Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Waiting on Petraeus: How Many Will Die Before He Tells Us What We Already Know?

By Arianna Huffington, Huffington Post. Posted June 16, 2007.


The Democrats are hoping to soften what support remains for the war -- eventually winning the battle in September, when Gen. Petraeus offers his report on the progress of the surge.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Be afraid. The ghosts of campaigns past are once again haunting the Democratic Party.

Remember 2004, and how the Kerry camp couldn't decide whether to highlight the war and national security or to push domestic issues? Well, those chains are rattling again.

Even as a steady stream of bad news pours out of Iraq, Democrats are once more divided over how much of their focus to put on Iraq.

"You can't become a one trick pony," warned Rahm Emanuel, arguing that Democrats need to pay equal attention to domestic issues. And Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor yesterday called on Democrats to abandon efforts to set a public troop withdrawal date (Pryor said he could support a super-double-secret redeployment timeline known only to a select group of U.S. officials. I assume this would include Gen. Petraeus, Karl Rove, and Steve Perry -- who proved he can keep things hush-hush).

I guess Emanuel, Pryor, and those in their camp missed the reports of plummeting approval ratings for Congressional Democrats after the no-timeline Iraq funding vote.

Thankfully, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid seem to have learned the lesson of 2004 -- it's not the extended family leave, stupid. Or, at least, they've learned the lesson of 2007: there is nothing wrong with being a one trick pony, if it's the right trick. And at this point, getting us out of Iraq is the feat voters most want to see.

"In terms of the issue that the American people want to see resolved," said Pelosi, "the war is three or four times higher than any other issue."

And Reid has vowed "to hold the president's feet to the fire" on Iraq. He is planning to reintroduce three or four Iraq proposals as part of the debate on a Pentagon authorization bill slated for later this month, two of which include timetables for withdrawal.

The Democrats don't expect any of these amendments to pass, but are hoping to soften what support remains for the war -- eventually winning the battle in September, when Gen. Petraeus offers his report on the progress of the surge.

"We want them to vote and vote and vote again," a senior Democratic senator told Politico, in explaining the Party's plan to force Republicans to repeatedly go on the record in support of the war. "They are going to have to vote on Iraq until they are sick of it."

Given the reality of the Democrats' precarious majority, this is no doubt a sound political strategy. But do we really have to wait until September to hear Petraeus tell us what we already know? Just look at the news:

The Pentagon's first comprehensive overview of the surge, released yesterday, found that violence in Iraq has actually increased since the escalation. The report also found that the Iraqi government has made "little progress" on achieving the political goals the latest security push was supposed to facilitate. Indeed, the Pentagon admitted "some analysts see a growing fragmentation of Iraq."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: iraq, democrats, petraeus

Find more Arianna at the Huffington Post.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
What's The Point?
Posted by: thepeasants on Jun 16, 2007 4:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Talking about getting out of Iraq. The constant stream of news like this article, trying to rationally discuss progress or lack of progress for the illegal invasion of another country that had nothing to do with, well, anything really except that it is where alot of OIL happens to be sitting. Stop it already! Millions of us were against this invasion from the beginning. Don't even try to make sense of this nonsense. You should be writing about the corrupt Bush Administration and calling for resignations or impeachments. Beyond that, in the moronic words of Bill O'Reilly, you should Shut Up!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Petraeus is a Democratic scapegoat.
Posted by: HughScott on Jun 16, 2007 5:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ariana ended her piece with, “The Democrats need to stick with Reid's plan to ratchet up the pressure on the president.”

What “plan”? Bad-mouthing General Petraeus like Ariana just did?

Instead on divisive and sometimes inflammatory rhetoric, Senator Reid should offer a withdrawal strategy that will save GI lives without causing total chaos in Iraq.

As a first step in accomplishing the most difficult of all military operations -- a full-scale retreat -- U.S. troops should begin redeploying from their Baghdad “precinct Stations” to more secure bases away from the city. But so far, I’ve heard no drumbeat by Democrats in Congress for moving our soldiers and Marines out of harm’s way.

Go to Sen. Reid’s website, select “Issues” and you will find nothing about withdrawing from Iraq.

Next, look at the Senate’s Iraq disengagement plan that Reid offered this year as a non-binding resolution. It mandates that our troops begin withdrawing “within 120 days of enactment, with the goal of removing most combat forces by March 31, 2008, except those required to carry out the newly defined mission.”

There was no requirement for immediately removing GIs from Baghdad.

The Democrat’s House plan was less restrictive, allowing surged troops to remain in the city until March 2008 before withdrawing.

