Mullen: Iraq wouldn’t be where it is now without the surge
posted at 7:13 pm on July 20, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
A statement of the obvious to cleanse the palate after a long weekend spent choking on Maliki’s stinky tofu. The bit about the surge comes at the end; the beginning is devoted to why timetables are a bad idea. Bien pensants will naturally dismiss this as self-serving rhetoric to advance a political agenda, quite in contrast to the, er, prime minister of Iraq pushing withdrawal with provincial elections on the (receding?) horizon. Speaking of which, treat yourself to this AP analysis of Maliki’s very deliberate exploitation of the U.S. election to gain leverage over Bush. Quote:
According to senior Iraqi officials, the decision to play U.S. politics emerged last month after Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari’s trip to Washington for meetings with Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Obama and Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee…
With the talks [on a long-term security partnership] bogged down, the Iraqis sensed desperation by the Americans to wrap up a deal quickly before the presidential campaign was in full swing.
“Let’s squeeze them,” al-Maliki told his advisers, who related the conversation to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
The squeeze came July 7, when al-Maliki announced in Abu Dhabi that Iraq wanted the base deal to include some kind of timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops.
I don’t mind that he’s using Obama for his own ends; if anything, it increases my confidence in him, that he’s a shrewd operator and not just some stooge we’re propping up. But note this, tucked away towards the bottom of the AP piece: “Military commanders are wondering whether all the political bargaining about withdrawal timetables could create its own unstoppable momentum, leaving Iraqi security forces increasingly in charge when they may not be ready for the task.” Indeed. Occupation is sufficiently unpopular with Iraqis, I’m sure, that if Maliki starts to make a big deal about withdrawal, none of his rivals are going to oppose him on it. It’s politically irresistible but, per Mullen, also quite possibly irresponsible. The question at this point, I guess, is whether Maliki sincerely believes 16 months is enough or whether that’s just a rhetorical bludgeon he’ll lay down once the rest of the security deal hammered out. His problem is, if Iraqis start to get excited about it — notwithstanding the advice of some of their own generals — he’ll be trapped into having to follow through on the timeline lest one of the other Shiite parties coopt the issue and use it to oust him. That’s what’s meant, I take it, by “unstoppable momentum.” Keep an eye on whether and how his statements change after the deal is signed.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Well, this is the Associated Press reporting. Take that for what it’s worth.
Wethal on July 20, 2008 at 7:18 PM
He works for Bush, you can’t trust what he says! Right, alphie?
peacenprosperity on July 20, 2008 at 7:22 PM
‘Oh yeah??????? Well – so what if Obama was against the surge, and that’s okay, because he leadership is so much better, because he was opposed to the 2003 action to remove Saddam in the first place.’
So said Evan Bayh this morning. And if Barack is president, then he’s going to always mention the decisions of years ago when ever someone points out that he was wrong this year. Or the last.
Someone should mention to Obama that you make decisions in the here and now, and not always fall back on what you may have said in a rally in chicago in front of dozens of people where there isn’t any audio recording.
wise_man on July 20, 2008 at 7:24 PM
Does AP stand for Always Preposterous?
Beto Ochoa on July 20, 2008 at 7:24 PM
Guess Mullen is gonna join Lieberman working the phones at the Psychic Hotline when he retires?
alphie on July 20, 2008 at 7:25 PM
There you are! I wondered where you had wandered off to.
wccawa on July 20, 2008 at 7:28 PM
And if Bush had sent the U. S. military in to “smash and break things”, then brought them home, allowing infidel hating muslims to fight other infidel hating muslims, instead of puting them in between infidel hating muslims fighting other infidel hating muslims using them as some kind of nation-building corps from America engaging in all of this Islamic Nation Building, “Islam is Peace” hoo-ha, there would not have been any need for any “surge”. There also would not have been any need for U.S. Army Generals to kiss the Koran.
MB4 on July 20, 2008 at 7:29 PM
He must be a Bu$Hitlerburton stooge. Everyone knows violence is down cause all the shia killed all the sunni and all the sunni killed all the shia. And Iran is on our side. And there is no AQ in Iraq. It had nothing to do with “the surge.”
