Spring

By Greyhawk

Continuing a series begun here, in which General Petraeus was unanimously confirmed by the Senate and sent to Baghdad with instructions not to involve himself in political arguments back home.

From part one: This is the ideal; politicians engaged and aware of the issues they debate, hopefully achieving a consensus that meets the needs of the republic and reflects the will of a majority of informed Americans. But over the past two years the ideal was abandoned for the absurd as the reality gap between the war in Washington and the actual war in Iraq widened and Americans were informed by media with standing armies in Washington completely overwhelming a small corps of reporters in Iraq.

In this series we'll examine that "war in Washington" and the widening of that gap, in hopes of explaining to at least a few members of that public exactly why a war was won without their knowledge or consent.

*****

In March, 2007, General Petraeus gave his first press briefing from Baghdad. He updated the progress of "the surge" and also mentioned positive developments in Anbar Province that had begun before the troop increase:

Iraqi and coalition forces are steadily building their strength to support the operation in Baghdad. The last of nine Iraqi surge battalions and the second of five U.S. surge brigades have just entered Baghdad. This buildup will continue throughout the spring, with all U.S. and Iraqi forces dedicated to the mission in place by about early June.
<...>
Beyond Baghdad, moreover, a number of tribes in Anbar province have in recent months finally said, "enough," and begun to link arms against extremist operatives who have killed their sheikhs and sought to poison their young people's minds.

The General had already realized the significance of turning insurgent groups - and "neutral" Iraqis - into government supporters, and knew that while some could be recruited, others - especially groups filled by foreign fighters - could not. (For example, al Qaeda in Iraq.)

He defined them as "reconcilables" and "irreconcilables":

Q (Through interpreter.) (Name inaudible) -- from the NBC. I have two questions ...Second question: You said that the host country can determine who are the reconcilable groups. But everybody should be under the supremacy of law, and all military activities should be cancelled. So how are these people going to be part of the solution?

GEN. PETRAEUS: With respect, again, to the -- you know, the idea of the reconcilables and the irreconcilables, this is something in which the Iraqi government obviously has the lead. It is something that they have sought to -- in some cases, to reach out. And I think, again, that any student of history recognizes that there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq. Military action is necessary to help improve security, for all the reasons that I stated in my remarks, but it is not sufficient.

Those comments actually echoed those of President Bush, who in announcing the surge just two months previously had said:

The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.

Adding also that "A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations."

We'll look closer at military progress in Iraq in part three of this series, but our primary focus is on the war in Washington - far removed from the reality of Iraq. In the American capital, even as the General was briefing, congress was preparing to submit a troop withdrawal bill for certain presidential veto. In support of that withdrawal, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi argued that General Petraeus was on her side:

Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, challenged President Bush on Saturday over his threat to reject an Iraq spending bill if it calls for a troop withdrawal...

"With his veto threat," she said in a statement, "the president offers only an open-ended commitment to a war without end that dangerously ignores the repeated warnings of military leaders, including the commander in Iraq, General Petraeus, who declared in Baghdad this week that the conflict cannot be resolved militarily."

The longer the Bill spent before congress, the more pork was added. Twenty billion by April, including "...$25 million for spinach farmers, $74 million for peanut storage, $120M for shrimp research, $283 million in income subsidies for dairy farms, $400 million to rural counties hurt by cutbacks in federal logging, $400 million in additional heating subsidies for the poor, and $1 billion to prevent or prepare for a possible bird flu epidemic."

Meanwhile, even before the last surge brigades had deployed, Democratic Presidential candidates were declaring the surge a failure:

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) said yesterday that the Bush administration's "surge" strategy in Iraq is doomed to fail and criticized Gen. David H. Petraeus for offering what he called an overly optimistic assessment of the situation on the ground.

By mid-April, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would use two retired generals as props in a speech declaring that President Bush was using General Petraeus as a prop:

Flanked by two former Army retired generals Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) blasted President Bush for "clinging to a failed escalation strategy" in Iraq and "failing our troops and our country."