With those plans in mind, I’m turning the key question on Reid and his fellow Democrats in Congress by asking, “How many will die before you get your act together and offer practical solutions to Iraq instead politically-motivated bullshit?"

Hugh E. Scott, Vietnam veteran and editor of the nonprofit website, King-George.biz -- the only one with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Emanuel
Posted by: Ellie1 on Jun 16, 2007 6:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
has been an ineffectual leader for the Democrats. HE is the one who should shut up. The people elected democrats precisely BECAUSE of the war. Why ignore it? The Democrats seem to be intent on self destruction-which means we are f-cked no matter who we vote for.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: manuel Posted by: Doubtom
If we are losing, then the insurgents must be winning, right?
Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah on Jun 16, 2007 8:08 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The enemy (al qaeda, saddam baathists, and Iranian supported insurgents):

(1) do not control any territory

(2) politically do not represent the Iraqi people in any way

(3) are supported almost exclusively by foreign terrorist states and groups

(4) support the indiscriminate killing of innocent women and children

(5) whose only weapons of consequence are suicide bombings and blowing-up mosques

(6) represents an ideology that is wholly barbaric, autocratic, and rejected utterly by the civilized world.

(7) have been unable to win even a single skimirish against US troops

(8) have never taken a single US outpost no matter how lightly armed

(9) are wholly unable to threaten any force other than lightly armed and isolated Iraqi police units

(10) who are increasingly being targeted for destruction by indigenous Iraqis



yet, these insurgents can win!

by utilizing their greatest ally: The American left

and whose only path to victory lies through democrat controlled Capitol Hill

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» the "wisdom" of doubtom Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah
» RE: the "wisdom" of doubtom Posted by: Doubtom
A Huge Failure
Posted by: sofla100 on Jun 16, 2007 8:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The USA, in Iraq, has only accomplished the following:

1. Anger and alienation of many Iraqi's. This started with the American run Provisional Authority trying to "privatize" Iraq's assets. To include her oil fields, electrical grid, etc., under lucrative contracts to mostly American firms.

2. Fear of the Americans by many Iraqi's. This has also been flamed by Abu Ghraib, and reports that the USA supports a government that routinely tortures prisoners or arranges for "disappearances" of those who verbally oppose the occupation. The use of "special forces" to silence opposition is commonly believed to occur.

3. The insurgents, in fact, do control much of the territory of Iraq. Point of fact, if the territory is not under the control of the Maliki/US supported government, then who is it under the control of?

4. Injection into a civil war. The USA supports Maliki, but Maliki is also, at least, somewhat supported by Tehran. The USA is against Iran for many reasons. Go figure this one out.

5. The deaths of thousands. Thousands and thousands of not just "combatants," but women and children. Deaths often due due to uncontrolled collateral damage from the fighting.

6. Thousands of Americans dead, tens of thousands wounded, billions of dollars lost. I don't need to say more about this.

7. Fanning the flames of radicalism in the Middle East. Many believe the USA is only in Iraq for the oil and/or at the behest of Israeli interests. As the situation on the ground deteriorates and US tactics are perceived as more violent and belligerent, this negative perception will only intensify.

8. The high probability that with the inevitable US departure, the country will fracture into (3) or more countries or be absorbed into other countries (Kurdistan, Greater Iran and Greater Saudi Arabia).

It is truly time for America to cut her losses and leave Iraq. The war was a big mistake to begin with, and perpetuating a mistake never leads to a solution, it just makes things worse. We finally need to admit we were wrong, and get out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Failed assumptions Posted by: CatDad
» RE: A Huge Failure Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah
» RE: A Huge Failure Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: A Huge Failure Posted by: duck
» RE: A Huge Failure Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah
» Dearest Jak, Posted by: James T. Swaggart
» RE: A Huge Failure Posted by: sofla100
Regime change was much needed in Iraq
Posted by: kbest on Jun 16, 2007 9:29 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Only time will tell what the outcome will be, but if Iraq becomes a country that can govern sustain and defend itself, the entire world will be better for it. And yes the outcome is still in doubt.

"PEACE thru Superior Firepower"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A telling Petraues quote:
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 16, 2007 11:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From International Herald Tribune

"Charlie Rose: What is he and his government not doing that you want to see them do, and do soon? Because you are talking about four months before an assessment that may be a determination that this new strategy is not working.