I mean, Mullen is just a political appointee who owes his bones to Rove/Cheney.
Plus, the war has been lost since last year. And the only WMD’s are weapons of mass deception used by Bush to kill American soldiers so he can get his Big Oil buddies no bid contracts and rape the earth in the cradle of civilization.
Duh.
VolMagic on July 20, 2008 at 7:31 PM
Guess Mullen is gonna,
alphie on July 20,2008 at 7:25PM.
alphie: You sound psychic!
Hey alphie,I got a question,are you a former
member of the United States Military? :)
canopfor on July 20, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Yeah. How’s that Iraqi Air Force and Navy working out yet?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 20, 2008 at 7:38 PM
… then the strongest bully would have prevailed over the weak, and Iraq would have gone from the real danger of Saddam to the real danger of some other man who murdered his way to the top. Just like Saddam did.
Bush is leaving Iraq a better place – when you put these events of their totality – into the historical context of generations, not just the teens of years.
And with a successful transformation of Iraq, the entire middle east may very well be in a better place. And only an invasion and people fighting for what’s right and not allowing the thugs to win because we left … could make that happen.
wise_man on July 20, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Alright, was this satire, or do you believe this?
wise_man on July 20, 2008 at 7:43 PM
Leverage against Bush? Really?
McCain isn’t even running (based on MSM coverage). Barry is on every channel, every day, yet the national tracking of Ras and Gallup still only have him up by 2.
As for the ‘nationalist’ Maliki he knows the doughboys aren’t leaving any time soon. He is playing up this angle for some domestic leverage, not to use as a stick against Bush.
Limerick on July 20, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Dude, that’s the most shallow analysis I could ever imagine.
TheBigOldDog on July 20, 2008 at 7:47 PM
It is amazing reading posts from supposed civilized people who welcome – welcome! – bloodshed in Iraq between the various sects.
As if thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqis wouldn’t have been caught between these violent factions. They would have been slaughtered by the thousands. And yet people would celebrate such an act.
Amazing. Simply amazing.
One can imagine the enormous humanitarian crisis – not to mention the victory of Al-Qaeda – had we left Iraq to these depredations. The standing of the US in the region, if not the world, would have collapsed.
Radical elements would have celebrated and used the propaganda victory as a recruiting tool.
No, anyone who would welcome such bloodshed, such horror is a deeply misguided and lost soul.
SteveMG on July 20, 2008 at 7:47 PM
alphie, did you finish the reading I recommended to you in the Obama-socialist thread?
Entelechy on July 20, 2008 at 7:50 PM
Also, alphie, are you still a conservative, or a plant?
Btw, all ohters, there are a few here since the last registration. They came over when the captain moved over. Some claim to be disgruntled conservatives.
Entelechy on July 20, 2008 at 7:51 PM
Maybe you can get him to help you in your cause of putting port-potties throughout suburbia as a public service?
TheBigOldDog on July 20, 2008 at 7:52 PM
So far, everthing looks real rosey,and the terrorists
are probably just sittin back,and Hoping and praying
that something Changes,like Obama’s grand illusion
vision of Iraq!
Obamas thinking, and logic, is hey,it sure looks
peaceful,so lets quickly surrender and pullout
and lets Hope, this just goes right,just like
every other Liberal military debacle!
canopfor on July 20, 2008 at 7:58 PM
Ent,
Anyone who is for government spending is a socialist…especially those of you who are for military spending.
I’m still a conservative…I just don’t believe in god or empire…which makes me a paleocon, I guess.
alphie on July 20, 2008 at 8:01 PM
We can’t even get Poland to accept our missile defense.
Or Maliki to do what we want.
Sheesh, some empire.
