After reading dozens of opinions this week on Iraq, each of which chimed into one of three or four stock takes (none with an actual prescription) on the war, I read this report to WSJ from an Army sergeant in Iraq. It’s a nice, brutal little orientation to the situation.

Here’s the crucial paragraph, which is important enough to reprint IMO:

***

We need to backtrack. We need to publicly admit we’re backtracking. This is the opening battle of the ideological struggle of the 21st century. We cannot afford to lose it because of political inconveniences. Reassert direct administration, put 400,000 to 500,000 American troops on the ground, disband most of the current Iraqi police and retrain and reindoctrinate the Iraqi army until it becomes a military that’s fighting for a nation, not simply some sect or faction. Reassure the Iraqi people that we’re going to provide them security and then follow through. Disarm the nation: Sunnis, Shias, militia groups, everyone. Issue national ID cards to everyone and control the movement of the population.

With that said, it isn’t difficult to understand why the GOP is now on the precipice of defeat. While the Republican Party focused on savaging Democrats, they failed to pay attention to the all too obvious realities…realities that did not escape the awareness of the voters they took for granted. Voters saw the realities in Iraq and the unwillingness of this President to shift strategies…and that has led to irreconcilable doubts about the President’s judgment and growing skepticism for the sincerity underlying his professed resolve. The bottom line is that voters lost confidence in the attributes they had been willing to assign and attach to this President.

Now that the election is upon us, the Bush administration has apparently decided to alter their intransigent adherence to “staying the course”…because it isn’t resonating with voters…and that is giving skeptical voters the final evidence needed to doubt the President’s sincerity. When this shifting rhetoric on Iraq is coupled with revelations that suggest that the GOP may have manipulated the millions of loyal evangelical voters, I believe these moderate voters are in the process of concluding that this President is more concerned with retaining power than acting with intelligence and integrity to serve the best interests of the nation.

In my opinion, it looks to me that Rove/Bush concluded that 2006 could be won with the same strategy that succeeded in 2002 and 2004. Instead, I believe that it forced voters to view the election as a referendum on the policies and priorities of the Bush administration at a time when it could least withstand the scrutiny. It looks like voters are preparing to call a halt to this charade.

Read more here:

http://www.thoughttheater.com

- So they come up with the “stay the course” angle, implying Bush is inflexible concerning the means for prosecuting the war, when they know quite well that what he’s inflexible about is quitting before we reach a successful conclusion. They want to quit. He doesn’t. Quit simple. Everything else is political rhetoric, trying to cover their weakness.

- Am I happy with the way things have gone? Not at all. Are there things that might have been done differently. Perfect is easy with hindsight. The Jihadists react by adjusting, and do not just stand still without trying different tactics. The idea that any war is some sort of cricket match that’s going to follow some clean, rule based script, is more of the typical infantile yardstick the Left wants to use to judge our success or failure. ever time I hear some moonbat catterwailing about Iraq, I hear the voices of my kids when they were young, wafting up from the back seat of the van, “Are we there yet daddy”.

- I do think in some regards Bush has been slow to react too the changes on the ground. In that sense, he bears responsibility, but even in that he can only do as well as his military advisors, and it is true that this “asymetrical” type of war, with all that means, is not something we have a lot of experience at. I think he’s feeling that disappointment to some degree from his own base, and I expect to see some definate movement in the coming months, possibly even a time table given dierctly to the Iraqi leadership, but not plastered all over the press for the edification, and use, of our enemies.

- The Left, at times, along with the drive-by Liberal press, can barely contain their glee, everytime we seem to suffer a setback in this campaign. And then they wonder why people see them as back-stabbing traitors to our cause. In their minds it’s VietNam all over again, and I think they’re going too find America is not going to fall for that Marxist, anti-
American crap again. We’ll see.

the phrase was injected with a different meaning from what you described, by being thrust out there by the admin as a political (mixed with the strategic aspect) retort to critics of all stripes.
That’s a fair statement – there’s certainly a political aspect to the way the administration used the term, probably to highlight the differences between them and the more extreme opponents. I’m not sure they used it for all cases where criticism was leveled.

I would reserve the kool-aid label for the allegation that the media is biased, simply for reporting on this remarkable change, which is rhetorical for sure, almost certainly (and hopefully) tactical, and possibly strategic.

Well, first off, the MSM does have a bias – I think that’s been amply documented in many places. Whether this is a manifestation of that bias is the question.

If you think of staying the course in the strategic sense, as I do, then I’d certainly agree that it’s worth reporting. But I don’t think that’s what happened.

On the other hand, if your concept of the term is a tactical one, then a change in the meaning is unremarkable and not worth reporting. The war hasn’t yet been fought where tactical or operational methods were unchanged from the start to the finish. And I’d agree with you that tactical adjustments hopefully would be made.

Perhaps, but again, I believe that is what many have been saying for a while now. Put pressure on the Iraqis to take control. Bring in other local players(yes, I mean Turkey, Iran, Syria etc.). Have a timed set of goals, and start withdrawing troops. It seems that when others say it, it’s translated to “cut and run” but when Bush says it, it means change of strategy, er, “tactics”.

Your other statement is incorrect. I just get tired of the constant conflation of Iraq with AQ and the WOT. Yes, there are some AQ there but the vast majority of the violence and problems are due to Iraqis and their long standing issues and the mess we’ve made of the occupation. AQ could leave tomorrow and quite frankly, I don’t think anyone would notice. In addition, I didn’t know that being for or against what is going on in Iraq is a Democratic or Republican issue. Could you please point me to the party plank stating that the Republican party supports the Iraq war or conversly the Democratic plank against the war?

Except that once security goals are reached, it makes it a lot more difficult for the terrorists to undo the progress. It’s a lot easier to uproot a sapling than a tree.

That’s not the same as sitting tight until you reach an artificial target date on the calendar.

By the way, I think you’ve tipped your hand about where your political loyalties lie by the scare quotes you used around ‘terrorist’ – meaning you don’t really believe organizations like al Qaeda in Iraq are terrorists. So you can drop the ‘registered Republican’ mask now.

Good luck with that. Do you usually drink sweetened or sugarfree?

Do you deliberately enjoy mistating things, or don’t you know any better? There’s a difference between setting firm goals and meeting them, such as x divisions of properly trained and equiped police/military by a date, and letting them move towards getting trained at whatever rate they seem to want to move at. Producing x units that are trained on a timetable, assuming you really produce and don’t fudge to make the numbers, results in, tada, trained units that can take on the insurgents. There is a lot of difference in this than a timetable for withdrawal or a timetable like we’re turning this over to you on October 30, ready or not.

Edited: Nope, changed my mind – not going to close it. I’m simply going to delete any posts that go off topic and move them to the open thread. Understand, Keith? I’ve had to move about four of your posts in the last few days. Please stay on topic.

On the other hand, according to the Nixon/Bush theory, the insurgents and “terrorists” could just lay back, wait for the Iraqis to meet their “security goals” according to the new “timeline”, have the US redeploy and then…

But you’re right, of course. How foolish of me. This is SO different from what others have said before.

Talking_points_filter_buffer:= [Pelosi, liberal, moonbat, moveon]

Zalmay Khalilzad said he expected Iraqi leaders to make “significant progress in the coming 12 months” in meeting “benchmarks.”

These benchmarks have been in place all along, and with pressures at home, I am pretty sure the administration has begun putting pressure on the Iraqi government to redouble their efforts inmeeting these “benchmarks” so as they meet them, the Iraqis begin takin more and more control of their security adn the Americans are there more for support till they get things under control.

This has been happening for some time, but I am sure that the administration has been putting additional pressure to have them step up the progress.

Strange how if republicans only have “the war on terror / iraq war” to run on, like many say, then why would they sit there and put together some sort of timetable to end it? You would think it wasn’t in their best interest right?

“Iraqi leaders must step up to achieve key political and security milestones on which they have agreed,” Khalilzad said.

“They have committed themselves to a timeline for making some of those decisions,” he added. “We will work with them as closely as possible so that they do meet those benchmarks.”

Bush insists the United States must stay to stabilize Iraq — whose fate Khalilzad insisted was vital to American security — but many critics now want a deadline for U.S. withdrawal.

There doesn’t seem to be some sort of “timeline” for withdrawl as you are suggesting in the article, but essentially the same plan as before, but President Bush is increasing the pressure on the Iraqi government to reach these milestone that have been in place for some time.

I have also heard in a presidential response to a question asked to him that he doesn’t see a withdraw from Iraq before 2008.

General George Casey, who commands 140,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq despite hopes early this year that a pullout might be under way by election time, again forecast Iraqis would be able to handle most tasks in 12 to 18 months, with some U.S. support.

