WASHINGTON -- With U.S. General David Petraeus's eagerly anticipated final report on Iraq due on Sep. 15, supporters of the troop surge are busily trying to set the stage for the report that they believe will refute their opponents.
In a worldwide poll released Friday and conducted by the BBC World Service, GlobeScan and the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), 67 percent of international respondents and 61 percent of U.S. citizens think the U.S. should withdraw within a year.
Progress in the troop surge has been slow and Petraeus's July interim report found mixed results, with only six of 18 congressional benchmarks for success in Iraq being met.
On Thursday, the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute (AEI) -- which has generally supported the George W. Bush administration's decisions in Iraq -- put on a marathon three-and-a-half hour series of panel discussions to promote AEI resident scholar Frederick Kagan's new report, "No Middle Way: The Challenge of Exit Strategies From Iraq".
Kagan challenges another recent report by the Center for a New American Security, which proposes a phased withdrawal from Iraq and a shift from the current U.S. role of performing security operations to an advisory and support role for the Iraqi police and military.
"...(The CNAS) report, like most middle-way strategies, mistakes the conditions that would make such a transition successful: when basic security has been established. Instead, it suggests than an immediate transition to an advisory role -- driven by hopes for bipartisanship in Washington but irrespective of the security situation in Iraq -- would allow the United States to withdraw most of its combat forces without compromising its interests," writes Kagan. "That conclusion is false."
The "No Middle Way" kickoff included surge-heavyweights such as Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, the Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon, retired U.S. Army General Jack Keane and AEI's Danielle Pletka and Gary J. Schmitt.
"Middle Way" proponents, however, did get their say with James N. Miller, the co-author of the CNAS report, titled "Phased Transition: A Responsible Way Forward and Out of Iraq", defending his report in one of the two panel discussions.
The lead-up to the Petraeus report -- which, the LA Times reported, "would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government" -- has fanned the flames of debate over whether the surge is actually having its desired effect.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
An existential threat to our democracy. A global pandemic. An unprecedented economic crisis. Our journalism has never been more needed.
Can you pitch in today and help us make our Fall Campaign goal of $80,000 by November 2nd?
Please select a donation method:
All the speakers at the AEI event, minus Miller, painted a positive image of post-surge Iraq, citing drops in sectarian violence and the impossibility of starting an immediate phased withdrawal based on timelines instead of improvements on the ground, both political and security related, which, they claim, would only lead to a failure in Iraq.
Meanwhile, public support for the U.S. military presence in Iraq is continuously dwindling. Proponents of the surge point to statistics showing decreases in sectarian bloodshed, but serious questions have been raised about the validity of this data.
Petraeus, in his upcoming report, is expected to cite a 75 percent decrease in sectarian attacks and a 17 percent decline in civilian casualties from December 2006 to August 2007.
However, an Associated Press report last week said that 1,809 civilian deaths occurred in August, making it the highest monthly casualty count this year, with 27,564 civilians killed since the AP began its data collection in April 2005.
Furthermore, a General Accounting Office (GAO) report -- criticized at the "No Middle Way" event -- found that the "average number of daily attacks against civilians have remained unchanged from February to July 2007."
Kagan, Keen and O'Hanlon discount such dire statistics as not being representative of the Iraq they have witnessed during week-long tours of the country.
Graham summed up the situation as either continuing with the surge and emerging victorious, or choosing a middle ground and facing certain defeat.
"My last visit convinced me more than anything else that the biggest benefit from the surge is to take the men and women on the frontlines and change their attitudes about their mission," said Graham. "They've gone from riding around waiting to be shot to feel like they're kicking their ass. God bless," Graham concluded.
The LA Times suggested on Aug. 25 that morale might not be "sky high" or "through the roof", as Graham claimed in his remarks Thursday.
"The latest in a series of mental health surveys of troops in Iraq, released in May, says 45 percent of the 1,320 soldiers interviewed ranked morale in their unit as low or very low. Seven percent ranked it high or very high," said the LA Times.
Copyright © 2007 IPS-Inter Press Service