SteveMG on July 20, 2008 at 8:04 PM
I agree, people who refuse to see the humanity in someone simply because they happen to practice a certain religion, as intolerant as that religion might be, really piss me off. Its completely disgusting.
jimmy the notable on July 20, 2008 at 8:05 PM
Also, I’m not for bashing Maliki at all. I don’t think we should give him a 100% free pass on everything he says, but he’s one of the most impressive war-time leaders of our time.
jimmy the notable on July 20, 2008 at 8:06 PM
I guess our founding fathers were big ol’ socialists then. I never really thought of George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson as a socialist.
terryannonline on July 20, 2008 at 8:09 PM
Yes, it is.
I certainly respect those who say that the costs of our staying are too high and that we simply can’t create a self-governing nation there. That culture, history, religious differences just make it impossible.
And that, as terrible as it is, we can’t stop the violence. We have to go.
I respect that.
But I can’t respect those who would welcome – and that’s what they are doing, welcoming it – such a disaster.
Nope. That’s contemptible.
SteveMG on July 20, 2008 at 8:09 PM
WMD
VolMagic on July 20,2008 at 7:31PM.
VolMagic:The WMD that Saddam used,he actually gassed a
village,and I’ve got a Times magazine of 1991,
and on that map,it shows chemical,nuclear,and
biological sites!
So I surmise I guess,that the vast left wing
conspiracy kabal was just setting up President
Bush Sr.!
And almost every Liberal Democrat on audio,and
video has said the same story of WMD,that Saddam
had them!
So then,you mean to tell me,that the Liberal’s
were lying,and I don’t want to hear the same ole’
Bush lied story!
This WMD,came along way before President Bush Jr.
came along!
canopfor on July 20, 2008 at 8:12 PM
I thought it was sufficiently over the top.
Have I not posted enough recently? It was a send up of a fevered DKos moonbat’s take on this news.
You’re a paulnut. Not to be confused with a conservative or a paleo.
VolMagic on July 20, 2008 at 8:19 PM
What’s the worst about it is the liberals who claim to care about our soldiers who are dying, who claim to be all about helping people, who wanted us to leave all along, no matter the situation, no matter the consequences. But then again, these are people who still believe that the United States Military, as a whole, is a more negative force in Iraq than a positive force. I actually had an argument with someone once who said it was a “moral obligation” for us to leave immediately. I guess she was listening to one too many “winter soldiers.”
jimmy the notable on July 20, 2008 at 8:19 PM
Interesting…………. I wonder who was in desperation?
Stable Iraqi government and Victory in Iraq for the United States = a win for President Bush and Senator McCain.
Timetable for withdrawal based on a time line before Obama even talked to the people fighting the war = A loss for Obama.
My conclusion is Obama = Desperation. McCain wipes the floor with Obama on gravitas, military experience, and as Commander in Chief. Hence, reason for the trip and press corp love fest.
Seven Percent Solution on July 20, 2008 at 8:23 PM
Have I not posted..
VolMagic on July 20,2008 at 8:19PM.
VolMagic: Excellent ruse,I tip my hat,nicely done,
I should have realized you were setting up
a Moonbat trap!haha:)
canopfor on July 20, 2008 at 8:24 PM
Ding! Ding! Ding!
We have a winner!
wccawa on July 20, 2008 at 8:25 PM
alphie,I’m still awaiting an answer!
canopfor on July 20, 2008 at 8:25 PM
Yes, I can understand (somewhat) those paleo-conservatives who argued that we should leave no matter what. They have been pretty consistent about saying “America first” and that we have no business (or capability) to create democracy in such a hostile area.
But those on the left who lecture us about the moral standing of the US, about how we must help stop the slaughter and deaths of others around the world (Sudan, et cetera), for them to dismiss concerns about possible genocide in Iraq upon our leaving is incomprehensible.
I guess, as you noted, they believe (Obama has stated this) that the presence of the US in Iraq was the sole or chief cause of the violence. That if we left, AQ would leave and the Iraqis would settle their differences on their own.
I’m not sure that that wasn’t an example of the wish fathering the thought or not.
To be sure, many on the left believe that there isn’t a problem in the world that can’t be solved by simply having the US leave or not be involved.
SteveMG on July 20, 2008 at 8:26 PM
Heres a tidbit,from the July 14,New York Times OpEd.
