Proof That I Watched Several Hours of Iraq Testimony

Let's be clear that the MoveOn ad is getting all of this attention because of one word: Betray. The rest of the ad makes the mainstream argument, made by almost every Democratic politician, that the facts General Petraeus are asserting to prove military progress are random numbers without sourcing. And it's been reported plenty that the White House and Petraeus are coordinating with one another. The apoplexy over MoveOn would not be nearly as great without that word, Betray.

(by the way, the LA Times runs a point-counterpoint between professional conservative operative Hugh Hewitt and former special assistant to President Reagan Doug Bandow? The hell?)

And it's instructive to note that the original construction, General BetrayUs, comes from Rush Limbaugh.

Anyway, it also appears to have been borrowed, indirectly, from Rush Limbaugh. According to a Free Republican diary, Rush took a call in January from a listener who suggested he contrast General Petraeus with Senator Chuck Betrayus -- i.e., Hagel.

Hagel is ALSO a military veteran, who left Vietnam with two Purple Hearts. So this faux shock at a group "questioning the patriotism" of an officer who wears the uniform is just precious. I guess that recently retired general cited in this story is incredibly unpatriotic, too.

It's a WORD. It was an unwise choice of words, but a word all the same. Sticks and stones. The facts are pretty simple. David Petraeus has been cooking the books, spinning whatever has been under his leadership, for some time. He's emphasizing small events and not the big picture. He's doing that intentionally, because the big picture offers no encouraging signs. A reversal of violence in Iraq in 2007 to mid-2006 levels doesn't really do much for anyone, even if it's true; 1,000 attacks a week remains an unstable security environment. You have a US Ambassador claiming that provincial government began in Anbar after security improved, yet they're also claiming that Baghdad's security has improved as well and none such provincial governments are seen. It's incoherent. The commanders on the ground are trying to thread a needle between touting grand progress and warning that the country would collapse when we leave so we must stay for years and years. As I've heard many times before, if it remains true that, the day American troops leave Iraq, the country will collapse, then we might as well leave now, because all you're doing is wasting lives and treasure. And since four years have passed with that exact same dynamic in place, I believe withdrawal is the least worst option.

Juan Cole has a provocative piece today that delves into this a bit, but is a bit more charitable than I am about David Petraeus and the purported leaders of Iraq. In fact, he hopes that they can do the impossible and build up the country so that it doesn't collapse when we inevitably leave.

But in all likelihood, when the Democratic president pulls US troops out in summer of 2009, all hell is going to break loose. The consequences may include even higher petroleum prices than we have seen recently, which at some point could bring back stagflation or very high rates of inflation.

In other words, the Democratic president risks being Fordized when s/he withdraws from Iraq, by the aftermath. A one-term president associated with humiliation abroad and high inflation at home? Maybe I should say, Carterized. The Republican Party could come back strong in 2012 and then dominate politics for decades, if that happened.

It is all so unfair, of course, since Bush started and prosecuted this disaster in Iraq, and Bush is refusing to accept responsibility for the failure, pushing it off onto his successor.

But life is unfair.

So what can the Dems do to avoid being made the fall guy this way?

They could try to legislate stronger US diplomacy aiming at ensuring peace between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran even if there is sectarian violence on a greater scale in Iraq. They could resist the temptation to demonize Iran or to push it onto a war footing with threats or even bombings.

As for Iraq itself, the best hope for the Dems may be that Gen. Petraeus actually succeeds, over the next year, in significantly reducing ethnic tensions. It is a slim reed to hold onto, as they recognize.

But from the moment Bush went into Iraq, Americans were screwed. And that includes the Democratic Party, which is being set up to take the fall.

I'm a severe skeptic on the likelihood of anything that looks like success in Iraq. But I don't think career public servants such as Ryan Crocker and David Petraeus are acting as partisan Republicans in their Iraq efforts. I think they both are sincere, experienced men attempting to retrieve what they can for America from Bush's catastrophe. They may as well try, since the Democrats can't over-rule Bush and get the troops out, anyway. If the troops are there, they may as well at least be deployed intelligently, which is what Gen. Petraeus is doing. I wish them well in their Herculean labors. Because if they fail, I have a sinking feeling that we are all going down with them, including the next Democratic president. And their success is a long shot.

This is a "cork in the bottle" strategy, and I think a few Democrats know it, even the Presidentials, which is why they're being more aggressive about the "great advantage to our enemies" to keeping all of these troops over there. Another year of the status quo makes Cole's scenario much more likely. We've seen a little movement today with Rep. Walsh, and Senator Lugar called out the Iraq strategy this morning.

WASHINGTON - A prominent Republican on Tuesday said he remains deeply skeptical of the U.S. war strategy in Iraq, comparing the long and bloody military campaign to a farmer risking his savings to plant on a flood plain.

"In my judgment, some type of success in Iraq is possible, but as policymakers, we should acknowledge that we are facing extraordinarily narrow margins for achieving our goals," Sen. Richard Lugar, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told the top U.S. military commander there.

Hopefully everyone gets that through their heads.