In his various rhetorical battles with Democrats (and increasing numbers of Republicans), George W. Bush has recited something similar over and over again – usually with service personnel as props for his visuals. “We shouldn’t second guess the Generals in the field”, blah blah blah. The funding standoff ended with legislation passed which required the commanding General in Iraq – David Petraeus – to report to Congress on the progress of the “surge” in September. But as the deadline approaches, and as the Iraqi government fractures, and Petraeus has been dropping ominous hints about successful counter-insurgency campaigns taking ten years, suddenly it seems that the Petraeus Report will actually be written by – The White House. And he won’t be testifying publicly to Congress either. Rove may be gone, but his legacy lives on. What Congress will no doubt be presented with is some partisan piece of nonsense worked over by elves in Dick Cheney’s office.
Shorter Bush administration: the legislative branch shouldn’t politicise war, but it’s fine if we do it.
On a related note: Petraeus in October 2005: “Developments over the next few months will be critical” … and in May 2007 “Iraqi efforts in the next few months will be crucial”. Do these people use a different definition of ‘month’ than the rest of us?
Luna(tic) calendar perhaps?
You’d have to be a lunatic to think that employing the counterterrorism tactics that might have worked back in May 2003, with a shade more troops than you had back then would make a shred of difference to the political or military situation now, after four years of runaway violence, collapsing infrastructure, sectarian bloodshed and political fragmentation.
Speaking of lunatix, where are the Maoists and Eustonistas? The RWDBs gave up long ago, but is there anyone apart from Dolly left in Australia who’ll defend “staying the course”? If not, why are we?
Chimpo verbals Petraeus!
I guess Petraeus’ rough draft of his “What I did Over Summer” will have to be purged of the known knowns.
Kim: Well, I’m sure we might get a few on later, but in general Eustonistas seem to prefer to go off on issues where the baddies and goodies are better defined and their are fresh fields of righteous outrage to frolick in, in that respect Iraq’s sorta dried up over the last few years.
As to why we’re staying the course, who knows? and what difference does it make exactly? I’m sure one of Maliki’s advisers had to remind him that there was an Australian presence in Iraq and hand over a magnifying glass so he could spot our crucial military contribution on the map when Howard sent him that sooky letter.
In the Baudrillardian sense there are no Australian forces in Iraq… (that should flush out some Decentists
)
Leinad,
Here’s a nice demonstration of the type of calendar these folks (if I may borrow a term from President Bush) have been working from (look out for a cameo appearance by Honest John in May ’04).
In relation to Kim’s post, CNN has reported a poll that shows most respondents already didn’t trust that there would be an honest and accurate report when they thought it would come directly from Petraeus – I don’t imagine that finding out the White House is going to massage it into a shape they like will increase that trust.
I love the Bill Lind squad. It’s a link so nice you can use it twice (another version is here).
The ‘On War‘ series is particularly interesting short-chunk reading from the well-read dissenting conservative point of view, and I especially love it when someone around him mentions multiculturalism or Mexicans and what was a sensible argument goes totally off the rails.
Wheee!
Ptobias: cheers (guessing you didn’t click my first link then
)
Oh, I just died from the humiliation
Would you believe I have purple-black colour blindness?
To try to make a more meaningful contribution – while Iraq might now be murkier moralistic ground for the Eustonistas, if Bush continues to ramp up the tension with Iran then I’d be expecting some action – a sexy new war against the Israel-hating Islamofascists ought to do the trick.
Dolly truly scares me in his obliviousness. In an interview a couple of weeks back (I can’t remember on what program and can’t link to a transcript) he was entirely dismissive of the notion that we could be the last ones to choose to withdraw, but he can’t entertain the notion that we might not stay in lock-step with the US of A. He and Howard are going to be loyal Bushies to the end. We are there until either John Howard’s successor or George W. Bush’s successor takes us out of there.
To make up for my previous link failure, here’s a link to a somewhat old, somewhat relevant, but very funny YouTube clip.
Liam: Lind is awesome isn’t he? Just when you think “hey, this guy’s got a pretty solid, pragmatic handle on things”, BAM! He hits you with a nice long rant about how everythings been going down since Kaiser Bill lost in 1918.
Always worth a read!
It must be statistically possible that we will wake up one day to find out simultaneously that
- we are the only invading power left in Iraq and
- we still have the Queen when she has been turfed out of Westminster.
Now my head hurts but in a weirdly enticing way.
David,
It could be worse, John Howard might still be PM.
Kim,
Sorry to be a bit pedantic, but “Chimpo” is actually the Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the US and, as such, has a clear constitutional command over those forces. He therefore has the clear right to do what he is doing here – Congress would not.
Whether he should be doing it is another question and one on which I would tend to agree with you.
Andrew,
The Constitutional arrangement is not as clear as you make out. The Commander-in-Chief might control the military’s operations, but Congress determines their funding. And Congress passed an appropriations bill for Iraq – which the President signed – which said that General Petraeus, not the President, would report on progress in September so that decisions about further funding could be made in the light of whether progress had been made.
The American Constitution is one that rarely gives clear unilateral power to one branch of government – instead, it sets up tensions that are designed to ensure oversight and prevent corruption. The current executive has vastly overstretched its bound, and this attempted intervention in the progress report is just the latest example.
You’re not being pedantic AR. You’re being irrelevant. This has nothing to do with Chimpo’s status as Commander in Chief.
1. Chimpo doesn’t have the power to prevent Congress from summoning Petraeus to testify.
2. Congress may or may not have the power to challenge Chimpo’s invocation of executive privilege in relation to preventing Petraeus testifying.
3. Congress has no way of compelling Petraeus to answer any questions at all were he to appear before a congressional committee.
Scenarios 2 and 3 represent serious constitutional crises.
In the end it would be up to Congress to decide:
1. Whether Chimpo has committed any impeachable offence in relation to preventing the testimony of Petraeus.
2. Whether Chimpo’s actions represent sufficient provocation for withdrawing funding from the Iraq fiasco.
My guess is that Congress will be too pusillaminous to do anything of the sort.
Bush wins the right to continue to fight his futile war.
Katz,
I suspect you’re right about the eventual outcome with Congress – whether Petraeus makes an appearance, Congress will approve continued funding of the occupation. Reality is that they don’t have the numbers in the Senate to push through anything that sets out a timetable for withdrawal, and it seems that without that capability they are too hesitant to force the issue (beyond a symbolic extended debate). Their fear seems to come from the other great hypocrisy in Bush’s Iraq rhetoric – he will veto any bill that includes withdrawal requirements or benchmarks, and all the while he says that Congress is abandoning the troops by delaying funding.
The polling over the past few months that shows dissatisfaction with Congress is not far behind dissatisfaction with Bush might be the source of movement in Congress, but I think we’re still a couple of rounds of mud-slinging away from genuine resolution to act to end the war.
Fuq the diplomatically ineffectual and miltarailly mindless COW, I reckon we should just sign up with the SCO iinstead. It’s definitely shaping up to be the most hard nosed stomper around of terrorist/fundie/warlord enclaves in Central Asia. With real economic and nuclear muscle unfettered by any democratic restrictions too.
If this comment freaked you out, then good it was supposed to.