Advisers To Bush: Stay The Course
The commander of the military forces in Iraq and the man in charge of American diplomacy in Baghdad have urged him to continue on the present course. The AP reports that both General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker see real progress as a result of the strategic and tactical changes and want to build on their successes:
President Bush's senior advisers on Iraq have recommended he stand by his current war strategy, and he is unlikely to order more than a symbolic cut in troops before the end of the year, administration officials told The Associated Press Tuesday.The recommendations from the military commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker come despite independent government findings Tuesday that Baghdad has not met most of the political, military and economic markers set by Congress.
Bush appears set on maintaining the central elements of the policy he announced in January, one senior administration official said after discussions with participants in Bush's briefings during his surprise visit to an air base in Iraq on Monday.
Although the addition of 30,000 troops and the focus on increasing security in Baghdad would not be permanent, Bush is inclined to give it more time in hopes of extending military gains in Baghdad and the formerly restive Anbar province, officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity to describe decisions coming as part of the White House report on Iraq due to Congress next week.
This matches with expectations, and certainly with the reports given by Petraeus to the Australians a few days ago. Both men have argued for more time in the past, and with the number of combat deaths dropping through more aggressive engagement, the advice is as expected.
It may still leave room for small, symbolic drawdowns as requested by John Warner and hinted at by Bush himself, although that may still take more time to determine. Norm Coleman agreed with Warner on the need to send a message to the Iraqis about patience running thin in Congress. Bush has to hope that the National Assembly, which just reconvened after its August recess, will act quickly on the reform package agreement reached by Nouri al-Maliki and the heads of other political factions in Iraq ten days ago.
It sets up an interesting month in Congress, starting next week. After the Petraeus testimony, we will see how many Republicans will hold fast to the present course. While Harry Reid has lost momentum for a withdrawal date, it seems the price of GOP support for the White House will be a Christmas return for a percentage of the surge troops.
UPDATE: If you want Congress to stay the course, you can use this petition to send the message:
Comments (24)
Posted by Emerson Twain | September 4, 2007 6:16 PM
No matter what Petraeus and Crocker argue for, they will not get more time in the past.
Posted by Fight4TheRight | September 4, 2007 6:23 PM
Cap'n Ed,
Thank you for putting the petition up for all to sign and send up to Congress.
One day, America's stance in this War will be heralded for what it truly has been: Someone, at least one country, that was willing to draw a line in the sand and say to terrorism, "It Stops Here."
I hope everyone takes a quick moment to sign this petition to help ensure the World's freedom from the siege.
Posted by docjim505 | September 4, 2007 7:03 PM
Can I try to save some time and bandwidth by posting a generic liberal comment?
We can't win.
The surge is a failure.
The Iraqi government is a sham.
Bush is a liar.
Bush is an idiot.
We're losing.
We're making ourselves less safe.
The surge won't work.
If Petraeus says the situation is improving, he's
a liar.
Senator (Warner, Lugar, Brownback, Hagel) says that the surge isn't working.
We should be fighting in Afghanistan.
Republicans will be crushed in the '08 elections because of this.
Halliburton!
Blah-blah-blah.
Did I miss anything?
Posted by Del Dolemonte | September 4, 2007 7:09 PM
docjim505 says:
"Did I miss anything?"
Here's Fearless Filistro, from just a few days ago:
"The "Surge" will be declared a success and the war will continue without troop drawdown.
American soldiers will continue to die at the rate of 3 or 4 a day.
The country will continue to bleed cash by the billions.
The Iraqi "government" will fall before Christmas and anarchy will ensue.
The American public will be appalled by what they see on their television screens next winter and spring, and it will all be firmly and forever connected in their minds with the Republican party who kept clamoring for this war to continue.
This will all happen in an election year which means the Democrats will take the White House and hold supermajorities in both the Senate and the House, and they will be able to do whatever they please with the country (and the Supreme Court) for years to come."
Posted by Eric | September 4, 2007 7:42 PM
The petition is a nice touch, Captain, and thanks for posting it. I’ve signed it and sent it on to five others who I feel will want to sign it as well. Truth is, we don’t govern this way, but it certainly doesn’t hurt for the folks in congress to know that there are people who will want them to support the effort that is being made (with apparent success recently.)
Can you imagine seeing Bush in Anabar Province 6 months ago? I think not. At that time, we were thinking that we would have to leave Anabar as uncontrollable. Seems like they have made it safe enough for our President to visit. That’s a very powerful message not only to Americans, but also to al-Qaeda, and Iran. Basically, we’re saying, “there is no place on earth that we can not control if we so wish to.” Essentially, I’m guessing that if we really wanted to, we could even occupy Moscow with our American forces (but that’s just to illustrate a point. I bet we could.)