General David Petraeus: Well, it's, again, the entire government, not just in a sense his office, or the Prime Minister. The entire government does need to come to grips with some of this very tough legislation. I think the dog closest to the sled is the hydrocarbon law, as it's called. It really has to do with the distribution of the oil revenues. Iraq is generating enormous oil wealth on a daily basis, a yearly basis, and it needs to distribute those -- it has committed in the law that was approved by the Council of Ministers that those revenues would be distributed equitably to all Iraqis. That's a very, very important agreement, by the way -- hugely important, because there are members of the -- of the country, or citizens of that country who are in regions that have no oil wealth, or didn't until they just discovered it, say in Anbar province within the last month or so, which by the way will take Iraq to the second highest oil reserves we believe in the world.

Charlie Rose: First being in Saudi Arabia.

General David Petraeus: Yes. So this is colossal potential, and the potential wealth and the -- the wealth right now is substantial. Iraq should be the Japan of the Middle East if they could just keep from shooting at each other. But that law guaranteed those revenues for all Iraqis equitably, and that's a very, very, important step in the direction of, again, a government that serves and is responsive to all Iraqis, not just to those of, say, the majority, or those of the parties that directly put Maliki into office."


Translation: once the hydrocarbon law that gives total control of Iraqi oil to a handful of foreign oil corporations is passed, we can declare victory - but we'll have to leave a lot of troops behind to make sure the terms of the contract are adhered to by the Iraqis.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Read the Iraqi hydrocarbon law: Posted by: thoughtcriminal
5 reasons (more to come) why the left is wrong to surrender Iraq to al qaeda:
Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah on Jun 16, 2007 11:10 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(1)The killing is iraq is a global phenomenon that has been ongoing for decades. It involves the goal of Islamic extremists to undermine the West and establish an religious, repressive, and expansionist caliphate in the middle east.

Note the global scale and intensity of the murders committed by Islamists against even non-aligned nations in the just the last three months

(2) The main stream media is acknowledged to be bias against the war and throughly indoctrinated by leftists. Most of the negative data coming from Iraq is proliferated by this organ. Positive data is virtually never reported.

Perspective from those in country (not reported by CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, BBC, NPR....)

(3) US troops exiting Iraq in a democratic party defeat will leave millions of iraqis to die at the hands of iranian, baathist, and al qaeda death squads.

not that those on the left would care about human life. there is a precedent for leftist callousness and disregard for human suffering in the wake of their quest for ideological and political gain: cambodia

(4) Iraq will become a terrorist haven thereby astronomically increasing the risk to US life and liberty at both home and abroad. There is a precendent for this: pre-9/11 afghanistan. Where afghanistan had no significant income to support terror, Iraq will have billions of dollars from oil to fund grand terror attacks against Western targets. And it will happen if the democrats surrender in iraq.

(5) Defeat in Iraq for al qaeda is a survival level threat. They know that if America defeats them in iraq, they will forever be marginalized as a force globally, i.e. if they cant beat America in their own backyard, then where?

(6) despite all of the "hate America" rhetoric emanating from the left, the United States is again in unquestioned possession of the moral high ground in Iraq by its goal of a peaceful, free, united, and prosperous future for that nation. The enemy has shown that their only goal is death and religious despotism.

(7) To allow the left to force an American retreat will only strengthen the hand of future enemies of the US. For example, every murdering terrorist and dictator knows that the US has an exploitable weakness and that weakness is the "antiwar at any cost" American left.

(8) make no mistake we will be back. And the next time, it will be more costly.

(9) It is no coincidence that there have been exactly ZERO grand terror attacks on US soil since 9/11. It is standard military doctrince to take the initiative away from the enemy to deny him the means to attack your homeland. Whether intentional or accidently, the Bush administration has done this.

10. logically, factually, and empirically speaking the left is usually always wrong. They are a faith based entity that truly believes the following:

Bush knew about 9/11
The war in iraq is about oil
The US deserved 9/11
The US, not al qaeda or iran, represent the side of evil in iraq
The threat will disappear when we surrender iraq to despots and terrorists

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Pure Garbage Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Pure Garbage Posted by: Doubtom
5 added free of charge (see above)... still more to come.
Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah on Jun 16, 2007 11:11 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
eom

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How to defeat America: from the terrorist playbook
Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah on Jun 16, 2007 11:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
simply identify an infintestimal minority of brutal, inhumane, and disenfranchise nuts,

fund them,

arm them,

turn them lose against innocent women and children,

watch America come to the rescue to defend innocents and its vital interests abroad (with hypocritical politically inspired leftist support),

listen to anti-American, leftist, elitists like huffington wail at the first US tactical setback,

watch self-serving leftists/democrats immediately turn against war for callous self-serving political motives,

watch the left divide America for political and ideological gain,

watch the left provide vital aid and comfort to enemy to further political gains,

watch the left gain power from a discontented public by the self-fulfilling prophecy of the war's failure

and watch the left surrender.

