More M$M Man-crushery...

...It isn't just for McCain any more.

The cocktail-weenie waggers of the M$M can not drop to their knees in front of the Man-God Petraeus, he of the rank of General, fast enough. They make certain committee republicans look downright slow on the ass-kissing uptake; and Sessions flat-out embarrassed himself yesterday with that humiliating display of blind fealty and googly-eyes. I half expected him to pass a heart-shaped note to the witness table.

Yesterday as Dave of the Four Stars took up his turd-polishing position in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he faced some tough questions by Republican as well as Democratic Senators. Chuck Hagel, John Warner, Susan Collins, Bob Corker, Richard Lugar and George Voinovich - republicans all - all had harsh words for the General; but to hear the M$M tell it, the poor defenseless fellow was set upon by a pack of mad-dog Democrats, snapping and snarling and rabidly unreasonable.

The front page of the LA Times sported the headline Petraeus, Democrats square off. (emphasis mine). The tone of the piece downright dripped dismissive contempt of congressional concerns and oversight.

As expected, back-to-back Senate committee hearings spotlighting Army Gen. David H. Petraeus became a confrontation between two immovable forces. But there was no real decision at stake: President Bush is expected Thursday to endorse Petraeus' recommendation for a suspension of withdrawals in July, insisting that security gains over the last 15 months can lead toward a sustainable future, with continued U.S. help. (emphasis mine)

Speaking for hour after hour in his professorial monotone, Petraeus pressed that case, colliding repeatedly with an entrenched view among Democrats that Iraq's time to become more self-sufficient had arrived, and that troop withdrawals could help bring it about.

Really, those unctuous, impertinent congresspeople should check their station and thank their lucky stars he even deigned to present himself before them, since what they think doesn't matter anyway; he and the president will do any deciding that needs to be done, and Congress can go hang.

Campbell Brown on CNN painted opposition as a purely Democratic phenomenon: "The general's plan would leave about 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq for an undetermined period of time, news that didn't sit well with Democrats, who pressed Petraeus about how long it could be before there are more withdraws." (emphasis mine)

Robert Burns, writing for the AP: WASHINGTON – The top U.S. commander in Iraq told Congress Tuesday that hard-won gains in the war zone are too fragile to promise any troop pullouts beyond this summer, holding his ground against impatient Democrats and refusing to commit to more withdrawals before President Bush leaves office in January. (emphasis mine)

The New York Times: The commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, refused under persistent questioning from Senate Democrats to say under what conditions he would favor new troop reductions, adding that he would not take the matter up until 45 days after a current drawdown is complete in July. His recommendation would leave just under 140,000 American troops in Iraq well into the fall. (emphasis mine)

But the prize goes to the Chicago Tribune for hitting a two-run homer with "Gen. Petraeus answers his next boss." The article actually starts with Petraeus in front of the Senate facing questions from committees that include the three Senators vying for the presidency, but the piece barely mentions Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, then quickly segues into a puff-piece on McCain and his goals for Iraq!

Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable. They aren't even trying to pretend they aren't biased any more. Never mind that the American people in general, not just Democrats, are sick of this war and want to find a way out, and not take a hundred years to do it?


(h/t Think Progress)

UPDATE I - Blue Girl @ 4:20 p.m.

MoveOn.org has answered the question "How do you spend a hundred years in Iraq?"

Quagmire

Laying the PR groundwork for his upcoming congressional testimony on the status of Iraq, the Man-God Petraeus, he of the rank of General, is the subject of a Washington Post article today. In it, he seems to be dialing back expectations, lowering the bar, stepping off from the desperate insistence displayed by some that the "Surge™ worked spectacularly!" He seems almost reality-based, saying that "no one" in the U.S. and Iraqi governments "feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation," nor has the Iraqi government successfully restored delivery of basic public services.

While violence has declined dramatically since late 2006, when thousands of Iraqis were being killed each month, U.S. military data show that attacks on U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians have leveled off or risen slightly in the early part of 2008. "I don't see an enormous uptick projected right now," Petraeus said, speaking in his windowless office in the U.S. Embassy, which is housed in Saddam Hussein's former Republican Palace. "What you have seen is some sensational attacks, there's no question about that."

Petraeus said several factors may account for the recent violence, including increased U.S. and Iraqi operations against insurgents in the northern city of Mosul -- which has lately become one of Iraq's most dangerous -- and insurgent efforts to reestablish some of their havens in Baghdad. And Petraeus said U.S. commanders could not discount the possibility that insurgents "know the April testimony is coming up."

The additional forces sent to Iraq last year have begun to depart and will be gone by midsummer, leaving in place a baseline U.S. presence of about 130,000 troops. Petraeus said it would increasingly fall to Iraqi security forces and neighborhood patrols funded by the United States to help keep violence down.

Petraeus also said the United States would temporarily freeze further reductions in its troop presence to allow for a "period of consolidation and evaluation after reducing our ground combat forces by over a quarter." He said he would discuss the length and timing of what the military terms an "operational pause" during his testimony. (emphasis added)

Petraeus credited both the mainly Sunni neighborhood patrols known as the Awakening and a cease-fire called by Shiite cleric and militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr with helping to bring down violence. The Awakening fighters include former insurgents who say they have turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq, a largely homegrown Sunni group that Petraeus said is in communication with al-Qaeda leaders abroad. The United States is now paying 88,000 members of the Awakening $300 a month to take part in the neighborhood patrols.

Sadr issued his cease-fire in August 2007 and renewed it last month in an attempt to increase his control over his Mahdi Army militia and expel renegade fighters. U.S. military commanders who once saw Sadr and his forces as enemies now speak deferentially of the cleric, who has maintained his insistence that the U.S. occupation must end.

Of course, the Sunni Awakening Council members have been standing down and yesterday a contingent of the Mahdi Army shelled the piss out of the U.S. base at Kut. Baghdad is a pressure cooker with the lid held on by the American troop presence, and Basra is a potboiler. The last of the Surge™ brigades will leave this summer, and the situation will probably finish reverting to the one we saw in 2006 - the only thing that will have been accomplished will be that the can was successfully kicked down the road to the next president. Five will get you ten that aWol isn't the only one who leaves his office in January. I would bet cash money that Petraeus already has his retirement papers are already filled out.

