Casey At Bat

As much as it pains me, I have to correct my left-ward brothers at ThinkProgress from time to time. They move so quickly against the military leaders when the speeches are made, and I understand why. The war's not popular, and it's instinctual to speak up against it. However, I think they have taken General George Casey out of context.

At an event this afternoon at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Gen. George Casey — the former top commander in Iraq and now the Army chief of staff — declared that Iraq will be a remarkable country “in a decade or so” if we maintain the U.S. occupation.

A questioner asked, “What are the prospects in Iraq and how will this war end?” Casey responded:

Right now, there’s so much residual mistrust left over from the time under Saddam Hussein that they’re not quite ready to go forward. But they have an educated population, they have oil wells, they have water, they have some of the most fertile land I’ve ever seen. In a decade or so, this will be a remarkable country, if we stick with it.

ThinkProgress points out that the military can't sustain "an occupation at or near the current troop levels." And that's correct. However, the general didn't say anything about sustaining the current troop levels in Iraq for 10 years (and neither did his Vice Chief of Staff). What the general meant to say - and many Dem politicians agree - is that we're going to need to maintain a presence in the Middle East and intervene in Iraq if the Syrians and Iranians get frisky or to tamp down the civil war at particularly nasty times.

In another misinterpretation, the leftwingers are outraged that the White House is going to be writing the Iraq status report in September.

The Los Angeles Times reports that Gen. David Petraeus’ upcoming Sept. 15 report on Iraq will be authored by the White House:

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.

And though Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report’s data.

In other words, the Sept. 15 report promises to be much like the July mid-term report which purported to show “satisfactory performance on 8 of the 18 benchmarks.” A closer look into those claims revealed that the progress was purely White House spin. Yet, the report accomplished its primary objective of producing media reports which suggested that the overall picture in Iraq was “mixed.”

Well, of course. As much as President Bush has claimed that he makes decisions based on the advice of his military commanders, war is - and will remain - a political affair. So why would you not expect the White House to prepare and release the status of military operations in Iraq? It is a political issue. And honestly, do you really expect an unbiased report? Grow up. Take a deep breath. Unless the Democratic leaders decide to get tough, as is their authority, our troops are going to be there until 2009.

Comments

[NVH]

Dems don't have the stomach in an election year, and the false promises of pull outs or whatever by candidates would just delay past 2009 anyway. As for the 8 of 18, I read Think Progresses assessment and there's as much spin and bias on there part, if not more, as there is in the WH part. Of course it's biased towards the positive, but any thinking person can read between the lines on the WH report and find, one 8 of 18 is bad odds so far, and two the benchmarks are inch worming at best, not great strides in progress. To that end, it was said progress would be slow and it will take time, by Petraeus, no less, so like I've always said, I'll see you after thanksgiving on the progress, but Sept's report will be telling. Now all that said, there are no thinking people being exposed to one the WH report on progress or Think"defeats" analysis of the report, so I guess there J., you might have a point, keeping the masses dumb shouldn't be the point, but you can bring a horse to water...etc. etc etc..

[Pete]

So why would you not expect the White House to prepare and release the status of military operations in Iraq?

Because of the spin from the White House that the surge is all General Petraeus's idea. The White House should fully acknowledge that the Iraq military operations is a political affair that they tightly control (and should be held responsible for too). Instead of doing that, the White House continues to hide behind Petraeus. But when it comes time for the report they are the ones writing the "Petraeus report".

You can't have it both ways.

[Virginia Veteran]

"war is - and will remain - a political affair"

Well put!

[lester]

Frankly, I think the dems are too STUPID to know what to do. i mean, we arguing about blowback and sistani vs al sadr ist shias, while they are naming post offices in congress. they don't know WHY we should leave iraq. anything 9/11 and this war did to clarify the limits of our ability to influence things in the middle east has been totally lost on them and the republicans. and they are terrified of cutting spending