One general went so far as to say that active duty military officers were being used as "props" by the Bush Administration.

Reid is scheduled to meet with the White House this week to negotiate the Iraq supplemental spending bill Congress passed before Easter recess that contains a timetable for withdrawal. President Bush has vowed to veto any bill that would cut funding for the troops or dictate a withdrawal date, but Reid said "the President is not going to get a bill that has nothing on it."

With a banner behind them that said "Support the Troops" and "Transition the Mission" Reid stood with Ret. Lt. Gen. Robert Gard and Ret. Brig. Gen. John Johns and said that the surge should be abandoned.
<...>
Gen. Johns said active service military officers, like Gen. Petraeus, were being used as "props" by the administration.

But within days, he would claim that his declaration that "we had lost" the war in Iraq was merely an echo of what General Petraeus was telling the troops there.

DANA BASH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The phrase "the war is lost" really touched a nerve. Do you stand by that -- that -- that comment?

REID: General Petraeus has said that only 20 percent of the war can be won militarily. He's the man on the ground there now. He said 80 percent of the war has to be won diplomatically, economically and politically. I agree with General Petraeus. Now, that is clear and I certainly believe that.

BASH: But, sir, General Petraeus has not said the war is lost. I just want to ask you again...

REID: General -- General Petraeus has said the war cannot be won militarily. He said that.
<...>
BASH: Is there something to that, an 18- and 19-year-old person in the service in Iraq who is serving, risking their lives, in some cases losing their life, hearing somebody like you back in Washington saying that they're fighting for a lost cause?

REID: General Petraeus has told them that.
<...>
BASH: General Petraeus is going to come to the Hill and make it clear to you that there is progress going on in Iraq, that the so-called surge is working. Will you believe him when he says that?

REID: No, I don't believe him, because it's not happening.

The misquoted 80/20 reference is explained here - we'll revisit it later in this series. As for "General Petraeus is going to come to the Hill" - that reference was to his brief April visit to Washington, during which he offered to update congress in a closed-door session. Initially Democrats refused the invitation, but Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner publicly taunted them for the refusal:

Earlier this year, top Democrats in both houses of Congress refused to attend a bipartisan briefing offered by General David Petraeus to discuss the challenges in Iraq. Next week they'll have another chance when the General comes to Capitol Hill to brief lawmakers in the House and Senate on our progress in the Global War on Terror.

General Petraeus was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate to be the U.S. commander of the Multinational Force in Iraq. He has a clear track record as a straight-shooter and as someone who gets things done. So one has to wonder why next week's important briefing almost didn't happen. According to Roll Call, when the Pentagon tried to schedule the briefing through House Democrats they were declined - twice - because Democrats were originally "too busy" to schedule anything.

Ultimately, some did attend the briefing:

Still, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) did not attend. It was not clear where she was Wednesday afternoon. Aides did not return calls Wednesday.
<...>
"I think the speaker's got better things to do, frankly," agreed Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.). "They didn't say anything they haven't said in public."

For what might have been said at that closed meeting we must rely on vague accounts from those who attended:

Let's dispense with this one right off. On how the debate in Congress might affect conditions in Iraq:

Democrats: It's helpful. Hoyer said he asked Petraeus about recent comments by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that the congressional debate warns the Iraqi government that American patience and resources aren't unlimited. "It seemed to me that Gen. Petraeus certainly did not disagree," Hoyer said.

General Petraeus had already been warned in his January confirmation hearings to be careful in his comments. In his own interviews in Washington, he would exercise that caution:

Q (Off mike.) What would be the -- in your assessment as a military man, what would be the consequences on the ground in Baghdad if the United States was to pull back from its security mission in the capital by the fall, withdraw its forces, say, to the forward- operating bases in the capital and maybe withdraw from Iraq by the summer of '08? I'm not asking you about congressional legislation, about timelines. I'm asking you for your military assessment of the effects on the ground if the U.S. were to end its security mission in Baghdad in the fall, in terms of insurgent activity, the vulnerability of the population and sectarian violence.

GEN. PETRAEUS: I have, as you know, in fact tried to stay clear of the political minefields of various legislative proposals and so forth...

Meanwhile, Senator Harry Reid explained his Party's motivation: "We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war."

Democrats know they might lose this month's showdown with President Bush on legislation to pull troops out of Iraq. But with 2008 elections in mind, majority Democrats says it is only a matter of time before they will get their way. Senior Democrats are calculating that if they keep the pressure on, eventually more Republicans will jump ship and challenge the president - or lose their seats to Democratic contenders.

"It's at least my belief that they are going to have to break because they're going to look extinction, some of them, in the eye," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., of his Republican colleagues.

Added Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.: "We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war."

*****

For the Republican response, we'll turn to Bob Woodward's The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008

A week earlier, the President had forced Congress to fund the war for three more months with no timelines for withdrawal attached. But he hadn't quelled the the discontent within his own party.

On May 26, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky kept up the drumbeat of Republican dissatisfaction with Iraq. "The handwriting is on the wall," he said, "that we are going in a different direction in the fall, and I expect the President to lead it. I think he himself has certainly indicated he's not happy with where we are."

Key Republicans said they expected a new strategy the the coming fall after Petraeus reported to Congress.

"I'm not going to dime the guy," the President later told me, declining to elaborate on what McConnell had said privately. "There was a lot of members that were sending signals, some directly to me. So I don't want to speak about a single guy. But I was getting word from all the senior team that were getting pinged by members that were saying, 'Petraeus better pull out,' 'We'd better do this,' 'We'd better do that.' 'Progress can only be made if fewer troops are there,' was kind of the attitude.

"I understand the politics of war, and I will listen to these allies and friends. But for me, the overriding concern is to succeed in Iraq. These political concerns are short-term compared to the long-term consequences of failure. And I would, from my perspective, I am more than willing to sacrifice short-term popularity to do what is absolutely right, so that in the long term, people will say, 'Now I understand why he made the decision he made.'"

The lack of progress three months into the surge wasn't sitting well with many Republicans. Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, who had lost his chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee when Democrats gained a majority in the fall, was particularly worried... So Hoekstra had spoken privately with Representative John Boehner, the House Republican leader.

"The President is about to lose all Republicans on the Intelligence Committee," he had said.

As for the president's role as public spokesman for the effort, Republican congressional leaders demanded he, like Petraeus, stay out of it.

Bush met with the Republican leaders from the Senate and House.

"Mr. President," said Representative Roy Blunt, the Missouri Republican and the Party's number two House leader, "you have no credibility on communicating about Iraq."

"I know," Bush replied.

"The worst thing you could do is talk about Iraq," Blunt said.

If President Bush was ineffective in engaging in the Washington war (or the media war), it may be because neither bore much similarity to the war in Iraq, with which he was more familiar. In May, he met (not for the first time) with General (retired) Jack Keane, an early proponent of the surge, and a mentor to General Petraeus.

In May, Keane went to Iraq and reported back to VP Cheney, detailing "a significant shift in momentum" but adding his assessment that "The operations must go into '08 to have any chance of success."

Petraeus had publicly promised to return to Washington in September to report to Congress. Keane thought that was a problem, considering the expectations. "In a sense, it's become a timetable in itself to make an up-or-down" evaluation of the surge. It was supposed to be only a progress report. By September, security would in all likelihood be much improved, but "we probably will not have met everyone's political benchmarks. And the danger is: Should that political uncertainty trump the very real progress that has been made? In my judgment it should not.

"This is doable," Keane insisted. "We can succeed. We have to be given the time to succeed."
<...>
Cheney arranged for Keane to come to the White House on May 31. He joined the president, vice president, and [National Security Advisor Stephen] Hadley for lunch in the small dining room just off the Oval Office.
<...>
The strategy was working, Keane said. "The issue is time." He didn't want to lecture or sermonize, "but at the risk of doing this, there's something I have to say to you. This military that we have in Iraq may be the most idealistic force we've put on a battlefield since the Revolutionary War"

"Maybe include the Civil War," the president said.