Somebody Shut Michael O'HANLON The Hell Up (Part 3,524)

Really, this guy just gets worse and worse by the fucking day.

Michael O'Hanlon comments on the departure of Admiral William Fallon from US Central Command:

"I can't clearly see what the reason would be for why he resigned," said O'Hanlon who is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington.

"Obviously, he said a couple of things that maybe were a little off-key from what the administration was otherwise saying -- the implication that we shouldn't be threatening for against Iran, for example," AFP quoted him as saying.

O'Hanlon claimed that the reason the 63-year-old resigned may have been that he simply 'lost heart' out of sheer exhaustion.

"Although Fallon oversees the Middle East region, the success that General Petraeus has had in Iraq may overshadow his ability to be effective in the job," explained the military expert.

You can't see why? The MAN WAS FIRED, you ignorant jackass. O'Hanlon gets paid to think for a living and he can't recognize when a man gets fired? Jeebus.

So it's not okay to say "General Betray-us" but it's totally kosher to say that a man who's served his country for 42 years, served in three 4-star billets, and performed 1,300 carrier arrested landings in an aircraft is somehow a coward who has lost heart? You know, Fallon saw combat in Vietnam. He was skillful enough NOT to get shot down and captured. Doesn't that make him MORE qualified to be President than McCain? I mean, if we're going to start going after people, why not go there?

What the FUCK? How is this even permitted? How is it that O'Hanlon isn't being laughed out of the building every time he utters something this ridiculous?

When someone loses their heart to carry on in the military, they drop their retirement papers and leave. It ain't hard. Once you roll over the point where you're permitted to retire, you work til it's time. Granted, Fallon was an older guy--but does he look like someone who's bloated, out of shape and tired? I guarantee you--the guy in the picture above probably runs his office on full tilt and probably runs his staff ragged because he, himself runs himself ragged. That's what a goddamned Admiral does, and you don't get to hold three 4-star billets by being a golf-playing layabout who takes a lot of unscheduled four day weekends.

Unbelieveable. Wingnuts and neocons just spew shit and the media laps it up. Of course it's okay to go after Fallon--he stood in the way of their next chance at glory, a war with Iran.

The second Petraeus says something to derail war with Iran, and don't hold your breath that he will suddenly discover his conscience, he will suddenly be "tired and worn out" just like Admiral Fallon.

UPDATE I - PALE RIDER

I was mad when I wrote this--title said "O'Fallon" when it should have said O'Hanlon.

My Bad! Thanks to ckelly

Iraq appeals to Iran for help defusing the Kurdish crisis

As tensions ratchet up between Turkey and Iraq over PKK terrorists who find safe haven in Iraq from which to stage cross-border raids and kill Turkish soldiers, and the United States stands by helplessly, unable to even comprehend the scope of the clusterfuck created by the hubris of George Bush, Iraq is reaching out to Iran for help.

That's gonna go over like a pregnant pole vaulter.

On Wednesday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki met with Iranian foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki and asked him to help present Iraq's positions at a regional summit meeting in Istanbul scheduled for Thursday. “The prime minister asked the Islamic Republic to present their full support to Iraq during the Istanbul meeting and also to participate in solving the border crisis between Turkey and the P.K.K.,” a statement from Mr. Maliki’s office said. The summit will be attended by representatives from countries in the region, including Syria, Iran, Iraq andTurkey. The United States will be represented by Condoleeza Rice, and U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, and a number of other foreign ministers are also expected to attend.

P.K.K. terrorists have killed over 35,000 Turks since launching their most recent separatist terror campaign in the 80's. For perspective, consider that in 2 decades, the P.K.K. has killed ten times the number of Turks that America lost on September 11.

Turkey, tired of the terrorists who attack them finding safe haven in Iraq, hiding beneath the petticoats of Turkey's NATO ally the United States in the Kurdish north of Iraq, has massed troops on the border and announced that they will pursue Peshmerga and P.K.K. fighters across the border, engage them and kill them.

Iran has been sympathetic to the Turkish position, because the P.K.K. launches terrorist raids into Iran as well. But the situation is not that simple. Iran and Iraq are both Shi'ite majority countries, and the Iraqi government is Shi'ite majority (al Maliki spent many of his years in exile in Tehran).

From the New York Times:

Iraqi diplomats said they were worried that after the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, met with President Bush on Nov. 5, Turkey may take action against the Kurdish guerrillas, a step that could further antagonize Iraq’s Kurds.

“They are under a lot of pressure from the public, so we think they will do something,” said a senior Iraqi official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter. “We hope they will not.”

Mr. Erdogan has asked the United States to help the Turks take “concrete steps” to reduce the P.K.K. threat.

In Washington, Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon spokesman, confirmed that the United States military was giving “lots of intelligence” to Turkey in its effort to halt the rebel attacks.

As if the situation were not complicated enough, the American forces are still holding five Iranians that were taken into custody in January. Iran says they are diplomats, the United States insists they are members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. “The arresting of Iranian consular officials is a very big strategic mistake,” said Mr. Mottaki. Mr. Mottaki also expressed his displeasure at a comment made by General Petraeus that the Iranian ambassador in Baghdad was a member of the Quds Force, an elite unit of the Revolutionary Guard.

And I would like to point out, again, that Petraeus really hasn't done much, if anything, right. Last summer, he managed to piss Maliki off to the point that Maliki threatened to have the General recalled. Generals have to be politicians, that's how they get past the rank of Captain. But this is 4G warfare. They need to be diplomats. And lets differentiate right now: diplomacy and ass kissing are two completely different things. Petraeus has a handle on the latter, there's no doubt. But the former? Not so much.

The reviews are in, and the Petraeus Production has been resoundingly panned

Yep. They definitely picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.

While it is still true that no one ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the American people…it is also true that the odds shifted slightly in favor of common sense after the Petraeus Promenade™ before Congress.

Gin up the Wurlitzer…this is gonna be all my fault, or at least the fault of my DFH ilk, I just know it…

President Bush's top military and diplomatic advisers in Iraq -- Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker -- came to Washington last week to plead the case that the troop surge is working and that, if the military is given more time to build on the progress, victory is still achievable. The American public, it seems, did not buy the administration's message. A new CBS News poll demonstrates that Americans remain skeptical of the way the war is being waged.

In the survey, 57 percent of respondents claimed to pay at least some attention to Petraeus' testimony before Congress. Considerably fewer (29 percent) said they watched the president's televised speech on Thursday, in which he announced plans to withdraw 30,000 troops by next summer. A possible explanation for their tuning out: About two-thirds said the president tries to make the situation in Iraq sound better than it truly is.

Respondents were unconvinced by Petraeus' argument that the troop surge is improving conditions in Iraq. The number of those in a half-sample who saidthe surge is making no impact or is making things worse shot up 5 points from early September. Of those who said that things are getting better thanks to the surge, a 47-percent plurality acknowledged that they believe the improvements will only last as long as the extra troops are in place.

Who could have imagined? Oh – and I’m shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

Who would have ventured a guess that after four years of just making shit up, that the people would eventually wise up? That the populace would collectively recall the parable of The Boy Who Cried Wolf - and call their bluff?

Nah. Better to blame me (and my DFH brothers and sisters) for salting the fields, poisoning the well and pouring vinegar in the milk. After all, I didn’t even come close to clapping loud enough. I even opined openly that General Dave would arrive in DC slingin’ the shit and singin’ “As the Caissons Go Rollin’ Along.”

So the fact that the number of Americans favoring withdrawal from Iraq is up, from 65% to 68% - that’s on me. I didn’t clap loud enough.

Whatever. That’s cool. I’ll take it. Along with the blame and the wrath of the dead-enders and whack-jobs. They still think we could have won in Vietnam, so they are certifiably fucking insane, and why do we give a good god-damn what the hell these deranged fuckwits think? I’m frankly sick of pandering to these demented assholes. Grow a spine, tell them they are fucking nuts, laugh at them, mock them, hurl over-ripe tomatoes at them, and fart in their general direction. They are literally the lunatic fringe, and it is your civic duty to hound these idiot children off the public stage and into the swamps of the deep, deep south where they can commune with their kinfolk: snakes, reptilian holdovers and various forms of fungi.

No matter what, to those inbred half-wits it’s going to be the fault of the “Libruls" so fuck ‘em. Write 'em off. Tell the loony bastards to piss off, and kiss your ass in the process. They are on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of morality and the wrong side of humanity.

Fuck. Them.

They have been consistently wrong and the filthy whores are not going to suddenly have their virtue restored.

So in the meantime, I’ll take whatever I can get, if it will bring us one step closer to stopping this unholy clusterfuck.

It’s wrong, it has always been wrong, and making it right is impossible. This is coming into focus for the American people.

And at the same time, more than 70% of the country is hearing their grandmother admonish them…You have to get the bull out of the china shop before you can start cleaning up. And as we all know, Grandma knows best.

Freddie not cuttin' the old mustard?

The desperate search for a Daddy to save them has prompted the foam-flecked loonies of the right to keep moving right past Frederick of Hollywood and his rented pick-up, and cast their hungry eyes to the authoritarians authoritarian...a real live four-star General!

Oh, how their naughty parts do tingle at the merest notion! They fall back onto their fainting couches with a backhand to the forehead, twitching with spasms of...something.

A week ago, the nuttier-than-squirrel-poop New York Sun ran an editorial beseeching him to seek the presidency (Save us, General Dave! You are our only hope!)

It was funny when it was just the Sun, since no one, not even the most lather-soaked conspiracy theorist takes them as a serious news source or gives them a scintilla more credence than the National Enquirer. As I said, when it was just those idiots, it was funny.

But now that we know the ambitious-to-a-fault "asskissing little chickenshit" as Admiral Fallon characterized him, has been plotting the path to the oval office for years, and was open about it with an Iraqi colleague while he was posted to Baghdad in 04-05, it isn't so funny any more.

And people accuse Hillary of triangulation! Ha! She is a piker in comparison!

Sabah Khadim, then a senior adviser at Iraq's Interior Ministry, says General Petraeus discussed with him his ambition when the general was head of training and recruitment of the Iraqi army in 2004-05.

"I asked him if he was planning to run in 2008 and he said, 'No, that would be too soon'," Mr Khadim, who now lives in London, said.

General Petraeus has a reputation in the US Army for being a man of great ambition. If he succeeds in reversing America's apparent failure in Iraq, he would be a natural candidate for the White House in the presidential election in 2012.

Now - Generals are politicians. Every last one of them. You don't get to be a General unless you are a capable politician. Accept that right now, one and all. This is common knowledge to people who have any military experience, but common knowledge that is woefully lacking in the population at large. Generals who are not politicians retire at 20 as Captains.

General Petraeus is lauded and heralded by the White House, but his actual record of achievement is a weak tea. They point to his time in Mosul - but do not talk about the fact that the insurgency hardened under his nose and then the insurgents took the city in 2004, and the police force that had been selected and trained by Petraeus either switched allegiances or simply went home. Other things get overlooked too. He was in charge of training the Iraqi Army, but the Iraqi Army is still unable to stand and fight on it's own. Then there is the question of missing firearms and millions of missing dollars.

Losing Generals do not get elected President, even when they are cast into a no-win situation by the folly of a deranged and deluded madman. Especially when they play the Potemkin game so deftly.

Petraeus for President? As a Democrat, I am tempted to beseech deities for such a development.

Parsing the Petraeus Promenade™

For two days they appeared before open congressional committee meetings, answering questions from the legislative branch. Five of the members they faced are running for the presidency, and one of the inquisitors today will likely be the commander in chief they will answer to come January 2009. Another Senator was the opponent Petraeus sided against in 2004. That Senator did not bring up the infamous op-ed, but Senator Boxer did.

On balance, Tuesday was certainly not Monday. The man-crushes were, for the most part, kept in check - unlike Monday, when I feared that some of the overt, gushing, adoration would get the General in trouble under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

There were significant moments in the testimony Tuesday. Petraeus went on the congressional record that there was no connection between the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and Saddam Hussein. When pressed, he could not say that America’s involvement in Iraq makes Americans safer.

But there was one question that Petraeus either could not – or would not – answer. It was the one he asked in 2003 as the invasion ramped up. “How does this end?”

"Are we going to continue to invest American blood and treasure at the same rate we are doing now, for what? The president said let's buy time. Buy time? For what?" said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a Vietnam veteran who also will retire next year.

Most experts argue that stabilizing Iraq requires two things above all: political reconciliation among Shiite Muslims, Sunnis and Kurds, and Iraqi security forces that can stand on their own.

Petraeus and Crocker could promise neither.

As the day wore on, the unspoken consensus emerged that, yeah, George Bush really is a phenomenal fuckwit. And boy, did he ever screw the pooch when he charged headlong into this mess, and it should never have been done, and can’t be undone…All he can do is punt it to the next president and then start trying to cast blame. The men who were sitting in front of congress the last two days are, unenviably, charged with salvaging something from it.

By the end of the day, the testimony made it clear that there will still be a hundred thousand American G.I.’s in Iraq when Bush abdicates to Paraguay on 19 January 2009. And the war in Iraq had been moved front and center in the 2008 election campaign.

Starting today, it's a whole new campaign...

Today's testimony has me in a funky mood

The Democrats were so spineless today. How pathetic. I hope the Senate does a better job tomorrow. I don't have any high hopes for my Democratic Senator. But I have hope that Jim Webb and John Kerry will be willing to show a little more spine. We'll see.

The spineless wimps of banality in the House scratched their chins thoughtfully, and furrowed their brows most Seriously. They will begin to debate, and in Serious Tones, they will deem the Surge™ has shown just enough signs of progress that they must advance General Westmoreland Petraeus another Friedman Unit. Of course, the defining characteristic of the Friedman Unit is that it is an automatically resetting unit.

The Surge™ has been a failure. The Surge of PR has been successful. Bush will run out the clock. And every day that blithering idiot and the evil, warmongering Cheney are in office, the closer we are to this:



Fuck it. I think I am going to pour a big-assed glass of Whiskey and spend the rest of tonight drinking. Heavily. I'll bring the outrage tomorrow.

Some Questions for General Petraeus

Ever since the Surge™ plans rolled off the presses at the American Enterprise Institute and the escalation got underway, any time anyone has brought up withdrawal of troops and drawing down in Iraq, Resident Evil™ and his slavering lackeys have engaged in a stall tactic. “Wait for September.” is the rote refrain. “Wait to hear what General Petraeus has to say.” Well, it's September.

(As if we could count on receiving the unvarnished truth about success on the ground! Ha! I inwardly roll my eyes. I’ve read that op-ed before – right before the last presidential selection, in fact.)

Well, we know he is going to spin and mince and parse and do a soft-soap routine extraordinaire. None the less, when he is in front of the congressional committees, I would dearly love to see him asked to answer the following questions – and for the committees to make him answer them in a forthright manner.

Start at the beginning.

General Petraeus, could you start by defining the mission of the U.S. military in Iraq? How does that correspond with the original grounds for the invasion?

What was the population of Iraq in March 2003? What was the unemployment rate? GNP?

What is the population now? Unemployment rate? GNP?

How many Iraqis have fled the country as refugees? How many people have fled violence in their neighborhoods and home districts, but remain in the country as internally displaced persons? How many internal refugee camps have sprung up in recent months?

Of the population remaining in Iraq, how many would you estimate are actively involved with violence toward other Iraqis? Toward American troops?

Would you provide the names of and background on groups which the U.S. maintains have engaged in violence against Americans?

al Qaeda in Iraq

Of the jihadist/resistance fighters in Iraq, how many claim an affiliation with al Qaeda? How many are members of the main al Qaeda organization, and would take direct orders from ObL? Of those claiming membership in AQI, how many are Iraqis? How many are foreign nationals? Of the foreign nationals, where do they come from? How many jihadist fighters do you estimate come from each of these other nations? How many were loyal to al Qaeda before the United States invaded Iraq? Can you provide names and background information on those claiming to be AQI leadership? Are any of the professed leaders Iraqi? How many? How many people in Iraq professed membership in or allegiance to al Qaeda in March 2003.

The Insurgency

Can you provide the statistics on insurgents by sect? Can you give us this information for each province? Of the insurgents in Iraq today, how many have been active since the invasion? How many have taken up arms since the bombing of the al-Askiri Shrine in February 2006? What provinces have seen attacks committed against American forces since the “Surge™” achieved >50% of the troop buildup. What provinces have been violence free in this time period?

Iraqi Casualties

How does the U.S. count Iraqis killed by gunshots? How are Iraqis killed by explosions counted? How are Iraqis killed by American air strikes counted? Do you feel the slightest pang of conscience when you parse death statistics by whether a victim died execution style, or facing their killer? Do you think that matters to the decedent or their family?

Iraqi Perceptions

How many Iraqis oppose continuing the American military presence in that country? Of Iraqis not engaged in violence against Americans, how many nonetheless do not object to attacks against American forces?

The Missing Millions

How much cash was airlifted to Iraq after the invasion of 2003? We know that at least $110 million went missing from your command in Mosul. What happened to that money, General? How much of that missing money has been used to fund the insurgency, either directly or indirectly?

The Missing Weapons

We know that fully half of American casualties in Iraq are the result of the failure to secure munitions (al Qua Qua) in the early days of the invasion. Were you in any way responsible for the decisions that led to that failure? Who was? Have they faced any accountability?

The GAO estimates that approximately half of all light weapons supplied by American forces to Iraqi military and police forces – 190,000 AK-47’s and handguns – have gone missing. Who got those weapons? Have they been turned against American forces? Used against other Iraqis in sectarian attacks? Used in criminal acts?

Infrastructure

How many bridges have been attacked since the troop buildup got underway?

How many hours of electricity does the average Iraqi experience in a day? What was the average before the invasion in March 2003? What was the average temperature in Iraq this August? How do Iraqis cool their homes? How many times has the electrical grid been attacked by insurgents since the start of the escalation? Who is responsible for the security of the grid? How many hours of electricity does your headquarters enjoy per day?

How many Iraqi homes, on average went without water for more than 24 hours during the month of August? What is the status of the water delivery system? How safe is the water to drink, when it is available? Hypothetically: If your family came to visit you in Iraq, would you feel comfortable with them drinking the water?

***

And then, after a brief restroom break, I would start asking even tougher questions about the status of the Iraqi security forces. And I would segue into the ten and twenty year occupation predictions and projections. But that is me – and I am not a lily-livered poltroon afraid of being perceived as being mean to a poor little helpless four-star general.