Obama says,”As I’ve said many times,we must BE CAREFUL
getting out of Iraq as we were CARELESS
GETTING IN”!
Very telling,no?
canopfor on July 20, 2008 at 8:31 PM
Those of us who came from CQ apologize for letting half-wits like him make it in here.
Squid Shark on July 20, 2008 at 8:53 PM
Just a point of Order, Jefferson hated military spending…
Squid Shark on July 20, 2008 at 8:54 PM
I don’t doubt that Maliki is going to try and get the best deal he can. Will it create an unstoppable momentum? I don’t think so. The actual job of removing that many troops is going to be time consuming and arduous. I do think that if in the course of that the security situation starts to deteriorate, Maliki will decide that maybe it is not such a good idea to see us leave.
I think they will sit up a security arrangement before Bush leaves office. After all, if it all goes to hell, Maliki’s head might end up on a pike.
Terrye on July 20, 2008 at 8:56 PM
The good news is that Maliki’s own life could be on the line if Iraq crumbles due to him making a mistake. Thus, I would argue that we should refuse to give Maliki refuge if Iraq were to fall apart, and thus make sure he internalizes the cost of failure.
thuja on July 20, 2008 at 9:01 PM
And if I had wings I could fly.
The middle east is getting worse.
MB4 on July 20, 2008 at 9:08 PM
I remember over the years that stories that dealt with attempts by US officers/soldiers to work closely with Iraqi police/military would often end the story with a wink or a shoulder shrug as to whether the US soldier could trust their Iraqi counterparts no matter how poor or well the contact went.
What do they say today? What level of trust exists on the ground?
That seems vital to know in terms of how to view the current state of non belligerence. Am I too skeptical?
BL@KBIRD on July 20, 2008 at 9:13 PM
It is amazing that your reading comprehension seems to have deteriorated even further.
Amazing. Simply amazing.
Muslims killing or abusing other Muslims when there are no Infidels around to kill or abuse is in their nature. It’s also in the Koran.
See history.
MB4 on July 20, 2008 at 9:16 PM
Well your retort to it doesn’t exactly light the night sky.
MB4 on July 20, 2008 at 9:19 PM
Yep, allowing the innocent Iraqi people – the ones helping us now to defeat Al-Qaeda – to be caught between these factions would have been great, just great.
Lots of Iraqis dead – but who cares? They’re Muslims. And all Muslims are the same. They hate us infidels.
Even, apparently, those fighting with us in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Of course, it would have been a disaster for the US as well. Our standing in the Middle East – indeed the world – would have plummeted. No one could trust us. The region would have been thrown into chaos. Humanitarian diaster.
Our allies around the world would have second and third and fourth thoughts about trusting us.
Just swell.
But hey, lots of Muslims are dead.
SteveMG on July 20, 2008 at 9:22 PM
Implying you are a pig, MB?
I can get behind that.
Squid Shark on July 20, 2008 at 9:32 PM
Not when you read the news. As far as Iran goes, we and the rest of the world are currently dealing with this. So how, in your esteemed opinion that is based on no factual evidence whatsoever, is the entire middle east getting ‘worse?’
wise_man on July 20, 2008 at 9:41 PM
The linked AP “analysis” ends with a quoted remark by an Iraqi news vendor. That sourcing settles the situation.
I guess that I will have to weigh in with the delivery person of my local rag in order to make my judgments on world events from here on out. What was I thinking before this critical detail came to my attention?
onlineanalyst on July 20, 2008 at 9:41 PM
The Bible says that a tree is known by the fruit that it bears. It’s all the same rotten fruit, Shia or Sunni, from the same rotten Islamic tree.
We’ve let them enshrine Sharia law, that’s not good for Women, Jews, or Christians or even for many of those “Moderate Muslims”. We make out troops apologize and kiss their filthy Koran.
Once a Muslim government gets a firm hold you’ll see it become more “fundamentalist”, not less.
Eventually Iraq will become just another Muslim country hostile to the US and Israel and we will have spent hundreds of billions of dollars, over 4,000 American lives and tens of thousands of permanently wounded Americans and for that. What a tragedy.
