Archive   |   Live Q&As   |   RSS Feeds RSS   |   E-mail Dan  |  
Page 2 of 5   <       >

Promises, Promises

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

As for the concept of "Iraqi solutions," such talk "'is largely a red herring,' said Wayne White, who led the State Department's Iraq intelligence team from 2003 to 2005. 'This is a catchy phrase aimed at touting -- and exaggerating -- success in Sunni Arab areas,' such as Anbar, 'while diverting focus away from potential downsides related to same,' including the creation of local forces allied with the United States but opposed to the Iraqi government."

Anne Flaherty writes for the Associated Press: "One year after President Bush announced his politically unpopular plan to send thousands more troops to Iraq, Democrats are struggling to counter the administration's argument that the buildup succeeded."

From a statement by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: "It is unfortunate and undeniable that one year after President Bush announced his 'surge' strategy, Iraq has failed to meet the benchmarks he outlined -- and his Administration has refused to hold Iraqis accountable for these unacceptable results. No amount of White House spin can hide the fact that the escalation's chief objective of political reconciliation remains unmet, Iraqis have not demonstrated any readiness to stand up and take responsibility for their own country, and 2007 was the most lethal year yet for American troops. . . .

"[O]ver the past year nearly 900 brave Americans have been killed while trying to provide Iraq's leaders with the opportunity to unite their country. In that time American taxpayers have spent more than $120 billion to finance another nation's civil war and back an Iraqi government that shows little interest in progress. And as President Bush continues to cling stubbornly to his flawed strategy, Al Qaeda only grows stronger. Rather than unconditionally supporting an endless war the American people oppose, I strongly urge the President to work with Congress to redeploy our troops and refocus the mission in Iraq so we can more effectively fight the war on terror."

Opinion Watch

The Dallas Morning News editorial board writes: "What a difference a year makes. Or doesn't. One year ago, President Bush announced a troop surge and declared on primetime TV that Iraq's chaos was 'unacceptable.' He referred not just to the bloodshed and bombings but also to the political split among Iraqi religious and ethnic factions.

"Today, Iraq is undeniably more secure. Bombings are way down, as are U.S. troop casualties. This newspaper doubted whether the surge plan would work militarily, and we're happy to say we were wrong.

"Politically, however, our skepticism was justified. The surge has failed to move Iraqi leaders closer to agreement on the core issues dividing them. As the Pentagon cuts troop levels this year, these lingering political differences could prompt renewed violence. . . .

"Because no number of U.S. troops can force Iraqi unity, we introduced our Plan B in July as the long-term answer to the U.S. challenge in Iraq: basing American forces closer to the borders with the express mission of halting infiltration and fighting al-Qaeda.

"It's time to begin the transition. Leave politics to the Iraqis and let our military do its job. Plan B gives U.S. troops the breathing space they've earned, while letting Iraq's leadership know unequivocally that America's patience has run out."

The National Security Network concludes: "Changes in military tactics can lead to short term gains, but only a comprehensive political strategy to bring Iraq's warring factions together can lead to a permanent solution to the conflict. One year since the President announced the 'surge,' it remains clear that he has no such strategy."

Brian Katulis and Peter Juul write for the Center for American Progress that "there are four ticking time bombs to watch closely in Iraq in the coming months that will reveal the extent of the damage done to internal Iraqi reconciliation and U.S. national security by the president's ill-considered 'surge' strategy. Those time bombs are: The collapse of 'bottom up' reconciliation among Sunnis; Increased instability in northern Iraq; The continuing plight of refugees and internally displaced Iraqis; Continued deadlock among Iraq's national political leaders."

But in a Wall Street Journal op-ed being trumpeted by the White House press office this morning, senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman write that "conditions in that country have been utterly transformed from those of a year ago, as a consequence of the surge. . . .


<       2              >


© 2008 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive