That Petraeus Report in Full
09.11.07 - 09:55am
There are some significant curiosities surrounding the coverage of yesterday’s report by General David Petraeus on the alleged progress in Iraq brought about by the US “surge”.
I first noticed it while listening to the report on Channel 4 News yesterday evening but checked various online sources to make sure the echo chamber was in sync. Here is the view of BBC Online:
A record 168,000 US troops are now in Iraq after 30,000 arrived in the surge between February and June.
Gen Petraeus told the joint House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees that troop numbers could be reduced to pre-surge level by next summer without jeopardising the security situation in Iraq. But he warned that “a premature draw-down of our forces would likely have devastating consequences”.
And the Guardian beneath the headline “Petraeus upbeat over reducing US troop levels” (my italics):
America’s top officials in Iraq yesterday claimed the surge strategy had produced real gains, and that 30,000 troops could be withdrawn by the summer of 2008, beginning with a modest redeployment this year.
While a certain level of scepticism (surely justified) pervaded the media coverage, not one highly-paid journalist noted the problem with the above analysis:
The apparent “success” of the surge amounts to little more than being able to end the surge!
Think about it. Petraeus went to Washington and told Congress that the surge had produced some, fairly small, gains in security. Even this is extremely controversial and has been disputed by too many sources to mention. And in light of the uncertainty over whether there has been any reduction in the level of violence, much of the British media focussed on Petraeus’s claim that by next summer he would be able to withdraw 30,000 troops.
I am sure the White House hopes the notion that the US military is to withdraw 30,000 troops is going to play well with an American public exasperated and exhausted by the war, but if that withdrawal is just enough to get the troop commitment back to what it was before the escalation then how much of a withdrawal is it? Hopefully the US public will not be bamboozled quite so easily as British hacks.
And given the whole point of the surge (now seemingly forgotten in some quarters) was to improve the security situation precisely in order to create the conditions for the political breakthrough we are still waiting for, how much of a success?
So here’s that Petraeus report in full: “We’ve put in lots more soldiers. So we will be able withdraw the same number. Erm… That’s it.” (With apologies to Private Eye)
And with that kind of definition of success, Bush is pretty much guaranteed a triumph.
Update: For more detailed appraisals of the significance of Petraeus’s report see this article by Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com, and this comment piece from today’s Guardian by Matthew Yglesias, who points out:
…after six months of dodging questions about Iraq by saying we should wait for Petraeus’ report in September, the new story is that we need to … wait six more months to evaluate things then. And in March, we can expect the can to be kicked six months further down the road.
And so the occupation continues.
Speak Your Peace