The new U.S. commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, is signalling a new approach to the conflict in Iraq by drafting a team of intellectual subject-matter experts to lead his efforts at “winning” the war. According to the Washington Post, Petraeus has solicited the help of a select group of military commanders with Ph.D’s in subjects like Islamic Anthropology, Economics, and War History.

As the U.S.-designed campaign to bring security to Baghdad unfolds, Petraeus’s chief economic adviser, Col. Michael J. Meese, will coordinate security and reconstruction efforts, trying to ensure that “build” follows the “clear” and “hold” phases of action. Meese also holds a PhD from Princeton, where he studied how the Army historically handled budget cuts. He is the son of former attorney general Edwin Meese III, who was a member of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, whose December critique helped push the Bush administration to shift its approach in Baghdad.

Petraeus, who along with the group’s members declined to be interviewed for this article, has chosen as his chief adviser on counterinsurgency operations an outspoken officer in the Australian Army. Lt. Col. David Kilcullen holds a PhD in anthropology, for which he studied Islamic extremism in Indonesia.

While the solicitation of more brain power in fighting the war is not new to U.S. millitary strategies, it is something that we have not witnessed in this war. I applaued the General for taking a new approach in coaxing some type of settlement to the conflict, but it all begs some probing questions with one common answer:

Why have we not witnessed this in Iraq before now? If this brain power existed in the military at the start of the conflict why did the Bush administration fail to utilize them from the beginning? Why were political operatives used to build a pseudo-police force, a pathetic health care system, and left to exert little in the way of economic conditioning for Iraq? The answer is clear — the Bush administration, much like the Nixon administration, used its position and the war to reward those that had done so much to get Bush to the White House, ignoring the facts and rejecting logical approaches to securing Iraq from the start.

Petraeus may be the right man for the job, but unfortunately the job has morphed from a winnable war in 2003 to a complete disaster today, and despite his best efforts this strategy will have little to no effect on the overall outcome of this conflict. It is simply too little much too late.

We have all known for sometime that this administration will say anything to gain or keep it’s abusive grip on power, but this is too much. Jim VandeHei at Politico.com is reporting that the administration has spent most of this weekend begging GOP Senators to oppose any resolution condeming the troop surge in Iraq. The article sites that administration has come to the realization that if Senators vote the way they spoke to the President this weekend, he could easily have 70 votes against him and his new, new, new strategy in Iraq.

Military commanders are entering the fray now by telling Senators, that the plan has a chance to work in Iraq, but only if Congress is seen as supporting the plan:

 On a more substantive level, White House officials are arguing that U.S. commanders are confident the escalation will work, but only if Iraqis and world leaders understand the plan has congressional backing. The White House has sent signals that it would stomach a resolution establishing firm deadlines and accountability requirements as long as it does not outright condemn the surge, congressional sources said.

 Um…since when do world leaders and Iraqis watch American politics for their queues on how to support or fight against U.S. military action? Did we have a flood of responsible nations coming to our side in 2003 when Congress voted to go to war? To assert that the world needs to hear Congress support this President and his seventh plan to save Iraq is absurd. Once again, this administration will say anything to get what it wants. The people in Iraq made up their minds years ago on opposing peace and seeking the ethnic cleansing Saddam had long denied them and we were the suckers who went in and opened the flood-gates of civil war. Insurgents, or whatever we wish to call them this week, are planning today for dealing with our troop surge, and don’t give a damn about Congressional support or opposition to the plan. In fact, I would imagine that the anti-U.S. elements in Iraq are on the same side of this debate as George W. Bush.

Twenty-five people killed in Gaza fighting overnight, mortar attacks on an all girl school in Iraq kills one and injures a dozen more, fifteen killed in bomb attacks in Pakistan…

This is where the United States should be stepping forward not as a military power, but as a beacon for reason and peace. But for this administration, seeking a peaceful and diplomatic solution to anything is absolutely impossible and is never given a serious consideration for any global problem.

Where are the TEAMS of diplomats working with nations in the middle east region? Where is Secretary Rice working tirelessly on shuttle diplomacy? Where are the images of the President reaching out to other global leaders to lead a frontal attack on terriorism, or developing a more intelligent strategy on the middle east?

President Bush today told reporters that he is “the decision-maker” on the plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq, and that he urges Congress to seriously think about their opposition to a plan that hasn’t been put into practice yet.

It may very well be the most telling statement about the divide between W and reality that we have ever seen. Clearly Mr. Bush is the “decision-maker”, as it was he who decided to enter into this war. It was he who decided not to enter the war with sufficient numbers of troops to begin with, and it was he who decided to pay little attention to the infrastructure requirements in restoring order qucikly after entering the country. It was he who also decided on the six different “post-War” strategies that have all ultimately failed.

And so it is crystal clear that W is “the decision-maker”, and the truth is that had he made decent decisions to begin with, Congress would not be opposing his “decision” today. I almost felt sorry for the guy during his state of the union address Tuesday night. There he was, like a whipped puppy, looking as if he just woke up after a long binge and realizing all of the transgressions he had committed while under the influence. Had he finally reached the point of repent? Was he finally taking responsibility for all of his mistakes? Was he going to turn over a new leaf? At times it seemed like we just might see a new W.