(Hat tip to one of the commenters at Political Animal for posting many of these same questions, and many more. Reading that comment, I was able to pull all the disparate strands of outrage together and write a post that passes for cogent.)

You weren't really sucked in, were you?

About that Petraeus “Report” that he assured all he would be writing himself after it leaked out that the report would be coming from the White House?

Yeah, scratch the indignant “I'll be writing my own report” bullshit – and by the way, I will remind you here and now that anyone familiar with the mans body of work knew he was blowing smoke.

Today we learned that the only hard-copy Petraeus will be working from will be his opening statement. He will bring a stack of PowerPoint graphs and charts – the sort of thing that sucked in the lame-brained Brian Baird – but Petraeus won’t be writing, nor will he be presenting, a “Petraeus Report” because no such animal exists.

Yes, I realize full well that the text of PL 110-28 says:

“the President, having consulted with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, and the Commander of U.S. Central Command, will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress.”

“[T]he United States Ambassador to Iraq and the Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of the Congress.”

…so save the slavering wingnuttery. Especially since you probably didn't know yourself until some right-tard fatassed-fascist chickenhawk war-blogger with no skin in the game gave you the petticoat to crawl under within the last 72 hours. For the record, I read the text of the law in May, have known what it said for months and I've been waiting for the wingnuts to crawl out of the woodwork. I have my can of Raid at the ready for the vermin.

In other words, I am in no mood to tolerate having my leg pissed on and being told it’s raining.

Now, riddle me this, Batman (nice cowl, by the way) : What do you think got through to more people: The actual text of the law? Or the lawmakers talking on the TeeVee? (I’m going with the TeeVee, because there is no possibility of a boob-shot if you are reading the text of the legislation that rules our lives, and Galileo knows that Americans will always go for boobs over substance.) I am guessing that MAYBE .5% of Americans who consider themselves well informed read the text.

(h/t John Amato @ Crooks & Liars for the rundown)

Senate Minority Leader McConnell:

Let me remind the Senate of what we agreed to…We voted, and put into law, that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker would report in September on progress. The benchmarks report and the timeline we set in May was clear. It gave us, the troops, and our allies, clarity on what was expected.

Senator McCain:

The war will be discussed in September again—we all know that—when General Petraeus is ready to report to the Senate…General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will come to Washington in September to report on the status of their efforts and those of the Iraqis.

Senator Sessions:

To press the point further, I strongly believe that whatever the inclinations of Senators on the conduct of the war in Iraq, to change our strategy now before we even hear from General Petraeus in September would be a colossal blunder for a host of reasons. To do so would be unthinkable…I am anxious to hear General Petraeus’s report.

Senator Coleman:

Fifty-four days ago we sent a message to General Petraeus: Go forth with the surge, and then come back and report to us.

Senator Chambliss:

I have never been more convinced that waiting for General Petraeus’s report in September was more right than yesterday afternoon…

Senator Craig:

That’s why when we confirmed General Petraeus unanimously in the Senate, we said to him very clearly, you go to Iraq in relation to a surge that is being implemented and you come back to us and give us your honest and fair assesement in September.

Senator Cornyn:

But the fact is, Gen. David Petraeus…will come back and report to us in September.

Senator DeMint:

The Democrats agreed on that funding, but they requested that we have a report from General Petraeus in the middle of September to find out what progress we were making. We all agreed to that.

Senator Bunning

I promised in person, in my office, to General Petraeus, that I would wait to hear his report this fall.

And of course I couldn’t leave out everyone’s favorite Republican:

Senator Lieberman

In fact, this amendment should not even be considered now…Because in that bill we required General Petraeus, along with our Ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, to come back in September and report to us…I made a personal pledge to him. I am going to give him and the troops a fair chance, which this amendment would deprive him of, and I am going to give him until September to come back and tell me how it is going.
[All emphasis mine]

So lets do a rundown, shall we? Refresh our memories on the high- (and low-) lights of the past 12 weeks:

First, Resident Evil™ and his minions in the Senate systematically set out on a disinformation campaign designed to pin all hopes on a “Petraeus Report” that every last mother-fucking one of them knew was actually going to be written by the White House. (This is called lying. It ought to be called Treason when it involves a war and the lives of other peoples children.)

When the citizenry began to grumble about being lied to, wingnut congresscritter from Virginia, Tom Davis tried to tamp down the controversy by explaining that the report would be Petraeus’ but the White House would probably “tweak” it, but it would be Petraeus’ report.

(Another lie from a Republican. Surprise, surprise, surprise! They always fall back to their default position, don’t they?)

There will be no written report from the Surgin’ General. His statements to Congress will be made public, but there will be no public record of what information he provides to aWol. This obscuring process doesn’t go very far toward discrediting the reports we got this week that pull the masks off the bandits, does it?

I am left with one conclusion: Petraeus did such a good job of producing Kabuki this summer, they are extending the run into the fall!

(H/T to the bloggers at Think Progress. Their archives were relied on heavily for this post.)

Statistical Gymnastics Come Under Close Scrutiny, Outed as Bullshit

Recent assertions by the U.S. military that violence in Iraq has markedly decreased in recent months has come under severe scrutiny from experts both inside and outside the government. Consensus is that that statistics offered by the military are questionable at best, as the pattern emerged that the military simply ignores negative trends. (Before anyone screams "Outliers are tossed all the time!" let me save you the humiliation of a lecture - I actually know what an outlier is. For the record, an outlier is a data point that is more than three standard deviations from the mean. You can't just call any data point you don't like an outlier and omit it to get the result you want and expect your findings to be taken seriously.)

The administration has pinned everything on the reduction of violence metric to prove that finally they have a strategy that is working! That is what Gen. David Petraeus is going to say in front of congress next week when he comes to give his aWol's report on the state of security in Iraq. He is expected to try to convince the congress that there has been a 75% decrease in sectarian attacks. (Problem there: I do not think that word actually means what they want us to believe it means.)

When others look at the full range of data, they find that the military cherry-picks the data for positive indicators and ignores the negative. "Let's just say that there are several different sources within the administration on violence, and those sources do not agree," Comptroller General David Walker told Congress on Tuesday in releasing a new Government Accountability Office report on Iraq.

Meanwhile, military officials would have us believe that the CIA, DIA and GAO are all using flawed methodologies that give an inaccurate picture.

