Captain's Quarters -

Various unnamed officials do not a report make. When General Petraeus speaks, I'll listen.

if this does come to pass, look for our allies, the Dems, to spin this as Bush blinked, backed down, Dirty Harry and Empress Nancy have made the Dark Lord cut and run and without him Darth BusHItler bugged out.

Nevermind all the military may have done was take X amount of troops and put that same amount somewhere else, they and their vassals the MSM will conveniently forget to add the caveat of we had 160,000 troops in theater and still do, just in different places. No, all you will read until paragraph 23 is how Bush withdrew forces.

The headline is misleading, no facts in the LAT article, just speculation from the MSM. A military commander will determine where his troops are needed and when. Movement of personnel within the war zone is not "pullback".

When the General gives his report, we will all know the progress that has been made. Until then, let the military do their job please!

If you read the full article, you get to this paragraph toward the end:

"Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government."

So let's not kid ourselves that this will be an unbiased report from Petraeus. In fact, it will matter little what Petraeus actually recommends. The report will reflect what the President wants it to say, regardless.

""Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government."

If the President authorized the release of a report WITHOUT "inputs from officials throughout the government" the Democrats will complain that Bush is "spinning" the report because he is refusing to take advice from members of his own administration. If the report is issued WITH "inputs from officials throughout the government" the Democrats will complain that Bush is "spinning" the report by including extraneous information. Ether way, the Democrats will insist that Bush is "spinning" the report and will still insist that the war is a failure and we should pull out.

It sounds to me that the General is just going to continue to request that the troops be used in the most effective manner available. It makes sense to reduce troop levels where they are over staffed and move them where they are under staffed. That's good military policy as the troops will be used where they are needed most.

Tom, the money quote there is "administration officials said". That is a red flag if I ever saw one. If I remember right, Armitage was an "administration official". Hell anyone from a clerk on up in the Dept. Of State could be the source for this. Anonymous sources are dubious unless you're writing for the LAT or The New Republic.

"So let's not kid ourselves that this will be an unbiased report from Petraeus."

If Congress is worried about the report being biased, they can ask the general directly about his report as they have the authority to do just that. I'm sure that the Democrats will be calling for the general to testify on this very subject shortly after the report is issued so that the Democrats can claim that the president is "spinning" this report in his favor. Don't forget, there's a big election coming up. Look for yet another round of Congressional investigations headed by the Democrats this fall.

Ignore the media. Wait for the General's report, and then react.

"Pullback" is hardly the term I would expect General Petraeus to use anyway ... talk about politically loaded!

We CAN expect that General Petraeus will deploy his troops wherever they will do the most good in achieving the immediate aim of tamping down the violence and defeating AQI, the Sadr Army, and the Iranian Quds Force that have been killing both Iraqis and US soldiers. He is NOT going to repeat the prior mistake of pacifying an area and then retreating to the FOBs to twiddle our thumbs and hope the Iraqis can hold on.

NOTE: FACT vs MSM "rumors" --- Petraeus launches two new offensives by Multinational Forces this week, directed against AQI, Sadr Army, and Iranian Quds Force operatives in Iraq. As follow-on to previous offensives that have virtually ended the civil war in most of Anbar and Diyala Provinces and in much of Bagdad as well. Iraqi forces are performing at or above expectations .. in other words, well.

Does that look much like a "pullback"?

Nope .... move along, people, there's nothing to see here (in the LAT, that is).

Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government...

Looks like General Petraeus might be about to get the Colin Powell treatment, with his name forever sullied by having it attached to some kind of bogus report.

In fact, I've spent the last few days trying to think of anybody... anyone at all... whose reputation has been enhanced by virtue of association with this dreadful administration.

I can't come up with a single one.

Anybody?

"If Congress is worried about the report being biased, they can ask the general directly about his report as they have the authority to do just that."

Oh, I'm sure they will. I just find it disingenuous to portray this report as if it's going to be a font of wisdom written entirely by Petraeus. It will in fact be a political document written by the White House, whose primary purpose will be to support whatever the President wants to do. Petraeus' input is certainly important, but I suspect much of the document has already been written. Color me skeptical.