"That's possible," Keane said. "But the American people have soured on the effort and are no longer supporting the war." Similarly, Congress. " But nonetheless, every single day, they go out there and are willing to risk everything that they care about in life."
<...>
"The good news," Keane continued, "is that Maliki is moving away from Sadr. And that Maliki has never turned down a Petraeus request to kill or capture a Shia militia leader. That is absolutely astounding." Maliki had approved about 50 such requests.
<...>
"Maliki doesn't like Petraeus much," Bush said.

"No, of course he doesn't," Keane said. "George Casey's strategy was to turn over to the Iraqis and let them do it. Therefore he was giving them the lead and letting them drive all the issues and being somewhat passive. Enter Petraeus. He is putting demands on Maliki. Every time he walks in his office, it's about something Petraeus wants from Maliki." Keane said that [U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan] Crocker needed some help. "None of his new people have arrived."

"They're going to be due in there in summer," Hadley said.

That was because the State Department still had a policy of not transferring its people during the school year, Keane explained. He noted that the military moved people when the military needed them, period.

Keane said it was unfortunate that Congress had insisted that Petraeus come back in September and give a public report. Requiring an American field commander to return to Washington and brief was setting a bad precedent. The field commander should report only up the chain of command, he said.

"I had nothing to do with that," Bush said.

Congress had passed a law requiring that Petraeus testify.

More from Woodward:

On June 6, 2007, I spent three hours in New York City with Bill Perry, the former Clinton Defense Secretary who had been very active in the Iraq Study Group. Perry, like most of the study group members, recognized that Bush had dismissed their main recommendations by adopting the surge. He was particularly dumbfounded because both General Casey and General Chiarelli had told him that adding forces would not be effective.

"Let's make a forecast," said Perry, normally a cautious man. "In October, there's going to be a major change in the way the war is conducted. The reason I say that is because when Dave Petraeus testified to the Congress at his confirmation hearing he told them he would come back in September and give them a report. Dave's an honest guy, so he'll give an honest report. My own forecast is that the so-called surge is not going to be successful. So his report is going to lay out a continuing disaster and he'll say it honestly... then I think the president's going to lose about a third of the Republicans in the Congress, who up until now have been holding their noses and supporting him. At that point, the dynamics will change altogether." Congress would then have the votes to override any Bush veto, Perry said. "The legislature will gain control, and the ones who are in control are going to want to end the war."

*****

Amazingly, the events described above occurred before the final surge brigades were deployed. But by mid-June they were all in Iraq, and Operation Phantom Thunder - the first "all-out effort" of the surge - was launched on the 16th.

General Petraeus says the operations are targeting areas that have been al-Qaida safe havens, and bases for launching car bomb attacks. "A fairly large, coordinated offensive operation, with all of these surge forces, has only just now been launched," he said.

The general said he is taking advantage of the fact that the last of the extra U.S. forces have finally arrived, bringing new capabilities he can use to go after insurgents on their home ground. He would not provide any details of the operations. The general also announced the arrest of two key insurgent leaders in recent days.

"Coincidentally", three days prior to the battle, the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House had been invited to a meeting at the White House. Briefed on the battle, they knew if they didn't act fast to grab headlines, actual news from Iraq could potentially leak to Americans.

Iraq surge a failure, top Democrats tell Bush

Top US congressional Democrats bluntly told President George W. Bush Wednesday that his Iraq troop "surge" policy was a failure.

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi challenged the president over Iraq by sending him a letter, ahead of a White House meeting later on Wednesday.

"As many had forseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results," the two leaders wrote.

"The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence...
<...>
The next critical point in the showdown between Bush and Congress over Iraq is expected in September, when US commander in Iraq David Petraeus is due to report on progress in the strategy to "surge" up to 30,000 more US troops into the war-ravaged nation.

Even senior Republicans have said they expected the president will have little choice but to make adjustments in the Iraq strategy, once the report is made public.

*****

More to follow. Next: Summer

Posted by Greyhawk / November 21, 2008 9:59 AM | Permalink