MB4 on July 20, 2008 at 9:43 PM
Is that the new Navy service uniform?
pseudonominus on July 20, 2008 at 9:43 PM
You might be right, MB4. I’m hoping your prediction doesn’t come true. It would be tragic.
terryannonline on July 20, 2008 at 9:57 PM
According to the ITM guys, Maliki’s overstatements were occasioned as well from his deputy’s visit (victory lap?) with Sistani, and sought to reassure Iran that they were not plotting to become part of the anti-Iran axis. Not only the US but Jordan was offended, and that’s when the Prince decided he just couldn’t make it to the next sit down.
PattyJ on July 20, 2008 at 9:58 PM
Terryannonline:
Consider this:
Islamic radicalism itself is incapable of mustering much military power, and the movement largely relies on terrorism to gain attention. Most of the victims are fellow Moslems, which is why the radicals eventually become so unpopular among their own people that they run out of new recruits and fade away. This is what is happening now. The American invasion of Iraq was a clever exploitation of this, forcing the Islamic radicals to fight in Iraq, where they killed many Moslems, especially women and children, thus causing the Islamic radicals to lose their popularity among Moslems.
Anyone who views Islam as some sort of monolithic religion irretrievably hostile to us has, in my view, a overly simplistic view of both that religion and human beings.
More on the above here: Link.
SteveMG on July 20, 2008 at 10:04 PM
It seems to me that this was more luck than a planned effort.
Okay, more than seems. It was.
But we’ll take it anyway.
SteveMG on July 20, 2008 at 10:10 PM
I would like to be wrong too.
MB4 on July 20, 2008 at 10:40 PM
Stinky tofu?? 臭豆腐?? Worst smelling stuff I’ve ever seen people happily eat.
KGB on July 20, 2008 at 10:41 PM
Have you bothered to read R. Spencer’s weekly installments of the Koran?
There’s good reason why EVERY Islamic country is weak to awful on human rights and women’s rights. It’s hardwired into the very religion.
Mojave Mark on July 20, 2008 at 10:50 PM
Yes, some of it. I’ve also read Bernard Lewis’s wonderful writings on Islam. Islam, like most religions (well, the ones I’m somewhat familiar with), is not some static institution that hasn’t changed over the centuries. Doctrine and practice are not always the same.
One not so brief (sorry, stay with it) paragraph from Lewis to illustrate my view:
Islam is one of the world’s great religions. Let me be explicit about what I, as a historian of Islam who is not a Muslim, mean by that. Islam has brought comfort and peace of mind to countless millions of men and women. It has given dignity and meaning to drab and impoverished lives. It has taught people of different races to live in brotherhood and people of different creeds to live side by side in reasonable tolerance. It inspired a great civilization in which others besides Muslims lived creative and useful lives and which, by its achievement, enriched the whole world. But Islam, like other religions, has also known periods when it inspired in some of its followers a mood of hatred and violence. It is our misfortune that part, though by no means all or even most, of the Muslim world is now going through such a period, and that much, though again not all, of that hatred is directed against us.
It seems to me that Islam – and its history – is more complex than just reading verbatim chapters of the Koran or Hadith.
More here: Link
SteveMG on July 20, 2008 at 11:00 PM
Moderate Unicorns.
In medieval times, people created fairy tales and magical creatures to make sense of their world. One of the most endearing is the unicorn, a horse with a single horn that symbolized purity and wholesomeness. In our modern times, people in Europe and the United States consider themselves more sophisticated and rational than people from the Middle Ages, but we still create myths, albeit more subtle ones.
Daily we hear reports of violent acts committed by Islamic terrorists on every inhabited continent. We try to wish it away with the myth of the ‘Moderate Muslim’, telling ourselves the Islamic agenda has been’ hijacked’ by a ‘tiny minority of extremists’ and that soon the huge, silent, moderate majority of Muslims will take charge and change things. However, post 9/11 very few Muslims have condemned terrorist actions. We are still waiting for moderates to stand and deliver, identifying and removing extremist thugs from their mosques and their communities. Waiting for this self-correction is our modern version of unicorn searching.
