getting there', and a couple of 'we're concerneds.'

I really do think that we should hang around and see what Patraeus has to say. Congress asked him to report in Sept. Why would they do that if they were only going to pull the rug out before then?

NTM

But with the shoe on the other foot the Reps would have done the exact same, it's just the way politics work in the US and across the world, unfortunately.

Mick86 wrote:

What's the point in turning on Bush now. He has 18 months left in office.

Well that's just it - they're (the Dems) are not going after Bush, they're trying to force the hand of other Republicans though, and many of their 2008 candidates are in the House or Senate.
If the candidates fall in line behind Bush, the Dems could try to paint them as a Bush mk. 2. In doing so they might be able to make him as unpopular as the current president is. If the candidates disagree with Bush they can work up any cracks within the party that exist and try and weaken the Rep base.

Either way, they're putting an unpopular war on the agenda, making the withdrawal issue a campaign focus-point and reminding the public who put them there in the first place (while skating over their own involvement in that)

There's an election in the offing and everyone wants to turn all cuddly and peace-loving because that's a vote catcher.

Not in a lot of the USA.

Naturally enough nobody is considering what happens to the Iraqis if the new Pressident decides to leave them in the lurch.

The Dems know withdrawal won't happen on their terms, it'll be whenever Bush (or his successor) decides upon it. They're happy to poke the Rep's sore-spot knowing that nothing real will happen and no blame can be placed at their door.

bonkey

Mick86 wrote:

What's the point in turning on Bush now. He has 18
months left in office.

You ask this question and then....

There's an election in the offing

You supply all the information necessary to figure out the answer

Victor

Akrasia wrote:

The U.S forces in Iraq are directly responsible for at least 10,000 Iraqi deaths a month (that number has likely increased since the beginning of 'the surge' If the U.S. pull out, these people will no longer be killed, nor will all of the people who get caught in the crossfire of anti occupation insurgents (most of whom are just ordinary Iraqi people who are fighting for freedom)

I think this is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. Potentially the different sides just slog it out against each other internally. While the average American soldier is safer, a vacuum in Iraq just leads to further instability.

flogen wrote:

There's an election in the offing and everyone wants to turn all cuddly and peace-loving because that's a vote catcher.

Not in a lot of the USA.

The extremes don't matter, their vote is predictable. It is always about winning the middle ground.

lostexpectation

anyway its not the beginning of the end its the beginning of northern Ireland,

the dems arn't talking about pulling out there talking about pulling back to barracks and there still going to use their helicoptser to blast various neighbourhoods to **** and claim it was iraqi operation cos they've only allow iraqis soldiers to go around on the ground.