Congresswoman Jan Schakowski already got the "report", this month, before it could be re-scripted and edited by the White House. And she got it from General Petraeus himself.
The following article on Schakowski’s first trip to Iraq was cited by Kos diarist deepsouthdoug. But it is also worth noting something else about this WaPost story: that the quotes collected by Schakowsky during her August trip amount to what the September Petraeus report would look like if the White House and Condi Rice weren’t going to turn it into pro-war propaganda next month:
After Iraq Trip, Unshaken Resolve
http://tinyurl.com/...
By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 26, 2007; A08
CHICAGO When Rep. Jan Schakowsky made her first trip to Iraq this month, the outspoken antiwar liberal resolved to keep her opinions to herself. "I would listen and learn," she decided.
At times that proved a challenge, as when Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih told her congressional delegation, "There's not going to be political reconciliation by this September; there's not going to be political reconciliation by next September." Schakowsky gulped -- wasn't that the whole idea of President Bush's troop increase, to buy time for that political progress?
But the real test came over a lunch with Gen. David H. Petraeus, who used charts and a laser pointer to show how security conditions were gradually improving -- evidence, he argued, that the troop increase is doing some good.
Still, the U.S. commander cautioned, it could take another decade before real stability is at hand. Schakowsky gasped. "I come from an environment where people talk nine to 10 months," she said, referring to the time frame for withdrawal that many Democrats are advocating. "And there he was, talking nine to 10 years."
Well, nine to ten more years of the US policing a civil war in Iraq doesn't blow my skirt up, either. That assessment by Petraeus has got to become a pillar of the anti-war movements argument against our continued presence in Iraq. It's a candid assessment that's got to be thrown up to Petraeus and the White House, again and again, when Petraeus' official report gets big media play next month.
The choice has to be made clear for electorate--a decision to stay on in Iraq and fight on to "victory" will require a ten year committment of troops, materials and treasure from the United States. (And the prediction of victory is ultimately meaningless, because it a prediction based on the "assuming all things stay the same, for the next ten years." Since Iran is already participating in the war, who can say when a pro-war US government will finally decide that the overthrow of the Iranian government and the invasion and conquest of Iran is necessary to "secure stability in the region?")
...A co-founder of the House Out of Iraq Caucus, Schakowsky saw only fleeting glimpses of Iraqis' day-to-day life during her one-day trip. The few times she ventured out of the Green Zone, she was in a helicopter or a speeding convoy, soldiers hanging out of the windows with machine guns, obscuring the view. She heard about dire power and water shortages, yet saw nothing firsthand.
But the military presentations (by Petraeus) left her stunned. Schakowsky said she jotted down Petraeus's words in a small white notebook she had brought along to record her impressions.
...Petraeus, she said, "acknowledged that if the policymakers decide that we need to withdraw, that, you know, that's what he would have to do. But he felt that in order to win, we'd have to be there nine or 10 years."
Again, that's the point that anti-war forces in the US will have to make, over and over again, whether Petraeus announces it in September or not: whatever "progress" the White House wishes to announce in September, Petraeus believes that nothing short of a ten year commitment to war in Iraq will result in victory.
...Schakowsky said she asked U.S. officials about the consequences of withdrawal, and she conceded that "they painted a very dire picture." She looked again through her notebook for a Petraeus quote. "He said: 'If you don't like the humanitarian crisis, the refugees and the internally displaced people, you can't draw down. If you are concerned about these people, the humanitarian crisis, you should be for our staying here.' "
In my opinion: any realistic talk about US withdrawal from Iraq begins with the acknowledgment that there the civil war there will becoming even more bloodthirsty and genocidal after we leave. That was an obvious and almost inevitable consequence of Bush's decision to overthrow Saddam: murderous chaos, with oil as the prize for the most genocidal. But Petraeus fails to note: there is already a humanitarian crisis there, now, and it’s there because we came there. The questions now are:
Is Petraeus going to be allowed to talk about a ten year commitment he believes is necessary to "win" a war in Iraq, when he speaks to the nation next month?
Is Petraeus going to be allowed to talk about the military necessity of expanding the present conflagration into Iran—in order to stabilize Iraq? For surely that is a consequence of staying.
Will Petraeus—and the White House, who will be the true authors of his report—mention the "brick wall" issue that will face the next President of the United States: the imposition of an official draft, as necessary to fight the ten year war envisioned by Petraeus?