Mission Accomplished

Susan Page writes in USA Today: "Those who wanted to hear a new plan charted by Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker didn't get one. Instead, the two men asked a restive Democrat-led Congress to wait until at least next March before trying to reshape the U.S. mission or bring home most American troops. . . .

"[W]hat had been cast as a potentially defining day for U.S. policy in Iraq seemed like something else: a clear sign that the political standoff over Iraq is unlikely to end anytime soon."

Eugene Robinson writes in his Washington Post opinion column: "The next six months in Iraq are crucial -- and always will be. That noise you heard yesterday on Capitol Hill was the can being kicked further down the road leading to January 2009, when George W. Bush gets to hand off his Iraq fiasco to somebody else.

"It's clear by now that playing for time is the real White House strategy for Iraq. Everything else is tactical maneuver and rhetorical legerdemain -- nothing up my sleeve -- with which the administration is buying time, roughly in six-month increments."

One key aspect of that strategy: "[I]f anyone mentions that Congress is supposed to decide what wars this nation fights, not generals or diplomats? Attack them for impugning our nation's finest -- and give that can another kick."

E.J. Dionne Jr. writes in his Washington Post opinion column that the surge "has bought more political time in Washington, bringing Bush closer than ever to reaching one of his main objectives: keeping large numbers of troops in Iraq beyond Election Day 2008. . . .

"Through a hard sell of the surge in the past six weeks, Bush has held most of his party in line. Petraeus's central political objective was more to reassure Republicans than to persuade Democrats. Given the president's veto power and the Democrats' slim majorities in the House and Senate, this may be enough to keep American troops heavily committed in Iraq for the rest of Bush's term."

Matt Welch writes in a Los Angeles Times opinion column: "Gen. Petraeus will get his six more months of surge, even though Democrats claim it's failing and the public has long since given up hope. We'll all reconvene next spring, by which time the goalposts should be moved sufficiently enough that I can plan on writing the exact same column on the seventh anniversary of Sept. 11 as well."

Charles H. Ferguson blogs for washingtonpost.com: "How convenient that they predict it will be possible to begin withdrawing troops just a few months before the next presidential election. How sad that such good men as General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are being misused in this way. And how clear it seems that any realistic, honest reassessment of U.S. policy in Iraq must come from Congress and from the next president, rather than from this administration."

Andrew J. Bacevich blogs for washingtonpost.com: "Petraeus seems to hope that with the passage of time, Iraqi political leaders will get their act together. But hope makes a poor basis for strategy.

"Petraeus's recommendation to kick the can down the road will suit the Bush administration, which is determined neither to confront nor to acknowledge responsibility for the debacle it has created. But his recommendation will not suit the soldiers he commands, the army to which he has devoted his life, or the nation he serves.

"The moment calls for an assessment and recommendations that cut to the heart of the matter. Instead, Petraeus has temporized. History will not judge his hesitation kindly."