The intelligence community has its own problems with military calculations. Intelligence analysts computing aggregate levels of violence against civilians for the NIE puzzled over how the military designated attacks as combat, sectarian or criminal, according to one senior intelligence official in Washington. "If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian," the official said. "If it went through the front, it's criminal."

"Depending on which numbers you pick," he said, "you get a different outcome." Analysts found "trend lines . . . going in different directions" compared with previous years, when numbers in different categories varied widely but trended in the same direction. "It began to look like spaghetti."

One of the troubling trends is the ommission of violence attributed to Shia militias fighting other Shia militias, which has gripped Basra and last month resulted in the assassination of two southern provincial governors.

According to a spokesman for the Baghdad headquarters of the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I), those attacks are not included in the military's statistics. "Given a lack of capability to accurately track Shiite-on-Shiite and Sunni-on-Sunni violence, except in certain instances," the spokesman said, "we do not track this data to any significant degree."

Attacks by U.S.-allied Sunni tribesmen -- recruited to battle Iraqis allied with al-Qaeda -- are also excluded from the U.S. military's calculation of violence levels.

Here it might be beneficial to remember that the Iraq Study Group report that was released in December identified "significant underreporting of violence," noting that "a murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack. If we cannot determine the sources of a sectarian attack, that assault does not make it into the data base." The report concluded that "good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals."

They are bringing their wares to the Capitol next week and the hucksters, pitchmen and carnival barkers are hocking the cherry-picked data in a most full-throated manner.

I just have two words for my countrymen, especially the 535 of 'em that control the pursestrings: Caveat Emptor.

Updating the Potemkin Legend for the 21st Century

When Catherine the Great went to tour the Crimean region forcibly annexed by the Russian military in the late 18th century, she saw fabulous and elegant villages along the desolate banks of the Dnieper. But the fabulous villages were hollow facades, erected at the behest of the Russian military commander in the region, Grigori Potemkin, put in place to wow the empress and her traveling party as they sailed by; and to raise his stature in her eyes in the process.

In a colder calculus - they were supposed to create the illusion that the conquest of the region was worthwhile.

One could say that the saying "there's no 'there' there" dates to 1787. (But one would need to say it in Russian.)

To this day, we use the word Potemkin as a modifier whenever something is less than it seems on the surface.

Now, we have a modern equivalent to the Potemkin Village in the Dora Market, and General Petraeus is certainly giving ol' Grigori a run for his money in the creating-illusions-to-snow-the-potentates department.

BAGHDAD -- Nearly every week, American generals and politicians visit Combat Outpost Gator, nestled behind a towering blast wall in the Dora market. They arrive in convoys of armored Humvees, sometimes accompanied by helicopter gunships, to see what U.S. commanders display as proof of the effectiveness of a seven-month-long security offensive, fueled by 30,000 U.S. reinforcements. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. military leader in Iraq, frequently cites the market as a sign of progress.

"This is General Petraeus's baby," said Staff Sgt. Josh Campbell, 24, of Winfield, Kan., as he set out on a patrol near the market on a hot evening in mid-August.

...Even U.S. soldiers assigned to protect Petraeus's showcase remain skeptical. "Personally, I think it's a false representation," Campbell said, referring to the portrayal of the Dora market as an emblem of the surge's success. "But what can I say? I'm just doing my job and don't ask questions."

...Still, the Dora market is a Potemkin village of sorts. The U.S. military hands out $2,500 grants to shop owners to open or improve their businesses. The military has fixed windows and doors and even helped rebuild shops that had burned down, soldiers and others said.

"We helped them a lot. We gave them money, security, even the locks on their doors," said a 36-year-old Iraqi interpreter at the outpost whom U.S. soldiers call Jimmy for security reasons. He asked that his real name not be used. "Everything we gave them. That's why the violence has stopped. That's why they cooperate with us."

Some shopkeepers said they would not do business in the market without U.S. support. "The Americans are giving money, so they're opening up stores," said Falah Hassan Fadhil, 27, who sells cosmetics.

1st Lt. Jose Molina, who is in charge of monitoring and disbursing the grant money, said the U.S. military includes barely operating stores in its tally. "Although they sell dust, they are open for business," said Molina, 35, from Dallas. "They intend to sell goods or they may just have a handful of goods. But they are still counted."

Security measures in the market are rigorous. Vehicles are not allowed inside for fear of car bombs. Customers are body-searched at checkpoints. Humvees constantly patrol the area, which is the sole focus of the 50 or so soldiers of Combat Outpost Gator.

I have been to a lot of open air markets in my life, including Agoras and Bazaars, and I have NEVER been frisked before buying my hummus ingredients, I don't care what Representative Pence says, or what kind of deal Lindsey got on his rugs.

Generals Have to be Politicians, But They Need to be Diplomats

[Cross-posted from Watching Those We Chose]

The relationship between General David Petraeus and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Kemal al-Maliki is so strained that Mr. Maliki may ask Washington to withdraw the general.

Mr. Maliki, a Shi’ite, is a seemingly reluctant leader. He spent years in exile during the Hussein regime, and he vociferously protests arming Sunni insurgents under the guise of “fighting al Qa’eda.” His loud complaining has come to little – It has resulted in a pledge by U.S. forces to let al Maliki’s security vet the recruits. Aids say he complains bitterly about delivery delays of promised materiel.

And while he is at loggerheads with Petraeus, the United States forges ahead with the arming of Sunni Sheiks.

In short, al-Maliki is feeling put upon and unduly burdened, and not entirely without justification.

From Air Force Times

Petraeus says his ties with al-Maliki are “very good” but acknowledges expressing “the full range of emotions” on “a couple of occasions.”

U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who meets together with al-Maliki and Petraeus at least weekly, concedes “sometimes there are sporty exchanges.”

Al-Maliki has spoken sharply — not of Petraeus or Crocker personally — but about their tactic of welcoming Sunni militants into the fight against al-Qaida forces in Anbar and Diyalah provinces.

As for Petraeus, he really is facing a nightmare scenario. The Iraqi police and military forces are only nominally under the control of al Maliki, and in many cases those forces act not in the interest of the Iraqi government, but in sectarian – that is to say Shi’ite – interests. In addition, al Maliki has proven unwilling to cut his ties to fundamentalist Shi’ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who controls the Mahdi Army militia.

