Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
How Many Will Die Before Petraeus Tells Us What We Already Know?
Be afraid. The ghosts of campaigns past are once again haunting the Democratic Party.
Remember 2004, and how the Kerry camp couldn't decide whether to highlight the war and national security or to push domestic issues? Well, those chains are rattling again.
Even as a steady stream of bad news pours out of Iraq, Democrats are once more divided over how much of their focus to put on Iraq.
"You can't become a one trick pony," warned Rahm Emanuel, arguing that Democrats need to pay equal attention to domestic issues. And Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor yesterday called on Democrats to abandon efforts to set a public troop withdrawal date (Pryor said he could support a super-double-secret redeployment timeline known only to a select group of U.S. officials. I assume this would include Gen. Petraeus, Karl Rove, and Steve Perry -- who proved he can keep things hush-hush).
I guess Emanuel, Pryor, and those in their camp missed the reports of plummeting approval ratings for Congressional Democrats after the no-timeline Iraq funding vote.
Thankfully, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid seem to have learned the lesson of 2004 -- it's not the extended family leave, stupid. Or, at least, they've learned the lesson of 2007: there is nothing wrong with being a one trick pony, if it's the right trick. And at this point, getting us out of Iraq is the feat voters most want to see.
"In terms of the issue that the American people want to see resolved," said Pelosi, "the war is three or four times higher than any other issue."
And Reid has vowed "to hold the president's feet to the fire" on Iraq. He is planning to reintroduce three or four Iraq proposals as part of the debate on a Pentagon authorization bill slated for later this month, two of which include timetables for withdrawal.
The Democrats don't expect any of these amendments to pass, but are hoping to soften what support remains for the war -- eventually winning the battle in September, when Gen. Petraeus offers his report on the progress of the surge.
"We want them to vote and vote and vote again," a senior Democratic senator told Politico, in explaining the Party's plan to force Republicans to repeatedly go on the record in support of the war. "They are going to have to vote on Iraq until they are sick of it."
Given the reality of the Democrats' precarious majority, this is no doubt a sound political strategy. But do we really have to wait until September to hear Petraeus tell us what we already know? Just look at the news:
The Pentagon's first comprehensive overview of the surge, released yesterday, found that violence in Iraq has actually increased since the escalation. The report also found that the Iraqi government has made "little progress" on achieving the political goals the latest security push was supposed to facilitate. Indeed, the Pentagon admitted "some analysts see a growing fragmentation of Iraq."
In the punch-in-the-gut words of the New York Times' Damien Cave: "Iraq's political leaders have failed to reach agreements on nearly every law that the Americans have demanded as benchmarks, despite heavy pressure from Congress, the White House, and top military commanders... Doubts are spreading about whether the current benchmarks can ever halt the cycle of violence gripping Iraq's communities." That was "ever" -- let alone by September.
Even Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was driven to this bleak assessment: "There are two mentalities in this region, conspiracy and mistrust." Not exactly the cornerstones for reconciliation. (In a PR exercise on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal, Maliki slipped on his rose-colored glasses and compared the situation in Iraq to America in the 1860s and our own "civil war that took hundreds of lives but ended in the triumph of freedom and the birth of a great power." Maybe Maliki sees himself as Lincolnesque, but the Pentagon report found that he has often failed to deliver on his promises of progress.)
As for the administration's hoped for Patraeus ex machina, the general has reached the point where he is grasping for silver linings. He told USA Today the surge is working, citing as proof of "normalcy" "professional soccer leagues with real grass field stadiums, several amusement parks -- big ones, markets that are very vibrant." And while calling yesterday's follow-up attack on the Samarra Mosque a "serious blow" to U.S. efforts, he tried desperately to stay positive, telling ABC News: "There is even some hope, perhaps, that al Qaeda may have overplayed its hand." And, "perhaps," Tojo had us right where he wanted us after Hiroshima.
Is that what we are waiting until September to hear? Anecdotes about big amusement parks and grass-covered soccer fields and "some hope" that "perhaps" we might possibly have allowed the insurgents to become overconfident?
That would be funny -- in a dark, pathetic way -- if we hadn't just completed the deadliest six-month stretch of the now-over four year war, with 586 Americans killed. On average, we are now losing more than 3 U.S. soldiers a day -- and more than 100 a month. And more than 100 Iraqi civilians are killed every day.
We have now reached the Iraq war equivalent of April 23, 1971, when disaffected vet John Kerry sat in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and asked: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
The Democrats need to stick with Reid's plan to ratchet up the pressure on the president -- and especially on Congressional Republicans who will have to face the wrath of voters in 2008. It is the right thing to do -- both on moral grounds and on political grounds.
