ninme

The Telegraph - Washington wobbles

If the White House had its way, there would be no debate on future troop deployments until General David Petraeus, the commander of US forces in Iraq, presents his progress report to Congress on September 15 on the effectiveness of the new tactics. But these are febrile times in Washington, and with the two main parties already repositioning themselves for next year’s presidential election contest, even stalwart Republican supporters of the Iraq invasion are said to have serious doubts about maintaining the number of troops committed to Iraq at their current levels.

How very American of us. Millions of lives at stake, a whole country on the brink of failure, foreign troops poised at their borders, the carnage and decades of misery of Vietnam and Cambodia to be repeated… Oh, but there’s an election coming up! A bunch of old white dudes (and one old white chick and one old whitish dude) want to live in big white house and have lots of foreign travel opportunities for four years! Because at this rate, what else of the presidency is there?

While it is easy to understand the desire of leading politicians to distance themselves from an increasingly unpopular war, they owe it to the brave soldiers who risk their lives to bring some semblance of order to Iraq to keep their counsel until the surge tactics have run their course. The extra 30,000 troops promised by President Bush last January will not be fully deployed until the middle of August. It would make more sense for the Senate to discuss Washington’s future troop commitments once the surge has run its course.

Hah.

Weekly Standard - Moment of Truth for the President
Will he reject disastrous advice to compromise with opponents of the war? by William Kristol

Indeed, the White House is living in a fool’s paradise if they imagine that “compromising” now and in this way buys them anything. Even the New York Times editorial page has abandoned the pretence that its preferred strategy will lead to anything other than catastrophe in Iraq, and in the very near term. If the president gives in now, he will not be credited with a statesmanlike compromise. He will be lambasted by the left for fighting a bad war, and by the right for fighting it badly, recommitting us to the fight, and then losing it. The remainder of his term will be mired in congressional investigations as the waters fill with blood and the sharks go in for the kill. The Democrats will be emboldened to press him on every front, especially since Iraq is virtually the only position he’s actually been defending. Lame duck does not even begin to describe where President Bush will be if he does this.

What’s more, the president will lose any ability to mitigate the effects of the withdrawal or control it. The pullout will become a wild hell-for-leather race for the exit, and the result will be a triumph for al Qaeda and Iran, and a moral and geopolitical disaster for the United States.

Hmm. Murderous fascist terrorist enemies of Our Great Democracy (hah) win, and that rates a “what’s more”, after the politics of it. Nice.

The best strategy for the president is to hold firm. There is every reason to believe that he can survive the current calamity-Janes of the Republican party (does anyone really imagine that a veto-proof majority will form in the Senate this week or next?). This nonsense will pass, Congress will go on recess, and Petraeus will have a chance to continue to produce results–and the president and his allies will have a chance to gain political ground here at home. Why on earth pull the plug now? Why give in to an insane, irrational panic that will destroy the Bush administration and most likely sweep the Republican party to ruin?

Sorry, who’s being destroyed and ruined here?

Some of his advisers are trying to persuade him that he needs to go for a grand bargain now so as to build bipartisan support for his policies when he’s gone. But the only way to do that is to hold firm now–and to counterattack. Those who try to convince him otherwise offer nothing but defeat, for the troops, for the mission, and for the president.

AP - Iraqi FM: Turkey massing 140,000 troops

The Turkish military had no comment to the remarks by Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd from northern Iraq, and it was unclear where he got the figures. If they are accurate, Turkey would have nearly as many soldiers along its border with Iraq as the 155,000 troops which the U.S. has in the country.

Hey, now they know pretty much how many it takes. Somehow I don’t think they’re intended just for the Kurdish border regions, then.

Naharnet (Lebanon) - Syrian Troops Penetrate 3 Kilometers into Lebanese Territories

Syrian troops on Thursday reportedly have penetrated three kilometers into Lebanese territories, taking up positions in the mountains near Yanta in east Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley.

Hey, where are the UN Peacekeepers?

Oh well, maybe when we leave Iraq we can send them there, too.

BBC - US Iraq chief warns of long war

Speaking to the BBC’s John Simpson in Baquba, Gen Petraeus said there was evidence that the recent troops surge was producing gains on the ground.

Looks like, as usual, Our Great Democracy (hah!) is running full steam ahead in the wrong direction, crashing into everyone just coming from there.