Meanwhile, Ambassador Ryan Crocker has his own issues with the stagnation of the political process. (Imagine. The Iraqi parliament is not bending over backwards to meet externally set benchmarks.) Crocker can not continue to insist that American G.I.’s are fighting and dying to give the Maliki government “breathing room” when al Maliki either can not or will not make an opportunity from it.

The ambassador, one of the State Department’s most seasoned Middle East diplomats, appeared to be genuinely fond of al-Maliki and profoundly understanding of the Iraqi leader’s troubles.

“We are dealing with existential issues. There are no second tier problems ... so there is a lot of pressure. And we all feel very deeply about we’re trying to get done. So yeah, sometimes there are sporty exchanges,” he said.

“And believe me I’ve had my share of them. That in no way means, in my view, strained relations. I have great admiration for Prime Minister Maliki, and I know General Petraeus does as well. And I like to think it is reciprocal. Wrestling with the things we’re all wrestling with here, it would almost be strange if you didn’t get a little passionate from time to time.”

Generals, who obtain flag rank and continue to advance with presidential and congressional approval, are politicians. Get your head around that fact. To advance to O-4 takes a degree of political acumen (well – it used to, and it will again) and to go beyond O-4 – you have to display the appropriate political ability; and you have a career.

That’s how it works, in a nutshell.

Generals aren’t just politicians. They are also perpetually fighting the last war. Newsflash fellas – Desert ≠ Jungle. (And by the way, it was stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid to deemphasize counterinsurgency after Vietnam like that was an anomaly, ya morons.)

I would like to say that that is all well and good; but I can’t because it isn’t.

All sides spoke with the critical September reports by Crocker and Petraeus to Congress clearly at the front of their minds — the need to make it clear to an increasingly hostile U.S. legislative branch that progress is being made and it would be wrong to start pulling out troops and cutting support now.

It will be a tough sell, but not for lack of getting their views before the public in advance of walking into Congressional committee rooms about seven weeks from now.

In 4-G warfare, what Generals really need are not so much political skills, but Diplomatic skills.

This is, apparently, not a gift that David Petraeus possesses or that the Army engenders.

Keep this in mind. September is right around the corner.

This is it. They do not get any more Friedmans.

Well, it is the summer rerun season

[Cross-posted from Watching Those We Chose]

“Wait for September” is the new mantra. It pleadingly falls from the lips of every supporter of continuing the occupation of Iraq; from the fervent true-believers to the craven, profit-driven enablers. “Wait for September. Wait for General Petraeus’ report.” issues forth from many a fetid maw.

Call me cynical, but I know what his report is going to say. What did John McCain say the other day? “I’ve seen this movie before.”?

Well, I have read the Op-Ed before. Six weeks before the 2004 elections, in the Washington Post, to be exact.

I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up.

The institutions that oversee them are being reestablished from the top down. And Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously in the face of an enemy that has shown a willingness to do anything to disrupt the establishment of the new Iraq.

In recent months, I have observed thousands of Iraqis in training and then watched as they have conducted numerous operations. Although there have been reverses -- not to mention horrific terrorist attacks -- there has been progress in the effort to enable Iraqis to shoulder more of the load for their own security, something they are keen to do. The future undoubtedly will be full of difficulties, especially in places such as Fallujah. We must expect setbacks and recognize that not every soldier or policeman we help train will be equal to the challenges ahead.

Hell, he will even re-predict that "the next 60 days will be crucial." That groundwork was laid a couple of days ago when they floated the "November before we see real results" trial balloon. Just like he did before. On May 17th the Politico reported that he was saying then that there would be "nothing Definitive" by September.

Within the next 60 days, six more regular army and six additional Intervention Force battalions will become operational. Nine more regular army battalions will complete training in January, in time to help with security missions during the Iraqi elections at the end of that month.

And he will appeal for patience in September 2007 just like he did in September 2004.

There will be more tough times, frustration and disappointment along the way. It is likely that insurgent attacks will escalate as Iraq's elections approach. Iraq's security forces are, however, developing steadily and they are in the fight. Momentum has gathered in recent months. With strong Iraqi leaders out front and with continued coalition -- and now NATO -- support, this trend will continue. It will not be easy, but few worthwhile things are.

Paul Krugman and I are in total agreement this morning:

I don’t know why the op-ed article that General Petraeus published in The Washington Post on Sept. 26, 2004, hasn’t gotten more attention. After all, it puts to rest any notion that the general stands above politics: I don’t think it’s standard practice for serving military officers to publish opinion pieces that are strikingly helpful to an incumbent, six weeks before a national election.

In the article, General Petraeus told us that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously.” And those security forces were doing just fine: their leaders “are displaying courage and resilience” and “momentum has gathered in recent months.”

In other words, General Petraeus, without saying anything falsifiable, conveyed the totally misleading impression, highly convenient for his political masters, that victory was just around the corner. And the best guess has to be that he’ll do the same thing three years later.

You know, at this point I think we need to stop blaming Mr. Bush for the mess we’re in. He is what he always was, and everyone except a hard core of equally delusional loyalists knows it.

Yet Mr. Bush keeps doing damage because many people who understand how his folly is endangering the nation’s security still refuse, out of political caution and careerism, to do anything about it.

Now I am not going to come right out and call the General a Loyal Bushie, but there is certainly a case that could be made if one were to assert that position. I have heard some grumbling that Petraeus got the billet and the fourth star because “he can be counted on.” That he will do the presidents bidding and allow him to run out the clock while ~30 Americans in his command are sacrificed to that end every single week. That is 2100 more between now and the end of this presidents term. An affable Westmoreland is no less a craven prick than the original.

And this infuriates me. The oath Petraeus took as an officer of the United States Army was to the Constitution of this nation, not to a president, not to a political party, not to a king; not to any man. The Constitution. The Social Contract itself. He also has an obligation to the soldiers who serve in his command. Should he abdicate either for political reasons; that, in my eyes, is tantamount to treason.

It is time to demand an end to this folly, this failed presidency, this threat to the American experiment. The remedy is in the Constitution. It is impeachment. And it is necessary. Not just because I don’t like this guy and want to begrudge him power; but because I do not want any American president to ever have the powers that this one has claimed. The only way to undo the damage, and stop the war, is to impeach this bastard already.