The Democrats should ride their one-trick pony until it drops.
Arianna Huffington is the editor of The Huffington Post and the author of many books, including her most recent, 'Becoming Fearless....in Love, Work and Life'.
© 2007 The Huffington Post



29 Comments so far
Show All"The Democrats need to stick with Reid's plan to ratchet up the pressure on the president — and especially on Congressional Republicans who will have to face the wrath of voters in 2008. It is the right thing to do — both on moral grounds and on political grounds."
Before the Democrats get too carried away with mutual congratulations and backslapping due to their self view of their political astuteness, (refusing to do anything concrete about the Iraq war or impeachment of the biggest crook to serve as president in U.S. history while continuing to make empty gestures) they might want to look at the poll numbers that show a lower approval rating for Congress than even the dismal ratings that Bush has earned.
Lobo Gris
And to date their pony cum jackass hasn't even been able to accomplish that trick, merely turning it, instead. Hey, WTF (Where's The Filibuster)?
If the Dems wanted the Repukes to vote on the war "again and again" why didn't they keep sending the timeline bill back to Bush instead of caving in? More "non-binding resolutions" would be a mockery while every day more people die needlessly in Iraq.
In hindsight, maybe Lincoln made a mistake in fighting for the Union. Had he sat on his hands like Buchanan and let the south go, today's USA might be a much better place while the CSA foundered in slavery's aftermath, poverty, religious fundamentalism, and vilification of science and the educated. Bush might be their president, not mine. Just a little pipe dream...
How many must die? As many as necessary before we are either run out of town, as it were, or we finally decide NO MAS.
jon
Connecting the dots: from human behaviors to ecosystem decline
http://StudentsForTheEarth.org
Am I the only one having troubles posting on this forum?
As much as I like Huffington's spunk I'm afraid she is just another well-meaning pundit who has been hoodwinked by the Democratic (oh, poor us, we can't do anything) Party.
Instead of whining about how they can't do anything but poke at the beast while civilians and soldiers die and our treasury gets drained, shouldn't they be looking at more drastic measures? Why aren't they in the streets leading protests and civil disobedience if they truly believe in ending this war and being leaders of the people?
Yes, I think we all know why.
Arianna is Right!
If the Democrats want be a viable party in future, they better end this war now.
We are not going to win the OCCUPATION! We are not going To CONTROL the OIL. The world and the Middle East are now aligned against us. We have to regain some kind of positive International stature, and ending this War, and providing whatever we can in aid to rebuild Iraq, will further this.
A KNESAL ................ "Little Beirut"
i'm w/ vic anderson: WTF? dumbya submits a budget for war, and YOU FILIBUSTER IT!!! these guys ain't stupid. if they wanted to end the war and provide "support the troops" political cover for themselves, pick a senator from a real lefty/progressive safe state, and have him filibuster the budget. end of story. war over. how goddam hard is that?
wtf w/Bernie Sanders? Vermonters are all against iraq, get him to do it.
how many more arianna articles telling people to be patient w/the wimpocrats?
LOL wcdevins, having lived in the South for slightly over 2 years now I agree completely. They should have been encouraged to leave the Union. Sad thing is, many here still think the South will rise again. They revel in their ignorance and fight education tooth and nail...
jedediah, as a Vermonter I can tell you that, sadly, Bernie's a bit more talk than action. I've been e-mailing, calling, hounding his office since November about impeachment and he's one of the "we don't have the votes...it's a distraction from ending the war" bullshiiters. Pretty disappointing to see how far from his campaign rhetoric his actions are.
58,482.
Is there a prize for who guesses the closest?
YOU FILIBUSTER
jed/zac and vic anderson are right on.Never mind the million placard-carrying protesters on parade; the only "speaking" that will work is FILIBUSTERING.I should know because I was part of the longest-running public hearing(read filibuster)in Canadian history.
I don't know all the technical jargon but flip open your cell-phone with GPS-capability and find Point Roberts,WA
Go north crossing the US/Canada border and you will be in the town of Tsawwassen,British Columbia,Canada.
Look to the east of the town as far as Boundary Bay. All of that farmland,800 acres worth,was within the mayor's stroke--of-a-pen to be rezoned for single-family-dwelling residential development.
Before the pen-stroke, Canadian ,Provincial and Municipal law requires public hearings.
At the hearings' beginning,local farming families,eager to sell , jumped on board the yes-to-rezoning lobby while six local residents said no in the name of the Tsawwassen Homeowners Association and started speaking at the hearings.