"I can't come up with a single one.

Anybody?

Posted by: filistro at August 15, 2007 10:33 AM "

Condoleezza Rice. A single black woman who has become one of the most powerful and respected women in the world, all thanks to President Bush and his foresight in appointing her as his Secretary of State. This is a powerful, respected position that no other black women has reached in the history of our country, even during the "first black president" Clinton's two terms in office. She was describe as one of the world's most influential people by Time magazine in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. And Forbes magazine called her the world's most powerful woman in 2004 and 2005 and ranked her second only to Angela Merkel in 2006.

How's that for a example?

"Color me skeptical.
Posted by: Tom at August 15, 2007 10:37 AM"

Since you don't have access to the report in question (it hasn't been released) and have not been able to verify any possible biased statements or information that report may or may not contain, and as it is apparent that you have already decided that the report will be false and/or misleading with out any evidence to support that conclusion, I would tend to color you as prejudiced against the Bush administration as oppose to merely skeptical about the forthcoming report.

Personally, I'll wait until the report is released before I make any judgments as to it's accuracy and relevance.

Petraeus has the option, if it were required by his sense of honor, to resign. Would he have the requisite sense of honor, does he have the courage to do so? I think he does. If his name were to go on such a vital report, if it didn' contain his views, I believe he would resign. If he doesn't resign after the report is released I would take that as a sign that in his eyes it is "good enough," an accurate enough reflection of his thoughts that we can trust it.

A non-resignation by Petraeus will be held up by certain quarters of the Left as a sign of moral complicity in what they view as an immoral enterprise. His honor will likely be called into question. If it does, we shouldn't stand for it.

Now if Petraeus were to actually resign, the Bush administration would have fatally stabbed this Iraqi enterprise in the heart. There would be no salvaging so long as Bush remained President and Petraeus would likely be a witness at Bush's impeachment trial. That doesn't mean that it's an impossibility, but it would be incredibly stupid and Bush would deserve his fate. Republicans would not save him.

I'm reminded of the 1996 Romanian elections where a number of political parties actually walked off the cliff and violated their trust with the people by failing to resign as promised after their legislative program (called the Contract with Romania) failed to pass in 200 days. The next elections, they were all eviscerated and lost 100% of their representation in parliament. Those are the kind of stakes Bush is playing for here.

Various unnamed officials do not a report make. When General Petraeus speaks, I'll listen.

do you honestly believe that if the good General wants to stop the surge he will actually be able to say so?

this WH is writing his report. it will say what they want it to say, so you may have a long time, probably after the general retires, before you hear him actually speak. Better stock up on chips and beer, it's going to be awhile!

the same brilliant minds who gave us all the glowing predictions of war in Iraq will be helping craft this report, excuse me if I just don't buy into their credibility.

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 08/15/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

The Captain said:
"That strategy entails some risk. After all, the surge came into being because of the previous failures to effectively hold cleared areas. The Iraqi forces have improved tremendously since that time, but have they improved enough to hold Anbar province on their own?"

That hits it on the head. Firstly, this "pullback" sounds like a redeployment, nothing more. And the Captain is right, we haven't cleared an area and left without the problems returning. I really think for this to work we need to surge the whole country, which we cannot do due to manpower limits. But for the improvements the Iraqi military has made (boy, haven't been hearing about that for three years?), I don't think they will hold w/o serious intel, air, and ground support, and then the whole Shite militia angle is such a mess... it only takes one or two instances of the military looking the other way while a militia commits an atrocity for bad faith to overwhelm everything. I don't think this will amount to anything more than a more efficient (Petreaus) version of whack-a-mole, but as other posters have reasonably warned, this is a trial balloon, not official gospel. It aint the report.

This may sound silly on its face, but seems to me the US military could benefit by buying billboard space and on-air advertising saying something like, "Help the Americans Leave Sooner...Report Insurgent and Al Queda Activity Today." Let's face it, marketing works and we need to make clear to the average Iraqi that we want to be out of Iraq even more than they want us out.