Doesn’t say anything about withdrawl here either.
What I see is them still training the Iraqis, like they have been all along, to take over more and more of their own security. The American forces will still be there as support until they all see that it can be handled by the Iraqis, and the American troops can begin a phased movement of coming home.

Again, something that has been in effect for a long time. This probably more of a story now because of the elections and the fact the President is putting more pressure on the Iraqi goverment to “get it together” and start meeting the goals and benchmarks set for them to take over.

While the article is stating “timetable” it is technically incorrect in its usage of that term. There are set benchmarks and goals the Iraqis need to meet before they can take over their own security. Once those have been achieved, they will be handed increasingly more control over the security, until they are 100% in control and the Americans will be there for support until they have everything together.

This has been the goal for some time, this really is not something new, and stating he president has put out some sort of timeline because of the democrats, coming over to “their” way of thinking, is rediculous.

This plan has been in effect for some time, and been implemented already. There are point where the Iraqis go in and curb the violence and the Americans are outside the town for support and intel.

The Strategy In Iraq Has Three Elements – A Political Component, A Security Component, And An Economic Component. Politically, America is helping Iraqis build inclusive democratic institutions to protect all Iraqis, engage those who can be persuaded to join the new Iraq and marginalize those who never will. To strengthen security, the Coalition and Iraqi security forces are on the offensive – clearing out areas controlled by the enemy, holding that territory using Iraqi forces, and following up with targeted reconstruction to help Iraqis rebuild their lives. The Coalition is also working with Iraqis to help them build capable and effective Iraqi security forces. Economically, America is helping the Iraqis restore infrastructure, reform the economy, and build the economic framework that will give all Iraqis a stake in a free and peaceful Iraq. In achieving this, Coalition countries, the UN, international organizations, and supportive regional states are all helping Iraqis build their future.

….

Iraqi Forces Are Taking Control Of More Territory. Today, over 30 Iraqi Army battalions have assumed primary control of their own areas of responsibility. In Baghdad, Iraqi battalions have taken over major sectors – including some of the city’s toughest neighborhoods. Iraqi troops are securing the area around Baghdad’s Haifa street, and roughly ninety square miles of Baghdad province. Across the country, Iraqi battalions are making similar strides, taking responsibility of areas in South-Central, Southeast, Western, and North-Central Iraq. As Iraqi forces take control of more territory, Coalition forces can concentrate on training Iraqis and hunting down high-value terrorist targets.

Coalition Bases Are Being Transferred To Iraqi Control. As Iraqi forces take over more territory, the Coalition is transferring forward operating bases to Iraqi control. Over a dozen bases have been handed over to the Iraqi government – including Saddam Hussein’s former palace in Tikrit. From many of these bases, the Iraqi Security Forces are planning and executing their own operations against the terrorists.

Whitehouse News Release (11/05)

Bush told The Associated Press that the situation is Iraq is “tough” and that the Iraqi government is going to have to deal firmly with the militias.

On Thursday the U.S. military acknowledged that the latest two-month operation to quell the violence had not met expectations and defense officials were rethinking their strategy there. There are currently 144,000 U.S. forces in Iraq.

Rumsfeld: Iraq must take over security
So Rumsfelf came out a couple days before the article you stated and called on the Iraqis take over more control.

In recent weeks, the security situation in Iraq has continued to spiral out of control. Shiite militia stormed police stations in Amarah Friday, seizing that southern Iraqi city. Bush noted he was scheduled to speak with U.S. commanders to determine if a change in tactics is necessary to combat the escalating violence.

I believe they did not take into efect the armed militias being allowed to keep their weapons. Bush has called on the Iraqi Government to disarm the militias but they have refused to do so for fear that they do not have enough support for the different factions of Iraqis to do so.

Because of the escalating violence due to the militias not being disarmed, they have increased the difficulty and the probelms in Iraq. The President looks to be trying to revise the way they are going to deal with this since the Iraqi government is not taking control of the situation with the militas.

Al in all, I really don’t see this timetable that you are talking about. Just because AP mentions timetable does not mean there is one. What has been going on for some time now, and what the AP article talks about are goals and benchmarks the Iraqis need to meet so they can begin taking more and more control of their countries security. This has been an ongoing timetable plan for sometime, that has been ongoing, but the president seems to be putting more pressure on the Iraqis to increase their efforts.

I’m severized. There is a difference?