A very conservative friend was listening to a very conservative talk show, recently, and recounted the discussion he heard there. The caller, a retired veteran and life-long Democrat, voiced his frustration: "everyone can tell me the ramifications of pulling out of Iraq, but nobody can tell me the consequences of staying there." The caller felt stuck between a false choice and no choice, and it rang some bells for my conservative friend, too.

Petraeus, a man I have held in high esteem for a number of years, is rightly focused on the theater of battle. Asking HIM about what we face farther down the road may be the right question asked of the wrong person.

Ambassador Crocker doesn't seem up to the challenge of answering what's next, and the White House seems unable to address anything except the "alternate future" they want so desperately to avoid.

Where do we go from here, and when does someone in charge try give us an answer?

As it is, all we've done is "stay the course," and nobody seems to know where that course is leading us.

Posted by: Walt Sherrill at September 18, 2007 12:23 PM | Permalink to this comment

It's somehow comforting to know that fawning sycophancy lives on, at least in the right wing press: "They understand Iraq in all its complexity" They are the first, then.

During his testimony, the General did speak as if he had learned something about Iraqi culture, most notably in his references to 'shaming' as a form of social/tribal ostracism and its role in the current self-imposed withdrawal of al Sadr. He also spoke, movingly I thought, on the need for reconciliation and making peace with enemies, prefaced by his "We're not going to kill our way out of Iraq". Whatever other bromides he may have thrown out, these examples show some understanding and flexibility on his part.

The basic problem remains the 'sublimation' of ice into vapor, without the intermediate step of water: How do we get from reduced sectarian violence to political stability? What are the intermediate steps and how will they be achieved? No one disputes the notion that political stability depends on relative 'peace', but what exactly is the process, the step by step qualitative and quantitative assessment of how progress is being made in the political arena? Not a rhetorical question - if anyone can refer me to any scholarship on this subject, I'd appreciate it.

Posted by: Odradek at September 18, 2007 01:45 PM | Permalink to this comment

Praeterus seems like a very able implementer of policy. Frankly, the desire of both Republicans and Democrats for him to be a man who tells the leaders what policy should be is very dangerous. The military fights wars. It should not tell us what wars to fight, and how long we should continue to fight them. I think, when the politicians (or even our blog host) make a big deal about whether employees of the executive branch are pushing executive branch policies, they misunderstand the chain of command. If, as leader of our troops in Iraq, came to Congress and expressed his belief that the situation in Iraq is hopeless, he would be doing what McArthur did -- attempt to reverse the policy of his commander in chief. And Bush would be quite right in firing him.

This said, thank you for all of the snippets of testimony. They've been great in helping see the spin.

As for the gushing from the Weekly Standard -- well, what do you expect? They are pushing a specific policy position. The attempted beatifcation of the implementers of policy, so that their works on behalf of idiotic policymakers, may not be questioned, is one of the rhetorical hallmarks of this administration.

Posted by: Appalled Moderate at September 18, 2007 06:02 PM | Permalink to this comment

I think the term "lickspittle" is far more apt for Kristol and his ilk.

I like this site, and its comments. So forgive me, but I gotta say -- if there's any justice in the world, I hope The Weekly Standard/AEI set gets to feel some serious "shock & awe" itself, and soon.

Posted by: sglover at September 19, 2007 01:08 AM | Permalink to this comment

It's too bad the English language can't sue the Republicans for some sort of misappropriation or infringement or something. They routinely make a mockery of words like "serious" and "authority" and "America."

And "mastery," "policy," "clarity," "complex" and "honesty." Also, "the," "to" and "a."

Posted by: LL at September 19, 2007 02:39 AM | Permalink to this comment

LL: :) :)

Posted by: Julius Fidecci at September 19, 2007 09:44 AM | Permalink to this comment