by hilzoy
"Senior congressional aides said yesterday that the White House has proposed limiting the much-anticipated appearance on Capitol Hill next month of Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker to a private congressional briefing, suggesting instead that the Bush administration's progress report on the Iraq war should be delivered to Congress by the secretaries of state and defense.White House officials did not deny making the proposal in informal talks with Congress, but they said yesterday that they will not shield the commanding general in Iraq and the senior U.S. diplomat there from public congressional testimony required by the war-funding legislation President Bush signed in May. "The administration plans to follow the requirements of the legislation," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said in response to questions yesterday.
The skirmishing is an indication of the rising anxiety on all sides in the remaining few weeks before the presentation of what is widely considered a make-or-break assessment of Bush's war strategy, and one that will come amid rising calls for a drawdown of U.S. forces from Iraq. (...)
White House officials suggested to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week that Petraeus and Crocker would brief lawmakers in a closed session before the release of the report, congressional aides said. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates would provide the only public testimony.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) told the White House that Bush's presentation plan was unacceptable. An aide to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) said that "we are in talks with the administration and . . . Senator Levin wants an open hearing" with Petraeus.
Those positions only hardened yesterday with reports that the document would not be written by the Army general but instead would come from the White House, with input from Petraeus, Crocker and other administration officials.
"Americans deserve an even-handed assessment of conditions in Iraq. Sadly, we will only receive a snapshot from the same people who told us the mission was accomplished and the insurgency was in its last throes," warned House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.).
"That's all the more reason why they would need to testify," a senior Foreign Relations Committee aide said of Petraeus and Crocker. "We would want them to say whether they stand by all the information in the report." He spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not cleared to speak to reporters.
The legislation says that Petraeus and Crocker "will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of the Congress" before the delivery of the report. It also clearly states that the president "will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress" after consultation with the secretaries of state and defense and with the top U.S. military commander in Iraq and the U.S. ambassador.
But both the White House and Congress have widely described the assessment as coming from Petraeus. Bush has repeatedly referred to the general as the one who will be delivering the report in September and has implored the public and Republicans in Congress to withhold judgment until then."
That's the trouble with trying to stall for time by pointing to some event in the future and saying: you can't possibly make any big decisions before this happens: eventually the time for this will, in fact, arrive, and what will you do then, having said so often that it is the event on which everything else turns? In the case at hand, there has never been any great mystery about the broad outlines of the reports. There has been some progress in improving security in Iraq, though not enough to bring the violence down to anything like tolerable levels. But the point of improving security was always to allow Iraqi politicians the breathing space they needed to undertake the political reconciliation which alone will bring a lasting end to the violence in Iraq, and without which any improvement in security is just temporary. And there has been no sign whatsoever that any such reconciliation has occurred.
The political "progress" that was claimed in the last report did not involve any actual agreements or legislation or concrete achievement; at best it involved claiming partial progress on such dubious grounds as: that the group which was supposed to consider solutions to a problem had been formed. Since then, no further progress has been made, which is not entirely surprising since large chunks of the cabinet have been boycotting its meetings, and the Parliament is now on vacation.
So the reports will more or less have to say: some limited progress on the military front; none on the political front for whose sake the surge was undertaken. Under the circumstances, the administration might well feel that it has no choice but to take over the writing and presentation of the report. But I think this is a deep mistake: they have no credibility left, precisely because they are so clearly committed to pursuing one course of action regardless of its chances for success, and so consider facts on the ground solely in terms of their usefulness for making a case that that course of action should continue.
It's no way to run a country, and it's certainly no way to run a war.
*** UDATE to the update: BarbinMD at dKos has a nice rundown of Republican Senators explaining hw very important it is to hear from Gen. Petraeus himself. It will be interesting to see whether any of them suddenly change their minds.
typo:
"and the Parliament is not on vacation."
"not" s/b "now"
Posted by: kid bitzer | August 16, 2007 at 09:46 AM
They don't rely on their own credibility anymore. They just need to offer the GOP portion of Congress cover. They'll stall for the Administration, the Democrats will continue a half-hearted kabuki about pulling out, and the media will ask no tough questions.
The zero-credibility Administration will still get to create and release the report of their choosing, and 90 percent of the people in the country will never know Petraeus himslef didn't deliver the "good" news.
Posted by: Mr Furious | August 16, 2007 at 10:30 AM
k. B.: thanks.
Posted by: hilzoy | August 16, 2007 at 10:50 AM
Well, I'd say Petraus doesn't have much more credibility. One of the most important aspects of the surge, the Iraqi Army and police force, were trained under his command.
The army seems to have been inflitrated to a great extent by militias and I don't think they will be effective once authority for security is handed over the them.
In the end this was always going to be the administrations report regardless of who authored it. Petraus was hand picked for his ability to toe the line after all. He works for Bush, and will do as Bush says.
And where's our war czar?
Posted by: Davebo | August 16, 2007 at 10:58 AM
Maybe our war czar is spending a bit of time in the dog house after talking about the possibility of a draft. But even before that he seemed to be like the mission to Mars, disappearing from the scene immediately after his first mention.
Posted by: KCinDC | August 16, 2007 at 11:14 AM
"But even before that he seemed to be like the mission to Mars, disappearing from the scene immediately after his first mention."
In fairness, it's not Lute's job to give press conferences; there's no reason I can think of for him to be in the news, and thus no reason that occurs to me to draw any conclusions about that. Am I missing something?
"And where's our war czar?"
I'm guessing "in his office," though I could be wrong. Traveling is also a possibility.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 16, 2007 at 02:03 PM
Traveling is also a possibility.
To Mars, perhaps.
Posted by: Model 62 | August 16, 2007 at 02:11 PM
...rimshot...
Posted by: farmgirl | August 16, 2007 at 02:37 PM
A commenter at Unqualified Offerings was making a persuasive case a week or so ago that Lute represents the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In which case I take the draft trial balloon to be a message from the JCS -- to this administration and the next.
Posted by: Nell | August 16, 2007 at 03:20 PM
The Lute discussion was here.
OT - Padilla found guilty.
I find our regime guiltier.
Posted by: Nell | August 16, 2007 at 03:24 PM
Not that even I would assert that Richard Nixon's Sekrit Plans Are Still In Effect, or anything, but since the draft has come up again -- and I agree that now it's finally a plausible conceivable danger, again -- I don't know if anyone read my recent Nixon/Kissinger/Vietnam post with tape transcript quotes, which included this:
He didn't get a crack at it, and for good reasons, it hasn't happened yet, and I certainly hope it won't happen anytime soon, but there are Nixon's intentions for you.Certainly enlarging the volunteer Army substantially has severe limits, as G'kar noted.
But it's difficult to see a draft being accepted without massive protest and political response absent a massive terrorist incident, on the order of a fizzle-nuke, or something causing thousands of deaths.
Fortunately, that could never happen.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 16, 2007 at 03:42 PM
More proof that the "Surge" is a political effort for domestic consumption rather than any kind of actual military plan in Iraq.
If they are fearful of Petraeus being questioned openly in hearings, then things are really bad (and perhaps the guy does have honor).
To sense the true drift of things, compare these headlines:
"We're Winning" National Review, April, 2005
"We're Going to Win"The Weekly Standard 12/25/06
"A War We Might Just Win" recent Pollack and O'Hanlon NYT op-ed
Blog contest -- pick the next fluffer headline that tempers optimism just enough to avoid obvious ridiculousness.
___________
It reminds me of that famous devolution of Bush sayings about WMD from Drumm:
March 2003: Weapons of mass destruction.
June 2003: Weapons of mass destruction programs.
October 2003: Weapons of mass destruction-related programs.
January 2004: Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.
Posted by: dmbeaster | August 16, 2007 at 04:14 PM
As for the draft possibilities, it does have the side benefit of making it much harder for warmongers to convince the public that America's future is to wage aggressive wars.
Right now, the volunteer army allows a faction in this country to employ them like mercenaries -- wars for which they advocate but in which they would not serve nor want those close to them to serve.
Posted by: dmbeaster | August 16, 2007 at 04:19 PM
One of my hobbies is listening to politicians talk about expanding the size of the Army.
Now, I can -- if I squint real hard -- grasp the "Get the Heck out of Iraq" squad's reasoning here, which is that once we're no longer involved in an unpopular war, the military will once again look like a good career option. So, if I stretch what they say a little, I get an "End war, rebuild + expand army over next 10 years since we're not involved in unpopular war = larger army".
But the "Stay the Course" crowd (Guiliani is the latest offender) and their "Expand the Army by tens of thousands" idea -- expand it with who? How? It's like the think there's this giant crowd of people who want to join the military, but we just don't have room for them, darnit. Like there's a queue or something.
And then there's the "Deal with Iran" crowd. I swear, some people apparently think the US Army is of infinite size.
Posted by: Morat20 | August 16, 2007 at 05:14 PM
Morat20, from what I've heard, the "Deal with Iran" crowd does think we need many troops for that, just a few (or many thousand, or more) well-targeted bombs. Then the Iranians will throw up their hands and greet us as liberators, taking no further action.
Posted by: KCinDC | August 16, 2007 at 05:41 PM
Argh, s/does/doesn't/
Posted by: KCinDC | August 16, 2007 at 05:41 PM
"Blog contest -- pick the next fluffer headline that tempers optimism just enough to avoid obvious ridiculousness."
"A War It's Conceivable To Win."
"Losing The War? Not Yet!"
"A War We May Not Lose."
"A War That We Might Still Save."
"A War I Dream Of Winning."
"A War I've Dreamed Of Winning."
"I Had A Dream... About A War."
"One War Lost: But Not The Next!"
"Winning The Next War."
"Iran: We'll Win."
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 16, 2007 at 05:48 PM
One of my hobbies is listening to politicians talk about expanding the size of the Army.
Yes, it's beginning to sicken me and pushes me further down the path towards advocating disbanding the United States Army completely.
Posted by: Ugh | August 16, 2007 at 05:52 PM
"Like there's a queue or something."
In fact, there's a fixed number of slots for each service, and if more recruits showed up, yeah, they'd be turned away. That's how it's worked since the volunteer military was put into effect.
That's not practically going to happen now, of course, but in point of fact, yes, that's how it works: with fixed ceilings, in law. That's perhaps why "they" think it works that way: because it does.
You had a valid point (that right now there's hardly a problem with too many people volunteering), but might have been best leaving it at that.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 16, 2007 at 05:54 PM
KCinDC: "Argh, s/does/doesn't/"
While that statement makes perfect sense to me, and has for the past 30 years, for what fraction of the community is that true?
Posted by: Michael Cain | August 16, 2007 at 06:12 PM
Michael Cain: While that statement makes perfect sense to me, and has for the past 30 years, for what fraction of the community is that true?
Cleek and I. And you. ;)
Posted by: OCSteve | August 16, 2007 at 06:39 PM
Ugh: Yes, it's beginning to sicken me and pushes me further down the path towards advocating disbanding the United States Army completely.
Really? No snark? You would do away with our standing Army? Isn’t that a bit radical?
Posted by: OCSteve | August 16, 2007 at 06:41 PM
"Expand the Army by tens of thousands" idea -- expand it with who? How? It's like the think there's this giant crowd of people who want to join the military, but we just don't have room for them, darnit. Like there's a queue or something."
Well, I presume you're aware that in the 1980s we had a volunteer army that was dramatically bigger than now, off a much small population base. And that would be more than a hundred thousand person difference.
I'm completely confident that we could have expanded the army to that level at any time in the Clinton years (when we were pretty much hounding officers out of the Service) and at any time in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. I'm fairly confident that we could have done so in 2005. I think it was possible but I'm not confident that was true in 2006. It would be difficult right at this second in the middle of a deeply unpopular war, but that's about it.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | August 16, 2007 at 07:05 PM
"Isn’t that a bit radical?"
It works for Costa Rica. Surely there are no significant differences?
:-)
(Arguments as to whether or how it could work -- or fail -- are available; I'm dubious any terribly plausible accounts of how this might actually come about in reality in the next few years are.)
One argument might be that all we really need for defending America at home are the Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, and Marines. :-)
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 16, 2007 at 07:07 PM
Really? No snark? You would do away with our standing Army? Isn’t that a bit radical?
I think I mentioned that before.
I don't know, really. My thought is that it would take away the US's ability to invade and occupy other nations, leaving us, through the Navy/Air Force, with only the ability to severely hurt other nations - which, in my admittedly half-formed thoughts, seems to me to be much better than the current Iraq situation.
Not to mention the cost savings, etc.
Posted by: Ugh | August 16, 2007 at 07:16 PM
Ugh: I think I mentioned that before.
Yeah, you did. I had the same reaction. ;)
Posted by: OCSteve | August 16, 2007 at 07:21 PM
"Well, I presume you're aware that in the 1980s we had a volunteer army that was dramatically bigger than now, off a much small population base."
There's a very large and crucial difference between the two circumstances.
"It would be difficult right at this second in the middle of a deeply unpopular war, but that's about it."
Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?
Sebastian, recruiters were struggling the past two months to find several hundred more recruits to make their quotas. Thanks to $20,000 signing bonuses, they made it with a few to spare.
Barely. How much are you prepared to pay to find 100,000 more willing voluntary recruits, given it's this hard to find 300? A million apiece? Because there will be diminishing returns to how much each increment of bonus draws in. I don't know how much or what it would take to find 100,000 more recruits, but I'm not prepared to draw an assertion out of... anywhere. YMMV, but please show your work, if you would be so kind.
Cite:
Of course, that means that to get these recruits, we had to lose one thousand troops from doing something else. Like fighting. We're just able to pull in 80,000 a year; you want to add 100,000 more, and see no problem? Because, heck, two simultaneous wars, and, let's not forget the Global War On Terrorism -- it's wartime! -- isn't a very serious factor?Mind, if an American city gets nuked, god forbid, we probably wouldn't have any problem. But in that case, we're already beyond nightmares.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 16, 2007 at 07:23 PM
Gary: "A War That We Might Still Save."
I'm thinking this one will actually be put to use in the next month -- it neatly encapsulated the remaining argument.
Posted by: Nell | August 16, 2007 at 07:27 PM
"My thought is that it would take away the US's ability to invade and occupy other nations, leaving us, through the Navy/Air Force, with only the ability to severely hurt other nations - which, in my admittedly half-formed thoughts, seems to me to be much better than the current Iraq situation."
Let me put it this way, Ugh. Say this happens. Congress is blown up, and Dennis Kucinich becomes President, appoints a new Congress, and gets it to pass. Whatever.
Then, the next President elected is the Reincarnation of Dick Cheney. He looks around, and he has a full nuclear triad force, but no Army.
What's he going to do when he looks at Iran, North Korea, or whomever is the new boogie-man of the day (Myanmar gets nukes, say, or Chechnya -- doesn't matter, so long as Reincarnated Dick Cheney Sees The Danger)?
1. Turn pacifist? 2. Restrain himself to only conventional bombing/missiling? 3. Use the nukes?
I don't see this working out so well, myself. I see some teeny flaws.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 16, 2007 at 07:30 PM
Gary - Did I say it was a realistic position? It's just my crazed musings.
Posted by: Ugh | August 16, 2007 at 07:39 PM
You would do away with our standing Army? Isn’t that a bit radical?
Well, that Dirty Fncking Hippie, George Washington, would pretty much have agreed.
Posted by: Phil | August 16, 2007 at 07:43 PM
"Well, that Dirty Fncking Hippie, George Washington, would pretty much have agreed."
But everyone needs to obtain a musket, as part of the standing militia, then. Or if we're being really authentic to these values, only the white Christian men, while meanwhile only the white Christian men with substantial property have a vote, and slaves. Good times! Original American values! It's Morning In America again!
;-)
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 16, 2007 at 07:59 PM
Oh yes, I'm on Obsidian Wings. I need to be clear:
Allow me to reiterate: "Expand the Army by 10,000? How? It's not like there's a queue right now of people wanting to join, but being turned away".
Sebastion: You're confidant we could have done that in 2004 or 2005? When the Army was already failing to meet recruitment goals? In 2001 and 2002, I'll grant you. Maybe even 2003. But military recruitment problems started in late 2003, early 2004.
Posted by: Morat20 | August 16, 2007 at 08:04 PM
Seb,
I think your comparison of army sizes might be flawed. Here's why: over the last 25 years, inflation has occurred and significant productivity enhancements have become available. But, those productivity enhancements have not been distributed uniformly throughout the economy: an infantryman in 2007 is not significantly more productive than an infantryman in 1982.
He's somewhat more productive; he has somewhat better equipment and better medical care when injured and somewhat better training, but in the field these advances probably only add up to 10-20% improvement.
Compare our soldier to an employee in the air travel industry: productivity enhancements in that sector have allowed one person to do the jobs of many. Remember when the only way to get a ticket was through a travel agent? Orbitz. Remember when you had to see a human being to check in? Kiosks. Or print your own boarding pass at home. Heck, compare the size of the flight crew for a 747 to a 777.
The productivity enhancements in the air travel industry have allowed them to keep pace with inflation, and, to actually lower prices over time. Other sectors of the economy where these productivity enhancements have not accrued have fallen behind, which means that over time, the cost of a single worker in those industries grows, and grows faster than inflation. I would argue that that group includes primary school teachers and infantry, especially infantry engaged in a counterinsurgency.
Classical counterinsurgencies reduce the effectiveness of our force multipliers: we can't use artillery, we can't use air strikes, we can't use much armor, so what are we left with? Boots on the ground, talking to people, getting intelligence, using small arms. Those things just don't benefit from Moore's Law.
Soldiers have gotten more expensive in real terms since the 1980s. We cannot necessarily afford to increase the size of the military to what it was in the distant past.
Posted by: Turbulence | August 16, 2007 at 08:13 PM
Just as a theoretical point: if Bush/Cheney were willing to attack the anti-gay policies traditional in the Republican party, and make it legal for GLBT people to serve openly in the military, that would mean the US military was no longer losing several hundred people a year and might mean a spike up in recruitment. But given the dependence of the Republican party on placating homophobic voters, I somehow think this is about as likely as a Republican presidential declaring he's for marriage equality. Still, there's no doubt that abandoning DADT would make some difference...
Posted by: Jesurgislac | August 16, 2007 at 08:37 PM
It could have the fatal result of drawing some people (back) in that actually speak Arabic. Nobody could want that.
On the other hand gay battalions have a honorable tradition (think Thebes) and also make excellent cannon fodder (thus it could be sold to both sides as either empowerment or a clever plan to get rid of them).
[/less than tasteful ersatz snark]
Posted by: Hartmut | August 17, 2007 at 07:06 AM
The problem is that if you tell GLBT citizens they have the right to die for their country, they may not take being told "but you're legally second-class citizens in all other respects" quite as tamely as the Republican party requires of them. "You know what the army's really afraid of? A thousand guys with M-16s going, 'Who you calling a faggot?'" /tasteless snark
Posted by: Jesurgislac | August 17, 2007 at 07:52 AM
Jes: I’m sure you must be aware of the origins of the current policy. Hardly something that can be laid at the feet of Republicans. Heck, Barry Goldwater wanted a complete repeal of the ban and opposition to repeal was led by Sam Nunn. The compromise was pushed by Barney Frank of all people.
For the record, I never had any problem serving with GLBT soldiers (it was mostly an open secret at the time) and I’m in favor of lifting the ban completely.
Posted by: OCSteve | August 17, 2007 at 08:31 AM
I used s/// here before some time ago and we got into a conversation about it and how many people understand "!=" and whether Gary is a geek. Can't find it at the moment. I don't know that we got a real answer to the question.
Posted by: KCinDC | August 17, 2007 at 09:59 AM
Turbulence: "Boots on the ground, talking to people, getting intelligence, using small arms. Those things just don't benefit from Moore's Law."
Not to disagree with your overall point, which is well-taken, but this isn't entirely true. There are quite a few ways technology has upped "productivity" in today's exciting new counter-insurgency, now with added crunchiness.
For instance: hand-held electronic fingerprint takers and field computerized biometric ID kits, combined with a central database of the local populace. Networked omputerization at platoon and squad level and above; integrated electronic intelligence to various degrees; use of satellite intel at relatively low levels; facial recognition software for intel purposes; laser sights; robotic IED sweepers; overhead drones with live video feeds; night vision; infrared technology in general; encrypted radios.
That's just off the top of my head. I wouldn't attempt to put a number to how much more "efficient" a squad or soldier might be than during, say, Vietnam, because of technology, but I'd have to think they're's at least a little bit of improvement.
"I don't know that we got a real answer to the question."
I trust the question wasn't "is Gary a geek?" :-)
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 18, 2007 at 01:00 AM
Model 62: To Mars...
...bitches.
Also, is anyone else tempted to sing this General's name to the tune of the Planet of the Apes musical from the Simpsons?
Gen Patraeus, Gen Patraeus...
Posted by: Anarch | August 18, 2007 at 08:27 AM
Gary,
I agree with you to some extent. The drones appear to have been quite useful, although as far as I can tell, there is a shortage of drones and most units aren't getting enough UAV support.
Fingerprint readers I can certainly believe are useful, but I'm skeptical of other biometrics. I haven't seen any articles on this subject, but my experience with facial recognition software is that it is a complete joke. Are Iraqis really willing to get entered into a biometric database? Whole cities of them?
IR is clearly a huge win (although we had some IR and night vision equipment in the 80s) and proved helpful right from the start of the invasion. Laser sights are great, but are only useful if you have an enemy to shoot at; one problem in Iraq is that we often don't.
I'm skeptical of the computerization at the platoon levels; one of the things that came out in Cobra II was how during battle, the radio nets were swamped with chatter and were significantly less useful as a result. And while computerization can do great things, do the benefits outweigh the costs, especially the costs of keeping a maintenance staff on site?
Encrypted radios are great, but only when they work, and some of them (like the early batches delivered to NYC police and firefighters before 9/11) just didn't work well at all.
Finally, I'd point out that our soldiers benefit from technological improvements, those benefits can be neutralized by insurgent adoption of the benefits. This war is very different because insurgents have cell phones and easier knowledge propagation makes IEDs harder to defend against. We don't get the full benefits of aerial drones because some of our robot development capacity and many of our robots are spent counteracting the IED thread...
Posted by: Turbulence | August 18, 2007 at 01:45 PM
Yeah, I didn't say technology was going to win counterinsurgencies; I merely noted that saying it didn't help in the slightest wasn't entirely true.
Posted by: Gary Farber | August 18, 2007 at 01:58 PM
Political correctness again running amuck. These packages were not being forced down anyone's throat. They were just going to be made available to those who wanted them. Most of our brave fighting men and women are deeply religious and this religiosity was a major factor in motivating them to volunteer to serve. Depriving them of spiritual sustenance is just going to hurt their morale.
Posted by: nabalzbbfr | August 22, 2007 at 11:03 PM