I had no idea things were going so well in Iraq.
In listening to President Bush's speech yesterday, it sounded like the Iraqi forces are ready to take over in a few hours.
Perhaps it is a coincidence that just as the post-Murtha debate on a U.S. pullout is starting to turn, the president finds so much to praise in the performance of Iraqi forces--despite all the negative reports we've had about their struggle. Bush even took on the official military estimate that only one battalion was combat ready--by saying you didn't need to be fully ready to be effective.
Some would call that moving the goal posts.
Is this the beginning of an exit strategy? Two weeks after Scott McClellan likened Jack Murtha to Michael Moore, everyone seems to agree it would be a good thing if Iraqi troops would assume more of the burden so that sizable numbers of American troops could come home. The main difference seems to be over the wisdom, or lack thereof, of setting a timetable. But if the administration is determined to accelerate the Iraqization of the war, and with the '06 elections looming, a precise timetable may not matter as much.
Bush obviously made a nod toward the appearance of bipartisanship by quoting Joe Lieberman. I briefly wondered whether the Democrats would try to find common ground with Bush or dismiss the Annapolis speech as so much presidential spin.
Moments later, Harry Reid provided the answer, saying Bush "recycled his tired rhetoric of `stay the course' and once again missed an opportunity to lay out a real strategy for success in Iraq that will bring our troops safely home."
And Reid's strategy is . . . ?
"Moving to deflect criticism of the war in Iraq and lay out new conditions that would allow the departure of U.S. troops, President Bush said today he would settle for "nothing less than complete victory" there, and defined that success as creating an Iraq in which Iraqis could live in peace protected by their own security forces," reports the Los Angeles Times .
"The political calculation behind President Bush's speech in Annapolis on Wednesday is that Washington, not Baghdad, is the battlefront that will decide the ultimate outcome of the war in Iraq, but that Mr. Bush's decisions do not have to be driven by fears of heavy Republican losses in the 2006 midterm elections," says the New York Times analysis.
"At a time of increasing Democratic attacks on Mr. Bush's handling of the war and a drop in public support for the conflict, Mr. Bush's political advisers assert that they can still hold Congress next year. By their reasoning, there will be only 35 to 40 competitive seats in the House of Representatives, and at this point they see no evidence that the war will be the determining factor in those races. While there may be Democratic gains in the Senate, both parties doubt that the Republicans will lose control.
"In any case, the advisers say, Mr. Bush is adamantly committed to holding tough in Iraq, even if it means disregarding the domestic political repercussions and pressure from his own party."
