Blogging on Meds

President Bush gave a speech today on the way forward (or backward) in Iraq. There were a number of headlines that came out of this speech, but one thing in particular stuck out:

“Beyond that, General Petraeus says he’ll need time to consolidate his forces and assess how this reduced American presence will affect conditions on the ground before making measured recommendations on further reductions. And I’ve told him he’ll have all the time he needs.”

Is it just me, or does it sound like the President is taking his marching orders from General Petraeus? The President has tasked the General with “winning” in Iraq, without necessarily defining what winning looks like or how it’s measured. General Petraeus is doing yeoman’s work in Iraq, but it seems clear to me from his testimony a few days ago, and from his interview with CNN’s Michael Ware, that he knows damn well that it will take years to stabilize Iraq. Of course, General Petraeus is doing everything possible to achieve said victory, which makes the President happy, because it allows him to continue to live in his fantasy world where Iraq is on the road to becoming a liberal democracy in the heart of the Middle East, and it kicks the problem down the road to the next President. In the meantime, it seems like the President is more than happy to go along with whatever General Petraeus recommends, assuming it continues our stay in Iraq. The abdication of responsibility is just stunning, though not surprising given the track record.

Other takeaways from today’s speech:

(1) The President gets tough with Iran: He said that Iran “can live in peace with its neighbor, enjoy strong economic and cultural and religious ties, or it can continue to arm and train and fund illegal militant groups which are terrorizing the Iraqi people and turning them against Iran. If Iran makes the right choice, America will encourage a peaceful relationship between Iran and Iraq. If Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests and our troops and our Iraqi partners.” (bold mine). I’m not sure what we’re going to gain by saber-rattling at this stage, especially given how stretched our military is, but I guess you can’t teach an old dog new tricks. Also, notice the bit about the illegal military groups. This is a clear reference to Sadr’s Mahdi Army. The noose is clearly tightening around Sadr, but that’s a very, very risky move, as it could lead to a significant surge in violence (it already has to some degree, but the potential for the type of violence that followed the Samarra bombing is very real).

(2) Speaking of the stretched military, there was some good news. The President, after lengthening combat tours from 12 months to 15 months, took them back down to 12 months. Also, soldiers will get a year at home for each year they serve in Iraq. The downside to this is that the decision only applies to troops who head to Iraq after August 1 or later, so those already there still have to serve 15 months.  Dan Froomkin quotes Bobby Muller, the president of Veterans from America, who says that “‘In short, this is a hollow announcement; it has no immediate effect,’ Muller said. ‘It is nothing more than political posturing at the expense of our troops. Our soliders are unraveling and they need their commander in chief to provide immediate relief.’” Froomkin also notes that Bush may not have had much of a choice in the decision.

(3) “Improvements in security have helped clear the way for political and economic developments described by Ambassador Crocker. These gains receive less media coverage, but they are vital to Iraq’s future. At the local level, businesses are re-opening and provincial councils are meeting. At the national level, there’s much work ahead, but the Iraqi government has passed a budget and three major “benchmark” laws. The national government is sharing oil revenues with the provinces. And many economic indicators in Iraq — from oil production to inflation — are now pointed in the right direction.” Once again, it’s the media’s fault. See, there really is so much great political reconciliation happening in Iraq, but we just don’t hear about it because the media is so obsessed with the violence! What practically every sentence in that passage lacks is context. Yes, there is some oil revenue sharing going on, but it’s sporadic at best and there is no oil sharing law yet, which was a major benchmark. The details associated with each one of the President’s sentences in that passage paint a much bleaker picture of political reconciliation than the President, and Fred Kagan, would have you believe.

(4) “Fifteen months ago, Americans were worried about the prospect of failure in Iraq; today, thanks to the surge, we’ve renewed and revived the prospect of success.” I hate to burst his bubble, but if you look at any of the polls, we’re all still pretty worried. Also, notice that there’s a prospect for success, not actually any success.

(5) “Iraq is the convergence point for two of the greatest threats to America in this new century — al Qaeda and Iran.” If we don’t go into Iraq to get rid of Saddam and the WMD, we’ll be ignoring the greatest threat to America ever. Well, we got rid of Saddam and didn’t find any WMD, but if we leave now, we’ll be ignoring the two greatest threats to American in the 21st century.

There are a few more things in the speech worth noting, but read it for yourself. It’s just depressing.

RELATED POSTS:

• music video for SAMIAM is DONE!!!
• Guitar Hero / Gibson Charity Art Auction at SXSW
• Lissa’s new doggie knit halter-top
• Ian MacKaye = Jesus?
• Bones Brigade