Condaleeza Rice may have (so far) escaped being tarred by the Bush brush but a couple of years ago she was mentioned as a possible 2008 presidential or vice-presidential candidate. No one is talking about that now. She is identified too closely with Bush and that is political poision.

"In fact, I've spent the last few days trying to think of anybody... anyone at all... whose reputation has been enhanced by virtue of association with this dreadful administration."

You've had one specific name pointed out - Condoleezza Rice. The question is disingenuous though. Your position is that reputations have been sullied by association with the administration. What your position does not address is who did the sullying, how, and what the motivations were. Sullied yes, but the question is whether it was a matter of performance, or a matter of simply being involved with an administration that has been under as caustic domestic attack as any in history.

If the MSM and the left have sullied reputations for no more reason than that the owners are members of the administration, that can hardly be laid at the administration's feet as somehow indicative that they were the ones responsible.

On another note, had Colin Powell, who you mention, remembered that he was not a policy maker, but rather a policy implementer, he'd still be heading up State. On his head the consequences, not the administration's head. Petraeus is not cut from the same cloth as Powell.

Just to be clear, it's *already* a "catostrophic meltdown that will result in genocide"....so what you're saying is that if we leave, it will be a catostrophic meltdown that will result in genocide, but without anymore American troops getting killed. In which case I say, sounds good to me. Also, you keep saying "general patraeus' report", but the LA Times article points out that the report will be written by the white house. So, it's a white house report to the white house that the white house will interpret. Pretty safe bet that it will be good news.

"Condaleeza Rice may have (so far) escaped being tarred by the Bush brush but a couple of years ago she was mentioned as a possible 2008 presidential or vice-presidential candidate. No one is talking about that now."

Actually, at one point she was being discussed in the media as a possible replacement vice-president around the time of Cheney's heart episodes. She made it quite clear that she was not interested any elected office or administration appointment other than SoS and had her own plans for after 2008. She took herself off the table. It had and has nothing to do with being identified too closely with Bush.

I don't know why GEN Petraeus will even bother issuing a report. The MSM and other armchair quarterback either already "know" what he's going to say or have dismissed him out of hand as a liar.

Well, unless he comes back and says, "It's over, we've lost, quagmire, gotta get out, Bush lied, yadda-yadda-yadda", in which case he'll be the dems' next vice presidential candidate.

Funny, ain't it, how the dems used to whine about how Bush "didn't listen to the generals", but now they absolutely REFUSE to do so?

Oh, and carol h, I think Condi isn't spoken of as a presidential candidate much anymore because she's made it as clear as she can that she DOESN'T WANT THE JOB.

Looks like General Petraeus might be about to get the Colin Powell treatment, with his name forever sullied by having it attached to some kind of bogus report.

So not only is Petraeus to be presented as a self-deluded naif on a fool's errand in Iraq, but he is also now to be a powerless dupe who will willingly allow himself to be discredited and dishonoured by association with a calculatedly 'wrong' report. A report for which he will provide the input and evaluations, and for which he will be held responsible. Even though such a 'wrong' report would put his troops(who he has sworn to protect) in 'harms way' for a 'bad' reason. And even though if he has said repeatedly and publicly that he will do nothing but tell it like it is. Period. .

And this type of scarcely veiled slur is probably called 'supporting the troops' ?

Who knew ?

but, doug...

....to be presented as a self-deluded naif on a fool's errand in Iraq.... also.... a powerless dupe who will willingly allow himself to be discredited and dishonoured by association with a calculatedly 'wrong' report. A report for which he will provide the input and evaluations, and for which he will be held responsible...

Isn't that precisely what happened to Colin Powell?

1. It was always my understanding that General Patraeus was just going to pass his findings along to the government, and not write the report himself. According to a State Dept. press release from this past April:

"Washington -- Coalition forces in Iraq have had “some notable successes” in recent months, but the situation remains “exceedingly complex and very tough,” the senior U.S. commander in Iraq told Pentagon reporters April 26.

Army General David Petraeus also said that in early September the United States will conduct a full assessment of the Iraq mission’s progress and then will make recommendations as a result of that assessment"

Can someone give us a credible cite that unequivocally states that the General was supposed to write the report himself? I can't find one.

2. As for Condi, it's been fact for over a year that she has absolutely no interest in running for President or Vice President. She's mentioned going back to academia, but also stated that her "dream" job would to become Commissioner of the National Football League.

I have to say…I’m really intrigued by this possibility. Being an optimist, I would tend to believe that if the speculation is true, then our efforts must be ahead of schedule. There has been indication that the surge is working well and this has come from a few sources that had been highly critical of the war. Other sources that have been supportive of the war say that the surge is working very well.

I can’t help but wonder how this story ties in with the other post on CQ concerning the reclassification of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a special form of terrorist organization. I understand that both stories are at this point speculative, but a question that went through my mind was what would be done with the troops if they were “pulled back” and left in Iraq.

It seems as though the Iraqi Police/ Military is starting to get their feet under them and fight on their own a bit. This frees up American Soldiers who are the most effective in the world – battle hardened storm troopers basically with the best of all forms of equipment. What will they then do? Play cards? I doubt that.

As for this:

""Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government."

I’m not in the least surprised by this – it seems quite normal to me and not at all offensive. My thought is that many within Congress have already indicated through their statements that they are going to treat the witness (Petraeus) as hostile. This is a very unpleasant feeling for anyone who is not an attorney. If I were Petraeous, I would want a wordsmith, or a few hundred wordsmiths helping me because the least little mis-step is going to be seized upon and used to discredit him (by some members of Congress.) These are people who debate the meaning of every word, which is their job, but sometimes they go a bit overboard. And to Petraeous and also the Administration, this is too important to make a mistake. The fact that they want the statements to come from input throughout government is an indication that they want every “I” dotted and every “T” crossed.

But, at the end of the day, it’s all just speculation at this point.

Nobody can revise history like a "progressive."

Colin Powell--by his own admission--was personally briefed by the CIA on Saddam's WMD program. He emphasized this point several times, in order to defend against accusations that he was a dupe.

When your position is so tenuous that you have to lie about it, that's a sign that the facts aren't on your side.

Nobody duped Powell. Like Hillary Clinton he was extensively briefed by his own experts before he made his decision.

And what would it say about Powell and Clinton's own intellectual prowess if they were fooled by America's first retarded president?

Bush, the moron who can't do anything right and who fools the smartest men and women in the world on a regular basis.

"Vote for me! I'm so stupid I was taken in by George W. Bush!"

Sounds like a winning slogan.

This may sound silly on its face, but seems to me the US military could benefit by buying billboard space and on-air advertising saying something like, "Help the Americans Leave Sooner...Report Insurgent and Al Queda Activity Today." Let's face it, marketing works and we need to make clear to the average Iraqi that we want to be out of Iraq even more than they want us out.
Posted by: mattb at August 15, 2007 12:13 PM

Matt, I don’t think that sounds in any way silly at all. I think it is exactly what needs to be done. The war has been won – it was won 4+ years ago. We just need to figure out how to win the peace. Gen. Petraeus seems to have made a couple of very small changes to the way that the US has been conducting themselves. He didn’t go out and have the Pentagon invent a brown noise bomb or anything like that (South Park.)

http://www.southparkstudios.com/show/display_episode.php?season=3&id1=317&id2=48

One of the changes is that they (the American Soldiers) seem to be very active in befriending individual Iraqis. More so than I had seen in the past. No reason at all that advertising could not be employed to improve that effort.

It's not surprising that the White House will be making a report to Congress in September. That is a requirement in the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq that was approved by Congress prior to the Iraq war back in 2002.

" SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998)."

BTW, the LA Times states that Petraeus will report to Bush, not to Congress.

"Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the overall commander in Iraq, is expected to present Bush with several options in a key September report, along with an analysis of where each path might lead."
Link

Del Dolemonte said:
"Can someone give us a credible cite that unequivocally states that the General was supposed to write the report himself? I can't find one."

Try here.

A liberal blog, but nonetheless they are accurate. This was my whole point from the start. This has been sold as "The Petraeus Report" for months - only now it seems it ain't so.

Let's face it, President Bush is a politician. It is to his political advantage that this September report be positive. The White House is going to produce this report. It doesn't take a Republican to figure out that there will be some political influence here. Petraeus is a good soldier and knows who his commander-in-chief is. Pleasing his boss versus pleasing his conscience is going to be a Hobson's choice. I agree with Eric's sentiment above - the wordsmithing on this report will be a wonder to behold.

From what I can see, an honest report would be that the surge is making military progress and hitting most of its military objectives, but that progress is being wasted and may prove ultimately futile due to the ongoing (and increasing) political chaos. "Victory" (in terms of leaving behind a secure and stable Iraq) seems like a long, long way off yet.

"Petraeus has the option, if it were required by his sense of honor, to resign."

Why on earth would he resign his commission? If President Bush is not happy with Petraeus's performance, he would be reassigned to another command. If Petraeus himself was unhappy with his position, he himself could request reassignment. That happens all the time in the military.

The only time Petraeus would even think of resigning his commission is if he were violating the UCMJ and he was going to face investigation. Since he hasn't don't anything wrong, I highly doubt he would resign.

Looks like they'll be redeployed to Iran, now that their Revolutionary National Guard Corps has been declared an international terrorist organization. I don't think these guys actually do care about finishing anything they start, as is the case with al Qaida and the Taliban.

Condoleezza "Smoking Gun = Mushroom Cloud" Rice, the welcome mat crossroads for Dick and Donald to wipe their feet on when telling the President what they're going to do. Very well respected. Her Middle East initiatives have all . . . disappeared. Does anyone even know where she is right now without having to look it up? Has she said or done anything in two years besides defend her erroneous statements as NSA?

The reason we might have an inkling what General Petraeus might say in September is that he's been telling the press what he'll say. The reason we might believe that his report is being written by the White House is that the administration leakers leak what their authorized to leak, while the tough press corps asks the tough questions like whether the President is riding his bike today or clearing brush (damn that brush, in six years, it's like the Taliban, it just keeps coming back).

Now we've got to kick all those Farsi speaking homosexuals out of the military and intelligence service, having purged the gay Arabic speakers.

skeptical

Why are you so mad? Why not just get in your BMW and drive to whatever country you decide is capable of doing it better than us, and leave your sour comments concerning the principles of our government and the soldiers that protect us....

Never mind. It just isn't worth my effort.

I'll just say that I don't agree at all.

Skeptical said:
Now we've got to kick all those Farsi speaking homosexuals out of the military and intelligence service, having purged the gay Arabic speakers.

Eric said:
Seriously, who says things like this? This is one of the nuttiest things I've ever heard. I can't even figure out who it is you're hating. Is it the Farsi speaking interpreters? Is it Gays? Or is it Arabs? Or all three?

Those people who you are speaking of may very well have provided our government with information that may have prevented terrorist attacks in this country. They may have saved American lives. Why don't you be quiet. You don't speak for anybody in this country.

Ray said:

"BTW, the LA Times states that Petraeus will report to Bush, not to Congress."

Sorry to say, I am extremely wary of anything the LA Times "reports", given their past leftist anti-Iraq war agenda.

Have any other news organizations reported the same thing in the same words?

Oh, and carol h, I think Condi isn't spoken of as a presidential candidate much anymore because she's made it as clear as she can that she DOESN'T WANT THE JOB

No, I think Carol H got it right, no one associated with this "president" has a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected to any position ... even dog catcher in a GOP district ... and as far as the "she doesn't want the job" excuse, it hasn't stopped the media from hounding Al Gore who has repeated the same line.

Monkei,

I noticed that Al Gore has yet to announce his candidacy for President. I guess his reputation has been sullied by his past association with Clinton. After all, Gore LOST his bid for the presidency once already. I don't think he's willing to face yet another loss. Like most liberals, his ego wouldn't be able to handle another rejection.

"No, I think Carol H got it right, no one associated with this "president" has a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected to any position"

I think both you and Carol are wrong and I think the GOP will make a big comeback in the next election. We'll have to wait and see who is correct.