Two bits on the Iraq reporting/recommendations
According the AP, the GAO report on Iraq will say that "the Iraqi government has failed to meet the vast majority of political and military goals laid out by lawmakers to assess President Bush's Iraq war strategy." (Big surprise.)
Meanwhile, McClatchy has a far more interesting piece which implies a rift in the recommendations coming out of the military. It sounds like everyone above Petraeus, Pace, Casey, and Gates, will all recommend some level of tempered troop reductions while Petraeus is fully expected to ask to continue his surge.
So, the data is against the President, and everyone but Petraeus is asking for a change.
Wanna guess what the President's decision will be?
(Later: The WaPo got ahold of a draft of the GAO report. This is pretty close to the AP reporting above, but with a little more detail on the politics.
That first paragraph is diplomatic GAO speak saying that the White House's July report was cherry picked.
The White House response by Gordon Johndroe was predictable, "General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are there on the ground every day in Iraq, and it's important to wait to hear what they have to say." .... "it's not surprising the GAO would make this assessment, given the difficult congressionally mandated measurement they had to follow."
Meanwhile, McClatchy has a far more interesting piece which implies a rift in the recommendations coming out of the military. It sounds like everyone above Petraeus, Pace, Casey, and Gates, will all recommend some level of tempered troop reductions while Petraeus is fully expected to ask to continue his surge.
So, the data is against the President, and everyone but Petraeus is asking for a change.
Wanna guess what the President's decision will be?
(Later: The WaPo got ahold of a draft of the GAO report. This is pretty close to the AP reporting above, but with a little more detail on the politics.
While it makes no policy recommendations, the draft suggests that future administration assessments "would be more useful" if they backed up their judgments with more details and "provided data on broader measures of violence from all relevant U.S. agencies."....
The person who provided the draft report to The Post said it was being conveyed from a government official who feared that its pessimistic conclusions would be watered down in the final version.
That first paragraph is diplomatic GAO speak saying that the White House's July report was cherry picked.
The White House response by Gordon Johndroe was predictable, "General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are there on the ground every day in Iraq, and it's important to wait to hear what they have to say." .... "it's not surprising the GAO would make this assessment, given the difficult congressionally mandated measurement they had to follow."
posted by mikevotes at
10:12 PM
2 Comments:
"A bar was set so high, that it was almost not to be able to be met," White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said.
Given that we've been in Iraq for 4.5 years, if thy set the bar any lower it would leave a dent in the ground.
Dana continues...
"On the other hand, one of the things it does not take into account, which is not on the benchmark list, is the cooperation of the Sunni tribes, who have decided to fight back against al-Qaida."
A) This is specious, spotty and, I believe, largely urban legend at this point.
B) To the extent some Sunni factions are fighting al Qaeda, they are doing so in addition to fighting us not instead of fighting us. Of course, they've become good at playing us for saps to get guns and money.
C) This is just another point of factionalization in this Hydra-like quagmire.
D) Dana is one of rotating string of Bushian Bobs (see Baghdad Bob) and should be treated as a dancing monkey.
By
-epm, at 1:57 PM
The Sunnis in Anbar have struck a peace deal with the US, not the SHia government. The deal is the US will lay off them and effectively allow the Iraqi Sunnis free haven if they keep the foreign fighters out.
Giving the Sunnis safe haven, and allowing them to organize into a larger, more unified military force is not likely to give benefits down the line.
Parts of it are real, parts are hype. It's all a question of whether the tribal leaders who the US are trying to empower are stronger than the Islamic Army and some of the religious leaders.
The Us can buy off the tribal leaders, but the others they cannot.
By
mikevotes, at 4:15 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home