Interest in the no-campaign grew.The defining moment came at one hearing when the mayor on record stated that the re-zoning decisions would not be made by council until the hearings were over and the hearings would not be over until the last signed-up person had spoken .
We wondered " Had the mayor actually thought through his own speech.What transpired in the next five months with hearings four nights each week and four hours each night was THE CLASSIC FILIBUSTER with over a thousand "speakers" signed up to speak and did speak.
It took two nights just to read the letters aloud from people too shy to speak publicly.
The mayor's gaffe " the hearings will not end..." was universally construed by the protesters as a "Bingo,we gothcha": We will keep these hearings going indefintely . Speakers' list were so organized that I knew on which days and approximate times through the SUMMER that I would be speaking.
One night the speakers' list was getting precariously short which manifested itself on the self-satisfied smirk of the mayor only to be usurped by the usual stone-face upon watching two people rush into council chambers and scribble ad hoc notes down prior to speaking about the lamentable " price of tea in China"
That was eighteen years ago my friends and in that time the municipal council has been bold enough to allow the rezoning and the building of ONE HOUSE on this property not the proposed two thousand.
You can look on your pocket-GPS and see for yourself.
It's the FILIBUSTER,stupid
An average of three a day will be killed, not counting the Blackwater guys and gals. Since we probably won't be leaving any time in the near future, it may be well over ten thousand by 2020. Of course long before 2020, we may be building an embassy complex in Iran; gotta keep Haliburton busy not a lot of jobs here anymore. Who really knows?
The Bush people keep changing generals, but maintain the same (insane) plot line. Here's what they may opt to do in September, see if any Hollywood elite actors are available to lead the THEATER in the Middle East. Americans love actors, and actors that act like heroes. Why change the direction of incompetence (I know, they need to cover their asses, make it look like there IS progress to buy enough time to get all those bases built, and the new oil "laws" passed over there) when you can just hire an actor the public loves. Satire? Not necessarily given who's in charge. Wonder if Karen Hughes has come up with this PR device yet?
Ariana poses a fair question But that is why the term "cannon fodder" was invented in the first place.
General Petreaus is a professional soldier. A high ranking one ......to be sure.......but nonetheless a soldier. He can't say just anything. He pretty much has to regurgitate the administration line. Are you surprised? I guess we'll have to wait till he retires to hear the real story.........but I don't think that this something that most of you don't already know.What gets me is ..........this freaking Bush outfit is so full of s*** that I can't understand why anybody even listens to them........
The Democrats had the power to stop the war - they didnt. Reid, now says he is going to keep resubmitting a bill with a time line - why is next time going to be any different from last time? Oh the rationalization for not getting the job done might be different but the war will go on.
I would like to believe Harry an Nancy learned something about the one trick pony but I have feeling the only part of that pony they know about the South end of it when its headed North.
He will tell the truth when he retires or we impeach Bu$h the inferior's entire administration.
I read here where some cannot get an answer from their congressmen or senators. I didn't have that problem at all. I wrote to both and within five days received a reply from both. They each asked for a donation for their upcoming election expenses. I felt pretty good about that, until I saw the signatures were actually just copies, not original. Maybe they don't care? Anyway I don't like them anymore and won't ever answer them if they write or call.
When John Kerry sent me an e-mail about the war funding bill I sent a reply that was a bit sarchastic. Something like: You could filibuster, it would be like having a second chance to make a stand on the Ohio vote. You know I haven't gotten an e-mail from him since. Maybe I hit a nerve. I don't mind riding a one trick pony. I'm just getting tired of the damn beast laying down and rolling over on me and not doing the trick. I'm funny like that.
While I agree with Arianna that the war must be the Dems focus til it's over, there are political realities that can't be overlooked.
First and Foremost, a solid bloc of 48 GOP Senators and one "Independent", that have yet to break with Bush/Cheney. This is W's insurance against impeachment and his ticket to rule by veto.
Second, Bush didn't write the supplemental, he puts up a request for funding, the Appropriations committee writes the bill, Filibustering your own bill does no good.
But Third, the current plan for Iraq hazily coming into view is that in September, Patraeus will testify that things have worked out fine with the S(pl)urge (regardless of the actual reality of the situation) and that we are "Bringing the Troops Home".
That is also a lie, of course, because we will only bring home about 100,000 of our troops, the rest, plus the mercenaries, will remain, mostly arrayed around the oil production areas on (as many as) fourteen "enduring bases" and our fortress Embassy. Oh, Yeah, the Airwar will be ramped up massively. That's one reason we now have Navy Admirals taking the reins, they are Airwar specialists.
