We should start with the basics: What will Petraeus's report discuss?
His report will discuss the progress of the US military in achieving its military goals in Iraq. That means things like incidents of attacks, control and command of areas, the level of civilian and military deaths, and the ability of insurgents and terrorists (remember to make that distinction) to operate.
I'm going to let you in on a little secret: We already know what he's going to say. He's going to say that the results are mixed, that violence is going up in some areas but down in others. He won't be able to guarantee lasting success, and he also will refuse to state that he can't succeed on his mission.
In other words, a bunch of ambiguity into which anyone can read what they want to read.
Here is the key to understanding it: the Petraeus report won't discuss the factors that will drive ultimate failure or success in Iraq.
Why? Because the long-term fate of Iraq is a political and diplomatic question.
So, we need to emphasize over and over and over again that what really matters is not whether Petraeus thinks he can or will succeed at his peacekeeping mission.
What matters is whether political and diplomatic reconciliation and cooperation will occur. If that's not in the cards, we might as well pack up instead of wrestling with inevitability.
Speaking of the status of political and diplomatic progress, it just happens that the US Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, will also be giving his report in September.
And what he will say ain't pretty. Spencer Ackerman, now liberated from the reins of Marty Peretz, wonders "Will Ambassador Crocker Undercut Petraeus -- And Give Antiwar Movement Big Boost -- Come September?"
Ackerman notes that Crocker has been dropping hints as to what he is going to find:
First, Ackerman notes that:
Here's why: Some recent comments Crocker made to a reporter that have gone almost entirely unnoticed suggest that he is on the verge of concluding in his report that the Iraqi political scene is flatlining and that there's really no hope for political reconciliation. And if he does say this come September, it would likely undercut Petraeus's expected plea for more time to prosecute the surge. It would also give antiwar critics much more ammo to pressure wavering Republicans in Congress into abandoning Bush and the war.
Such a finding would do more than undercut Petraeus's report--it would completely moot it. Without any prospect of political resolution, there's absolutely no reason for us to drag this out.
Ackerman notes a TIME magazine news story quoting Crocker:
The violence is abetted by the political vacuum in Baghdad. The Iraqi government is irresolute to the point of near collapse. It is nowhere near to figuring out how to make a political deal amongst the contending parties that might lead to stability. "All this attention on benchmarks has actually been bad for the process," Ambassador Crocker says. "We've wasted so much time and energy on getting a hydrocarbon law" — that is, a law to divide oil profits amongst the ethnic and religious parties, likely to be approved soon — "but it has very little to do with getting a functioning government in place." The truth is, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government is puttering along, happily dependent on the U.S. "There are no consequences for them when they screw up," Crocker says. "Whatever's wrong, we take care of it."
I bolded Crocker's actual words.
Tell me, friends and countrypeople, do those problems sound like problems that will get resolved by September? Al-Maliki will not turn into Josef Tito by September.
Just to further dramatize how Crocker's report is going to read, I'm going to invoke the power of the ellipsis:
All this attention on benchmarks has actually been bad for the process . . . There are no consequences for them when they screw up. Whatever's wrong, we take care of it.
In other words, benchmarks aren't helping and the Iraqis won't get their stuff together as long as we are there to help clean up the mess.
In other, other words: we need to get the hell out.
Remember, btw, that Crocker is the US Ambassador to Iraq, not some dirty hippie blogger.
Comments are closed on this story.