Fight4theright says it so well:
Thank you for putting the petition up for all to sign and send up to Congress.
One day, America's stance in this War will be heralded for what it truly has been: Someone, at least one country, that was willing to draw a line in the sand and say to terrorism, "It Stops Here."
So I say:
Let’s continue to bleed Billions so that we don’t have to bleed Trillions like Sept 12, 2001.
Let’s continue for American soldiers to die at the rate of 3 or 4 a day so that American citizens will not die by tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands.
It sounds terrible, but it’s the option that we have been given. We don’t necessarily get to make the rules – sometimes we just react. Nobody loves peace more than an American and nobody is willing to fight as hard as an American to achieve peace. Sounds like an oxy-moron, but it’s all they allow for us to do and we are simply reacting to them.
Posted by Emerson Twain | September 4, 2007 7:42 PM
Beyond all of the left-way hoo-ha I hear that everyone is subjected to by the democrat politians and funders who matter, has anyone ever heard articulated from the left any cogent reason for preferring defeat to victory other than that the dollars should be spent on "programs" and "police-actions" instead? I have yet to hear it. I have heard affirmative reasons for victory from McCain, Guilliani and Romney, but when have they ever taken on the vacuous left for their vacuous set of insipid "stop the war" slogans they keep on trumpeting?
Posted by MarkJ | September 4, 2007 7:52 PM
My proposed slogan for anti-surge Democrats:
"Let's withdraw our troops from dangerous Iraq...so they can die instead in pointless, avoidable, alcohol-related auto accidents here at home."
Posted by Carol Herman | September 4, 2007 7:59 PM
Well, their records showed that I already signed the petition. Though, not through your site, Captain.
As to Bush "staying the course," he' captaining his ship quite well. And, ALL the disturbances are brought to you through the world that decided to ignore its BDS.
But this summer really blew up on those idiots. From Beauchamp's attempts at TNR. Even to Brian DePalma's fantasy fiction; it's not going beyond the borders of those already wanting to see America defeated.
While in the theater? I think congress critters are smelling what appears to them to be a massive movement to take their seats, and toss them all into the Patomac.
This gives those congress critters "gas."
As to the Legacy Media, who haven't been right, yet; there are the various poses, being tried out in front of mirrors. Some candidates bringing their own smoke. Hardly likely to convince America's mainstream, to cut and to run.
Will the Bonkeys claim credit? Well, ya know what? I could care less for what they're gonna claim. Reminds me, too, of the Bonkey 2004 Convention. When Kerry saluted. And, the comedy began.
Oh, yeah. They had to cage their protesters in Boston! A friendly town.
I wonder if those caged "moments" won't become TV history again? You mean, all the films have been buried?
There's something about the Legacy Media, drowning in the new environment. ANd, I hope the current is swift enough they don't even get 3 attempts to bobble to the top.
Can't wait for Fred Thompson to lead the way of reaching people who can read. Our Founding Fathers actually wanted that. They wanted intelligent voters. And, for the most part, that's the way it's been. Sure. We had a Civil War. At the end of which Jefferson Davis ran out of Richmond, Virginia in a dress. Oh. And, Lee surrendered.
WHo can surrender for the losers, now? It seems their stuck with Hillary as their leader. But I think she'll do as someone who gets to "surrender." Way before she finds lots of new troops.
Ditto, for the MSM. Ya know why? It's brutal when you have business overhead; and the customers leave your crap up on the shelves. Un-bought.
Of course, that's all gonna happen ahead. And, I don't know outcomes.
But I do see lots of us gathered round, watching. Did anyone make the popcorn?
Posted by Eric | September 4, 2007 8:03 PM
This is off topic, but I would like to bring it up anyway. Currently, it seems to me that a lot of politicians that have been previously opposed to the war (mostly – well all from my party, the Democrats) are trying to find a graceful way to say that they have changed their minds and that they now support the renewed and improved war effort.
I think that we need to just allow them to come over to the right side of the argument without a lot of fuss. I don’t think we will improve the situation by telling them that they were wrong. It takes a high level of character to admit that you were previously wrong. It takes as much or more character to refrain from saying, “we told you so.” As the tide of opinion changes, let’s not put people on the defensive.
Another example is the Nation of France, which has, through Democratic elections, changed to a conservative, pro-American, and seemingly pro-GWOT position. I know that it has been a lot of fun to ridicule the French, but the simple truth is this:
We are America because of France. France is our oldest friend in the world. They were our first ally. I think that the time has come for our President to go to France and tell them that we are thankful for their new support – even if it’s not universal – it is official. It’s time for President Bush to take that beautiful blue 747 to Paris, step out of that plane and tell the French that they are our oldest friend in the world. It’s time for Bush to tell the French that we are doing for Iraq what France did for us over 200 years ago. The French stayed with us for decades helping to ward off the English. We will be in Iraq for about the same time frame.
Posted by Tom W. | September 4, 2007 8:37 PM
Even if the GOP suffers the catastrophic defeat at the polls that some "progressive" gasbags predict, is that any reason to surrender in Iraq?
Iran has said it will invade Iraq after we leave.
The Saudis have said that they will then invade Iraq to save the Sunnis.
The Kurds will declare independence, which will lead to a Turkish invasion.
While all this carnage is going on, Iran will lob missiles at Israel, which may just decide it's time to respond with its nuclear arsenal.
And no matter what happens, all the Sunni Arab nations will acquire nukes to offset Iran's weapons, leading to a nuclear arms race in the most unstable region on the planet.
Clearly the U.S. must finish the mission in Iraq, even if it means the American public throws a tantrum and elects Hillary.
Which it won't. All the "progressive" geniuses claimed that no matter what happened, public opinion would never swing back to supporting the war in Iraq, and yet that's exactly what's happening.
People aren't as stupid as "progressives" think.
Posted by Eric | September 4, 2007 9:06 PM
Tom W. says:
...Clearly the U.S. must finish the mission in Iraq, even if it means the American public throws a tantrum and elects Hillary.
Which it won't. All the "progressive" geniuses claimed that no matter what happened, public opinion would never swing back to supporting the war in Iraq, and yet that's exactly what's happening.
People aren't as stupid as "progressives" think.
Eric says:
Amen brother, amen. If we do elect Hillary, it will be because she comes out in favor of victory (which she will, and has already started to do.)
Posted by dhunter | September 4, 2007 9:34 PM
Hitlery was actually for the war/surge before she was against and if she percieves the prevailing wind to be victory she will be for it again. She and 19 year old Monicas' boyfriend were for the invasion even when the bent one was in the W.H., but he was too busy over throwing Christians in Bosnia and lobbing million dollar missles at aspirin factories and camels.
She's not a leader and neither was Monicas' boyfriend, they just say whatever they think you want to hear to feather their own nest.
Some are too young and many public school uneducated are too dumb to get it, but as Carol says a new day has dawned and the old media is going kicking and screaming into irrelavance, and the new media is on the rise, it just takes a leader to use it to go over the heads of the old irrelavant traitors.
Posted by Rovin | September 4, 2007 10:03 PM
When the head of the GAO is a Bill Clinton appointee into 9 yrs of an 11 year tenure, the credibility of the testimony gets mighty weak.
This nation sees signs of real progress that could change the course of history and the democrats are so vested in failure they would sell their mother's souls for pieces of silver.
And they still haven't figured how they're headed for single digits.
GW should call both the Senate and the House into a joint session and lay all the cards on the table.......put them frickkin cowards on the record for defeat and abandonment. Kiss the lives of millions away just as they did in Vietnam and they will confirm that history does indeed repeat itself.
Sign the petition please!
Posted by MarkT | September 4, 2007 11:43 PM
> Can you imagine seeing Bush in Anabar Province
> 6 months ago? I think not.
I don't really think he was in the 'real' Anbar this time either. From Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post:
"Bush visited Al-Asad Air Base -- an enormous, heavily fortified American outpost for 10,000 troops that while technically in Anbar Province in fact has a 13-mile perimeter keeping Iraq -- and Iraqis -- at bay. Bush never left the confines of the base...."
Posted by ck | September 5, 2007 12:03 AM
Yeah, isn't weird that people directly tied to this administration think everything is going along quite well...
While almost ALL of the independent reports cite a completely different scenario - chaos...
But I bet you guys heard on talk radio that the GAO is actually a liberal front group... right?
Posted by Carol Herman | September 5, 2007 1:00 AM
"When Hillary gets elected," so far is only happening in the universe of people with BDS.
In other words? You know there's been this illness. It's been out there since 2000. Instead of abating; it seems to have made ALL the news you hear from the lamestream, "just a little off."
How far off, I do not know.
Since none of us have periscopes we can use to peer into the future.
But isn't it possibe, until we found out with election results in 2004, that Kerry was actually more "electable" that Hillary would be?
You keep seeing her coasting to the finish line, crowned.
I keep seeing her as the current contendah for the Howie Dean award. Where there is a segment of supporters out there; who want their candidate to run just about more than they want anything else.
Do you think Howie Dean had a better shot at winning against Bush in 2004?
Reasonable people, when they're looking at a used car, are told to "kick the tires." Well, here, there's a gas-bag leak. The information smells to the high heavens. But you can't kick a lady, to test if this model works.
Oh. And, you also remember pelosi's driving skills, as soon as she grabbed the keys to the majority seat, don't cha?
Who's making the popcorn?
I think Hillary has a better chance to get into bed with her husband, Bill, for intercourse; before she makes it into the White House. Oh. Don't hold your breath. Bill never takes his pants off in front of her. He could care less.
Posted by jim braiden | September 5, 2007 2:54 AM
I don't live in the US which means I can't add my signature but I would like to add my support.
Posted by docjim505 | September 5, 2007 6:29 AM
Eric wrote ( September 4, 2007 8:03 PM):
... it seems to me that a lot of politicians that have been previously opposed to the war (mostly – well all from my party, the Democrats) are trying to find a graceful way to say that they have changed their minds and that they now support the renewed and improved war effort.
I think that we need to just allow them to come over to the right side of the argument without a lot of fuss. I don’t think we will improve the situation by telling them that they were wrong. It takes a high level of character to admit that you were previously wrong.
Um, didn't I just see Dingy Harry announcing - again - that we're losing in Iraq? I think I also saw Jon Kary say the same thing. Oh, and Bob Casey (I'm waiting for Warner or Hagel to also chime in so that surrender can be a bipartsian option). Who ARE these dems who have apparently changed their minds and "support the renewed and improved war effort"?
I also must say that, if they DO exist, I'm not inclined to let them off the hook so easily. They've spent the past few years routinely bashing the president, the war, and the troops. They crowed over their '06 electoral victory and rub their hands with glee at the thought of winning big in '08 because we're "losing" in Iraq. Just a couple of months ago, they held up funding in a failed attempt to set a timetable for surrender (I imagine that the terrorists were rooting for them almost as much as the moveon.org crowd). Now that things are looking up a little, they're changing their tune. If things get worse (as they may well do), I'm sure they'll be back to sounding like Lord Haw Haw v2.0.
I'm not in much of a mood to give a warm, hearty welcome to quislings who've decided in the 11th hour to "repent" for political reasons.
Posted by David M | September 5, 2007 10:16 AM
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 09/05/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
Posted by Lightwave | September 5, 2007 10:23 AM
Not to put too fine a point on it, but does the opinion of Congress really matter anymore?
Unless Congress is going to defund the war (which would put the Democrats in negative approval ratings) then whatever they have to say is nothing more that "advice and consent" to the Commander-In-Chief. The AUMF basically put the ball in the President's court and kept it there.
It would be nice to have the GOP stand behind the President, and you'll see a growing number of Democrats doing so over the next couple months too. But really this has been out of Congress's hands for years now.
A symbolic troop cut works both ways, depending on how the symbol is interpreted. I don't think that's such a good idea.
Posted by Eric | September 5, 2007 3:48 PM
docjim505 said:
didn't I just see Dingy Harry announcing - again - that we're losing in Iraq? I think I also saw Jon Kary say the same thing. Oh, and Bob Casey (I'm waiting for Warner or Hagel to also chime in so that surrender can be a bipartsian option). Who ARE these dems who have apparently changed their minds and "support the renewed and improved war effort"?
Eric says:
Yeah. Quite a few of them are still being jerks -- it's true. As for those that have changed their position, five come to mind and are as follows:
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/05/video-why-does-moveon-want-the-surge-to-fail/
Now, these are the first five with many more to follow and now they find themselves without a party. Remember, the friend of my friend is my friend. Doc -- I understand your anger, but it's better not to allow undue pressure from our side of the argument by critisizing people who want to change their position and offer support. We've been trying to change opinion for quite some time now and it would not be wise to ridicule the people who have decided to believe what we have been saying all along.
Posted by docjim505 | September 5, 2007 4:54 PM
Eric,
You've got a point. Personally, I'd like to see some of these dems tell their odious leadership to shaddup and give the surge a chance. But, as we've seen all too clearly, the dems declared it a failure before the first additional US soldier set foot in Iraq.
With friends like these, who needs enemies?
Posted by ck | September 5, 2007 9:58 PM
docjim505 - give the surge a chance? 4 years and all this administration has shown is that it knows how to create chaos and pump billions into private interests. How much longer do we give it a chance? Where's the tipping point? Why in the world would anyone put their trust in this administration after they showed they can't be trusted?
Posted by Daniel Polwarth | September 6, 2007 11:04 AM
I guess as a Brit, I don't really get a say in whether America should stay or go. When American soldiers are dying and fighting, I feel I should stay out of it.
Let me say I support the excellent work your guys are doing in Iraq. They are doing a superb job in difficult circumstances, and the loss of life pains me.
Keep up the good work - and send a jihadi to Allah with my regards!