go on to the next vital nation or region, identify an infintestimal minority of brutal, inhumane, and disenfranchise nuts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» As Winston Churchill noted.... Posted by: justaguy
What's The Point?
Posted by: thepeasants on Jun 16, 2007 4:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Talking about getting out of Iraq. The constant stream of news like this article, trying to rationally discuss progress or lack of progress for the illegal invasion of another country that had nothing to do with, well, anything really except that it is where alot of OIL happens to be sitting. Stop it already! Millions of us were against this invasion from the beginning. Don't even try to make sense of this nonsense. You should be writing about the corrupt Bush Administration and calling for resignations or impeachments. Beyond that, in the moronic words of Bill O'Reilly, you should Shut Up!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Debunking the Right Wingers
Posted by: sofla100 on Jun 16, 2007 4:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When it comes to Iraq, any American newspaper will pretty much disprove the right wing assertions. First of all, if the USA is winning, how come so many USA soldiers continue to die? Are they just blowing themselves up or something??? Next, we are told the "enemy is Al Queda," but where is the proof? To most of us, this is nothing more than an all out civil war. Perhaps a few dozen Al Queda got into Iraq after the US invasion, but the number of estimated insurgents is way beyond anything Al Queda could deliver. Not only that, the USA has been averaging 140-150+ thousands troops in Iraq (not counting America's Blackwater Mercs or special forces, another 20K more easily) for years now. Please now, can you give us some proof of progress? As for Iran, how come all these troops cannot more effectively seal the border if Iran is sneaking weapons or fighters in? Finally, as for the lack of an attack on the USA since 911 - this is a scary argument indeed. How do we know the "big one" is not just around the Bush (Bush II that is)? Remember, prior to 911, there was nothing for years. But now, after the US invasion, with the Muslims now radicalized, we better be very careful. Lastly, was the Iraq invasion legally or morally justified? Where are the WMD's? The intelligence was manipulated and twisted to justify America's invasion. The action was clearly illegal under international law. As for morality, sure Saddam was a nightmare, but many more innocents have died since the US invasion then under Saddam. How is this progress?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Debunking the Right Wingers Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah
More right wing comments!
Posted by: Frog on Jun 16, 2007 5:57 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It looks like the neo-cons have their wiriters out in force once again. Please you wing-nuts, call us progressives vs. regressives-like yourselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Raw Facts
Posted by: sofla100 on Jun 16, 2007 8:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well now, if the USA is winning the Iraq war, let's take a bet. By the end of this year, the USA will be going into withdrawl mode. Certainly if Congress has its way. The reports coming back from the field are not going to be inspiring anybody in Congress to continue the war much longer. I guess the right-wing nuts will be blaming the press, however. "If they would have just been reporting the "glorious progress" in Iraq, it would have all been different." Except what the press has been reporting, pretty much continuously, is that the Iraqi's continue to consistently miss meeting "the benchmarks" established when the surge began.

I suspect however that some of our Iraqi right wingers have seen some Iraq war experience. If so, I pity them. They have yet to learn the lessons of the Vietnam veterans. While more soldiers died in Vietnam, the wounded to kill ratio in this war is much higher. Advanced medicine is pulling many more (compared to Vietnam) of the US Iraq wounded while still alive off the battlefield and saving them, before they could die. Never mind that many, many of them have no legs, arms, or faces anymore. If you were or are in Iraq, I hope you did not or will not come back home this way. Because if you do, very few in America are going to appreciate your sacrifice. You will also be lucky to receive the rehabilitative help and services you need from the VA. It is already overwhelmed with many thousands of veterans suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and so many who are unable to function in society.

But, your biggest disappointment of all will be the disillusionment. When you finally realize that what you fought for was a lie. That you fought for the oil corporations and the Israeli hardliners. You will realize it when you see what happens to the country of Iraq. Good luck.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Raw Facts.....ah yes but.... Posted by: Captainmagic
Resisting the Drums of War
Posted by: Roy Eidelson on Jun 17, 2007 12:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From a psychological perspective, the Bush/Cheney administration and its neocon allies succeeded in promoting the misguided and destructive war in Iraq by targeting our core concerns about vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. Looking ahead, they will likely try to sell us a continuing occupation of Iraq—or an attack on Iran—in much the same way. I examine these warmongering appeals and how to counter them in a new 10-minute video entitled "Resisting the Drums of War." It's available for viewing on YouTube HERE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]