But, alas, it was all for show. Today he is reminding us that the emperor truly has no clothes, and no sense for that matter. Instead of making a generous statement about acknowleding the conflict with Congress, or striking a conciliatory note that signals some understanding of the opposition to the plan, he puffs up his chest like a fighting cock and proclaims “I AM THE DECISION-MAKER”.

That’s the sort of talk that brings it all back to reality. This guy is an arrogant, out-of-control, spoiled rotten brat that is living in some fantasy world where he is the terminator, and ultimately we will do what he says, simply because he says to, and not based on any sound judgement. 

General Petraeus will appear today before the Senate Armed Forces Committee as part of his confirmation to become the leader of armed forces in Iraq. Of course the major topic facing the general is how he plans to utilize the additional troops authorized by the President earlier this month. According to the Washington Post :

The plan calls for large numbers of Iraqi and U.S. forces to flow into a targeted area like an ocean tide, temporarily overwhelming militia and insurgent fighters. But unlike in the past, when the tide goes out, it will leave behind a substantial residual force of Iraq army and police units, backed up by mobile U.S. troops. In this way, planners hope to “hold” neighborhoods rather than just “clear” them of the enemy. 

 I wish someone would explain to me how this works. Don’t the troops who remain behind to “hold” these neighborhoods, end up becoming sitting targets for snippers and the insurgency? Aren’t the American troops viewed now as occupiers by a majority of the Iraqis? So, exactly how does one go about “holding” a neighborhood by placing a group of soldiers on the neighborhood streets? The same streets where people view us as part of the problem?

Furthermore, the article goes on to explain that Petraeus fully expects to see some early successes with the influx of troops in the Spring, but anticipates that the insurgency will soon learn the new patterns of military action by the U.S., and regroup with even stronger attacks against our soldiers. How is this winning?

I honestly feel sorry for the President these days. The arrogance of the first six years of his unchecked regime is coming back to bite where it counts the most.

Let’s be perfectly honest, the first eight and a half months of the Bush administration was little to do of nothing. It was not until the attacks of 9/11 that this President began to define himself, and it has been that definition that has carried him from election to election infringing upon the rights of nearly every American citizen.

It was inevitable that there was a price to pay for his arrogance. For nearly four long years we have been engaged in a war that lacks direction and purpose. We were told that the war was necessary to protect our national interests, we were told that Iraq had the ability to endanger our very existance, we were told that the war was necessary to give freedom to a repressed people, and we were told that the war was necessary in the sense of the global war on terrorism. The truth is that we were told a complex set of lies hidden by smoke and mirrors.

Now Bush, who has never been held accountable for one thing in his entire life, is being held accountable for his actions and for his lies. What a terrible awakening it must be for a man who has shirked responsibility and intelligent thinking his entire life to suddenly find himself taking responsibility for the war and not having the support of two-thirds of the nation for the one solid decision he has ever made.

Personally, I feel like 20,000 troops is not enough to complete the job, but there is absolutely no way we can afford to do what needs to be done in order to save Iraq. Let’s be perfectly honest here, the surge in troop numbers is not to save Iraq, it is the bare minimum to prop up the government long enough for the United States to leave and to save face for Bush. There is an important lesson we should all take from this: Saddam Hussein paid for his arrogance (i.e., stupidity) with his life, Bush will pay for his arrogance (i.e., stupidity) with his legacy.

When we look back at every former president we have had since Nixon we see a group of elder statesmen who dedicate their lives to bettering either the lives of the underprivileged or improving global conditions facing humanity. Bush lacks the ability and stature to do any of that. His legacy will be the general erosion of the American image in the eyes of the world, and that is a sad commentary on our President, our nation, and our electorate.

The Bush administration is in a real pickle this week over the leaking of classified intelligence documents that were critical of the President’s war in Iraq. (If Vietnam was Johnson’s war, why shouldn’t Iraq be Bush’s war?) Al Kamen, at WashingtonPost.com did an excellent piece this morning where he examines the administration’s use of shock that someone would leak such a document, considering this administration’s spotty history of cracking down on leaks.

Sadly, this is not the first time such damaging leaks of sensitive information — information jihadi recruiters couldn’t possibly have known — have occurred shortly before an election. Four years ago this month, back in September 2002, a leak of secret intelligence on Saddam Hussein ’s efforts to get “specially designed” aluminum tubes to make nuclear weapons showed up in the New York Times.

As recounted in the new book “Hubris,” by Michael Isikoff and David Corn , a White House official worried in the Times article that the tubes might mean that “the first sign of a ’smoking gun’ might be a mushroom cloud.” The brilliant line (later used by Rice) was conceived by White House chief speechwriter Michael Gerson , according to the book, and had been discussed in a White House meeting a few days earlier.

Vice President Cheney , on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” cited it to moderator Tim Russert as backing for the claim that Hussein was trying for atomic weapons. “There’s a story in the New York Times this morning,” Cheney noted when asked about Saddam’s push for nukes.
Unclear why no one went after the leaker…