Petraeus' Letter to the Troops

In light of the disturbing results of a study released by the Pentagon last week indicating a frightening decline in the ethical standards held by America’s fighting forces in Iraq, General Petraeus posted an open letter to all American personnel serving there.

"This fight depends on securing the population, which must understand that we -- not our enemies -- occupy the moral high ground," Army Gen. David H. Petraeus wrote in an open letter dated May 10 and posted on a military Web site.

He rejected the argument that torture is sometimes needed to quickly obtain crucial information. "Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary," he stated.

The survey also found that problems such as anxiety and depression deepen with the length and frequency of tours of duty, a notable conclusion because thousands of U.S. troops recently had their tours extended from 12 to 15 months. "Stress caused by lengthy deployments and combat is not a sign of weakness; it is a sign that we are human," wrote Petraeus, who is on his third Iraq tour.

Petraeus said that he understands "firsthand" the emotions soldiers feel in Iraq, especially when they see a fellow soldier die. "Seeing a fellow trooper killed by a barbaric enemy can spark frustration, anger, and a desire for immediate revenge," he wrote. But he warned against letting those feelings lead to illegal acts. Petraeus also called on unit commanders to ensure that their soldiers follow standards.

The strain our military – especially our Army – is under has brought our fighting forces to the breaking point. Human beings can only take so much; and what they have been tasked with carrying in this war is an unfair, unimaginable load to bear. As the General says, our military personnel are human beings. They have human limitations. Too much has already been given, yet more is still asked.

Enough already. We’re all in. Check and call.

Nothing New About It

.

Faced with the reality of the impossibility of enacting Keane & Kagan’s Cock-Up, General David Petraeus has announced his “new way forward” – Baghdad will be walled off into gated neighborhoods in an effort to quell the sectarian violence that claimed 200 in one day last week.

The New York Times calls it a “radical new strategy” in the Saturday edition.

Except it’s not.

It’s basically just a retread of the “Strategic Hamlets” approach that was a horrifying failure in Vietnam.

It has also been a part of the planning from the outset of this current apostasy of ramped-up death and violence. In January, they were pimping it as The Tal Afar Model(!) - before that all fell apart a few weeks ago.

The Sunni’s feel like they are being sequestered; boxed off in ethnic enclaves. ASunni physician was understandably angry “It’s unbelievable that they treat us in such an inhumane manner. They’re trying to isolate us from other parts of Baghdad. The hatred will be much greater between the two sects.”

I am going to stand up for Dave Petraeus. Not that he needs my help, but damnit, it pisses me off to listen to the all the pissing and moaning that Petraeus is new to the job, give him a chance to make his plan work – especially the pundit class of the right wing media.

They all know damn good and well that this is not Petraeus’ plan. This was laid out in that POS white paper, Choosing Victory, from Kagan and Keane at the AEI last December 14. All of this is in that paper. The record is there.

Hang it around the necks of Kagan and Keane, not Petraeus. He is doing the best he can with a bad situation. He has enough problems trying to apply the lipstick to this pig without getting credit for this cock-up that is wholly the notion of others. Place the blame appropriately.

And by the way - you damn well know that it isn't working, and here is your proof: If it was, don't you think that the real authors of the plan would be falling all over themselves to take the credit on the Sunday morning talk shows?
.

[Cross-posted from Watching Those We Chose. You should be reading that blog every day.]

Now Even Surge-ier! With 21% More Troops!

Ummm. I was right. Again. Quite a few of us were asking the question "what's the real troop numbers involved in this ill-advised troop buildup fiasco? I for one was quick to ask that question.

And I was right to do so.

A month after Dave Petraeus jetted off to Baghdad to assume command of ground forces there he is back, asking for more troops in addition to the 21,500 that are on the ground or in the deployment pipeline.

And the poisonous vine known as mission creep has taken firm root.

And the Bug Hunt continues - violence increases in the provinces of Diyala and Anbar while Baghdad simmers. Any perceived "peace" in Baghdad is a Potemkin Peace at best.

The surge was originally advertised as topping out at 21,500 additional troops. But on Wednesday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that Petraeus had requested 2,200 more military police – to serve as jailors for an expected increase in detainees – and that an additional 2,400 support troops would be needed, bringing the total surge to 27,100, a 21-percent increase over original expectations. (emphasis added)

Frederick Kagan, an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute and an advocate of adding troops, blames the White House for the impression that the surge is growing. He says support troops were always going to be needed, but the Bush adminstration failed to make that clear. But he adds that Petraeus will ask for even more troops if he thinks they're needed. "Of course the enemy has a vote and the situation can change."

[SNIP]

The US won't be at full strength in Iraq until June. But even then, General McCaffrey warns, lasting gains won't be made quickly. "Can you, by continuous levels of combat presence, change the underlying nature of a civil war? Or course not, and Petraeus knows that,'' he says. What Petraeus can do, McCaffrey argues, is to create conditions in which the Shiite-backed government and allied militias and Sunni Arab insurgents decide it's in neither's interest to keep fighting. (emphasis added)

Petraeus said Thursday that Sunni insurgents appear to be moving out of the way of heightened US combat patrols, and said he may soon dispatch more forces to Diyala Province, just north of Baghdad. Sunni insurgents appear to be regrouping there, he said. Petraeus did strike some upbeat notes, saying that Sunni Arab Anbar Province – home to Fallujah and locale of the most US combat deaths – has been calmer, and attributed that to local leaders saying "enough" to the conflict.

Yep. Moving out of the way. Parse that phrase, why don't you. Moving out of the way. Not changing ideology, not laying down weapons, not striving for peace...Moving out of the way.

An act of self preservation, not political reconciliation. What one does when one wants to live to fight another day.

This is a Bug Hunt, and the Iraqis have the homefield advantage. Our soldiers and Marines don't know who the enemy is. It is an enemy that can fade into shadows and disappear. They are using the same tactics that Americans developed and perfected in our own War for Independence.

They are using the tactics of out-gunned insurgents everywhere.

I lived in the Middle East twice in my life, first as a Navy brat and then as an Air Force wife. The people of the region have a saying - Keeping ones enemy in a constant state of aggravation, agitation and tension is it's own victory.

The war in Iraq has proven that adage true.