Pelosi, Hoyer, and Petraeus---a snapshot of US Iraq policy

[nodular]

The House bill is a well-deserved triumph for Nancy Pelosi. She is, in my opinion, the master of strategy and the quick attack---absolutely essential for this situation.

However, in the midst of Nancy's triumph, I would like to make a mention of her very capable lieutenant---Steny Hoyer. Here is an NPR excerpt for ma few days ago.

"Iraq Spending Vote a Challenge for Democrats"

NPR, March 22, 2007

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9072301

"House Democratic leaders have written a war-spending bill that includes a deadline for withdrawal. The problem is, with defections on the left and right in the Democratic party, they may not have the votes to pass the bill.

"The $124 billion measure is $21 billion more than President Bush asked for. That's because it's loaded with goodies to ensure it passes — everything from money for children's health insurance to relief for spinach farmers.

"Despite the money, it's been a tough sell. That's mainly because the bill stipulates that most U.S. combat forces be out of Iraq by September 2008. When a reporter asked Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) if he had 218 votes, enough for passage, he said, 'Well, we're getting there.'"

Why did the reporter ask Steny Hoyer that question? He is the guy who lines up---and counts---the votes. And he is very good at his job too. A nuts and bolts organizer. Both types are needed for a winning team, and the Houser Democrats now have such a team in place. Bravo!

In regards to the pork in the bill, some are trying to do a line-by-line justification of sorts. The real defense (sometimes unusable in public) is that if policy is the bricks of government, pork is the mortar. Always was and will be thus. Compared to the Republican levels of pork---this is small potatoes. And this is pork for a cause---the Republican pork was just greed.



Like the grinch at Christmas, however, I will once again refer to the subject that Democrats have mainly forgotten for now---the troop surge.

Note, the current House bill includes funds for the surge. To me, that indicates that---whatever the final compromise will be---the troop surge money will be there.

Strangely, inexplicably, the troop surge is---on the surface---obtaining results. Whatever the combination of smoke, mirrors, and bribes being used, levels of violence in Baghdad and US casualties are down since the surge. Take note, this will be a central platform of the Repub campaign in '08---IF it can be sustained.


One central piece of the surge strategy is the new Iraq commander General David Petraeus, "Iraq's repairman" as Newsweek called him. Here is someone who was an exceptional lower level commander in Iraq---he stood out for his accomplishments---a combination of military and diplomatic skill.

Of course, localized success in a conflict like Iraq is infinitely easier than country-wide success. It's like those outside security guards hired by some city blocks or streets. The security guard (generally an off-duty cop making a few extra dollars) patrols one very small area all night. All they do, of course, is push crime down to the next block. But they do that very well (and that is all the people who hire them care about).

One can likewise assume that when Petraeus created a small area that was a hostile environment to terrorists, they simply moved "down the block". Nonetheless, he was very good.

Next, they gave Petraeus the job of transforming the Iraq armed forces into an effective force. He pledged to stick at the task until he got it done. For awhile, things went well under his competent leadership. Metrics were established and the Iraqi forces improved. But as the US put more pressure on to see the forces become "independently capable"---the only thing that would allow the US to ever withdraw---progress slowed to a crawl. Then stopped. The Iraqi forces cannot get there, mired in the same combination of forces that makes the whole US occupation of Iraq hopeless.

Suddenly, it turned out that Petraeus's tour of duty was over, so he had to leave Iraq. Huh? What happened to his commitment to see the job through?

In fact, the Army had its "star", and they could not afford to muddy up his image with the impeding failure of the Iraqi forces to become independent.

Now he's back in charge of the whole effort---Iraq's repairman. As such, he will serve as the front man for the surge.

I realize this makes me unpopular here, but all I am saying is---"Look out for this crap." This will be the center of the Repub '08 campaign---if they can maintain the "surge" illusion long enough.

[rodeodance]

1. yes--the surge---already in progress when Jr annouced it. clever.

Like the grinch at Christmas, however, I will once again refer to the subject that Democrats have mainly forgotten for now---the troop surge.

[nodular]

2. How do you know that?

[Rose Siding]

3. US deaths are higher for March than they were for all but TWO months in 06

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Iraqi and civilian deaths jumped for March, too. This week, attacks claimed US lives inside the Green Zone!

It wouldn't have suprised me to see a drop in attacks in Baghdad -That's been the pattern when the US focuses military ops. Fallujah and Ramadi, Mosul -whenever the US shows up in force, the fighting fades. But ONLY until after operation subsides.

How can you even suggest that escalation is working?

[nodular]

4. I'm not suggesting that the surge is working.

I am talking about the public impression that is being created, to a certain extent.

For a more expanded look at my views on the surge, please see the other threads I have started recently on that subject in this same (National Security) Forum.

To quote one example from one thread


MCCAIN: "'The fact that the violence decreased in Baghdad, the terrorists went to the surrounding areas and these areas are breeding grounds for violence,' he said. 'The terrorist elements are backed into a corner and we are going to continue to carry out these operations.'"

MY RESPONSE: That's a laugh. Backed into a corner? More like playing "go round the mulberry bush" with the US troops as they have been doing for 3 years. If they could corner them, they would have prevented them from leaving Baghdad in the first place."'

So, you see, my view of what is happening is similar to yours. But I don't want to waste space repeating a lot of stuff I said on other threads.



However, I stand corrected on US casualties. My apologies. The post was made March 31, so the March number was not available and I made a misinformed statement gleaned from something I read somewhere.