But this will be played out as VE day, massive celebrations, the MSM trumpeting our "Victory" in Iraq, parades, et cetera. And anyone who dares to point out that Iraq is still Occupied, that we are still pouring money and lives into the quicksand, will be vilified.
They will have taken the Democrats' one-trick away from them.
All of this presupposes that Cheney doesn't start World War 4 by nuking Iran as a diversionary measure when the Libby revelations start closing in on his undisclosed location.
In that case, all bets are off.
How is it a matter of either / or?
United States leadership should be about both Domestic and International policies.
Americans want us to stop the militarism in Iraq, we also want Universal Health Care (NOT Universal Health Insurance), a healthy equitable economy, and environmental sustainability.
The American People are not a "One Trick Pony" and we would not be represented by people that are single faceted.
The National parties are political machines... Let's get back to Government by and for the People!
CV you have nailed it, you've managed to tell it like it is and how it will be in a a very brief and eloquent manner.
I think that the scenario outlined by CV or something very similar is the most likely outcome of this mess and as someone posted earlier in one of these thread "George W Bush will go down in our history as one of our most heroic Presidents". What might happens after the troops "come home" might be a bit more interesting. I think the Shiite are using the U.S. very successfully. Manipulating us to suppress the Sunni, to grab the oil from the Kurds and to ensure they are in control of Iraq which will eventually be controlled by religious law. If the U.S. quits doing any or all of those things then the Iraqis/Shiites will ask it to leave and that could be interesting.
How many times do we have to hear 'the surge is working' before these clowns get it through their heads it isn't! I don't believe one word that comes out of these people's mouths! They have lied to us so many times they should be ashamed. How many more guys are going to die between now and September when this issue comes up again?????
Petraeus will remain a good soldier. A good soldier never quits. There's no place for pessimism, even when all is lost. So the answer to Ms. Huffington's question of how many must die before Petraeus tells us what we already know is: however many it takes to sustain a permanent occupation -- there is no limit -- and neither Petreaeus nor his line of sucessors will never tell us what we already know.
Oh, and as for the Dems grand plan to wait for political cover from defecting Republicans in September, there aren't going to be any defecting Republicans. Petraeus will either ask for more time to evaluate if it's truly dire, or will out and out report success if there's any shred of it, to which no Republican would dare challenge. So we'll be in the same situation we were in this last spending bill: spineless Democrats worried more about 2008 who will continue to throw our troops into this maw all the while claiming they can't stop funding because troops are in the field.
How positively convenient!
And should the Dems take the White House and maintain both houses of Congress in 2008, they will not -- repeat -- will not do anything but draw down a few token troops to pander to the citizenry.
No, friends, we're in Iraq for keeps. No one within reach of the Presidency is going to do a damn thing. The occupation will remain for the rest of our lifetimes at least, no matter that it puts our entire nation in more danger, and no matter what the cost in blood and treasure, and no matter who controls government. As far as I'm concerned, it's already proven that our elected public servants don't give a damn about the will of the people.
These are the consequences of decades of neglect about energy and transportation policy -- and a public too drunk on cheap gas to resist buying that SUV. Our collective stupor has come home to roost. In this bizarre calculus, the consequences of not owning Iraq militarily are much more than the consequences of owning it. No one in Washington will ever have the guts to say so, so it's nothing but an endless stream of empty excuses. Sixty seven votes my living ass, Senator Biden -- you must take us for fools.
Well, thinking on that some more, I suppose I can appreciate how you came to that conclusion.
Drex: You'd be right about the "bush legacy" IF there wasn't the Internet and MASSIVE amount of data that OTHER nations are aware of that cannot be hidden under a false bush-el.
Trippin: You may be correct about the "good" general, but there are SO many variables, not the least of which is climatic imbalance, the US falling dollar and the many glitches among rival factions that make long-term bets and predictions conceits at best. And my BUSINESS is prediction!
If Harry Reid and Nancy (impeachment is off the table)Pelosi had any guts they would be impeaching Bush/Cheney already not talking about another silly nonbinding bill that the moron will veto instead they should have kept sending the war funding bill with the troop withdrawel back to Bushie everytime he vetoed it so it would show that Bush is not funding the troops by his veto.nonebinding I hate that word.
"The Democrats need to stick with Reid's plan to ratchet up the pressure on the president ..."
Only problem is... Reid doesn't have a plan! Nor does Pelosi. The only congressman who has any clue and even has a plan can't be heard over the din of corporate backed media and his own party leadership. Poor Kucinich...poor us.