Moderate Muslims will not be able to wrest control of the agenda for several reasons. First of all, Mohammad, the Messenger of Allah’s eternal word, was not moderate. No moderate can legitimately tell another Muslim to stop doing the extremist things Mohammad himself did. Also, the Koran condones violence and coercion to further the Islamic agenda. People whom we call moderates are labeled hypocrites by Allah Himself in the Koran. Moderates will always lose the argument because, as ex-Muslim author Ibn Warraq says, “There may be moderates in Islam but Islam itself is not moderate.”
Islamic expert Daniel Pipes and others estimate ten percent of the Islamic world to be militant. In 1933 when the Nazi party took control of Germany it had 2 million members, comprising only three percent of Germany’s sixty-six million citizens. A tiny minority of extremists can control a vast number of moderates, making them irrelevant.
Placing hope in ‘The Moderate Muslim’ is like searching for unicorns in the forest.
- A_Plague_on_Both_Houses (JihadWatch)
MB4 on July 20, 2008 at 11:06 PM
All well and good, but when muslims have power, they tyrranise and terrorise all other peoples.
always always always
pseudonominus on July 20, 2008 at 11:29 PM
Sooner or later, if not already, the Iraqi military will itself emerge as a critical party to any division of spoils and power. Much has been said about Iraqi military successes improving confidence in Maliki, but the credit and the credibility belong at least equally to the military. It would be very unusual in a country like Iraq if the various generals and others influential in and with the army didn’t have a major say. The Iraqi military will know at least as well as any Iraqi politicians how realistic any particular withdrawal schedules are, and presumably will have its own opinions about what’s doable and desirable.
The real withdrawal, as opposed to the fantasy withdrawal, will be a complex process involving numerous participants, including diverse enemies, allies, and fence-sitters, as well as the Iraqi populace in all its diversity.
CK MacLeod on July 21, 2008 at 12:01 AM
Isn’t it great we’re talking about whether it’s too soon to pull out troops?
This is victory. Enjoy it. Savor it.
We were right and Iraq is becoming a liberal democracy in the heart of the old caliphate. AQ has discredited itself and suffered massive attrition.
TallDave on July 21, 2008 at 12:46 AM
Government spending on the military is one of very few things that the government spends money on on that is constitutional.
Johan Klaus on July 21, 2008 at 2:47 AM
Damn I love the new(old) Service Dress Khakies. I can’t wait to get my set.
GREENTURTLE on July 21, 2008 at 2:55 AM
pseudonominus on July 20, 2008 at 9:43 PM
Yes it is. Well it is a throwback to the SDKs of the 40s,50s, and 60s. Once I get back from the desert I will trade my DCUs in for those. Thats if i go to the beltway.
GREENTURTLE on July 21, 2008 at 2:59 AM
As was pointed out above – and in numerous places elsewhere – the chief victims (by far) of radical Islam are Muslims.
That, by itself, should cause pause for those who view Muslims as (metaphorically and broadly speaking) some sort of robots who programmatically march together against non-believers.
SteveMG on July 21, 2008 at 9:12 AM
“Pleased to meet you Mr. Maliki. I hope you appreciate your country’s liberation from tryanny. I was opposed to it,” -Barack Hussein O’Jesus.
A caller on Bennett’s show this morning wondered if this conversation would take place. For him to go to Iraq and not ask forgiveness for opposing the war -the cause of Iraq’s liberation- is rank hypocrisy.
Akzed on July 21, 2008 at 9:47 AM
Obama is getting all sorts of favorable coverage because he hit a 20-foot jump shot on a basketball court in front of the troops.
Will anyone remind the viewers that there were no basketball courts in Iraq before the American troops entered Iraq, but lots of soccer stadia where women were mercilessly stoned or shot to death for no reason?
(crickets chirping)
But who needs history or reality? Obama is SOOOOOO cool!
Steve Z on July 21, 2008 at 10:51 AM
I guess you have to be pretty sharp in order to become an Admiral, much less serve on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
saiga on July 21, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Comment pages: