Petraeus: Surge working

Well duh, of course it is. This week Gen. David Petraeus has been painting a rosy picture for congress of progress in Iraq, despite all contrary evidence. Think about it. Here is this guy, in charge of Bush's surge, reporting out on his "progress." Have you ever had to tell your boss how you were doing on a project? Have you ever said "look...this clearly isn't working out. I'm pretty sure I've fucked it all up." Of course not. You'd try your damnedest to spin it so you look good, right? Of course you would.

Yet we're supposed to bank on his report as some credible measure of how things are really going in Iraq. If only there were some other report we could look at to get a more, well, unbiased assessment. Say the government had some independent office that, well, accounted for things. You know, generally speaking. What? There is? No way!

The GAO, a week before Petraeus offered up his rainbows-and-unicorns report, published their own report. The General Accountability Office is a branch of congress whose mission it is to audit, evaluate and investigate programs for which taxpayer money is spent. Like the war in Iraq, cause I think some taxpayer money is spent there. It's head, the Comptroller General, is a non-partisan presidential appointee, ratified by congress. The current CG is David M. Walker, a Clinton appointee. Yeah, I can almost hear your hackles rising. "Clinton? Non-partisan my ass!" But he was ratified by a republican congress, so there.

So last week the GAO submitted its report on progress made by the surge, titled "Securing, Stabilizing, and Rebuilding Iraq: Iraqi Government Has Not Met Most Legislative, Security, and Economic Benchmarks." Contrast just the title of the report with the statement by Petraeus saying significant progress has been made. The GAO report looked at all of the benchmarks set in place 9 months ago when the surge started, benchmarks derived from promises made by the Iraqi government. Remember that the impetus for the surge was to quell violence to allow for the government to establish itself; without a thriving government, the surge isn't succeeding.

Of the 18 benchmarks, only three were met. four were "partially met" and 11 were not met. Knowing that, how can any reasonable person say the surge is working? If my daughter brought home a report card with three As, four Cs and 11 Fs, well, I wouldn't exactly be on TV telling the American people she's doing great.

So why is Bush buying Petraeus' pretty picture? Cause he helped paint it, probably. Remember that "surprise" visit he made to Iraq last week? I'm pretty sure his agenda wasn't all about troop morale. You can bet he had closed-door meetings with Petraeus on how to best spin the report. And no doubt that spin plan included enlisting the Bush propaganda machine--Fox News. A couple of days ago, Petraeus appeared on Fox with his shill, Britt Hume. Glenn Greenwald wrote about it over on salon.com and covered it nicely. Don't think for a second that it wasn't very carefully orchestrated.

But wait, you say, how can you impugn the character of this lauded 4-Star General? Petraeus has an, as far as we know, unsullied record of being a first-class officer. But you also know, of course, that Bush chooses his people veeeery carefully. His predecessor as Commander of Multi-national Forces, George Casey, was sacked because he didn't agree with Bush's surge.

"The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of Iraq’s security, it lengthens the time that the government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias. And the other thing is that they can continue to blame us for all of Iraq’s problems, which are at base their problems. It’s always been my view that a heavy and sustained American military presence was not going to solve the problems in Iraq over the long term," Casey said at the time. In other words, more US troops means the Iraqi government drags it feet.

But in the Bush administration, if you're not loyal (meaning willing to bend over and take whatever the POTUS commands of you without dissent), you're out. And so Casey was out.

And so Bush was looking for a surge fan and a loyal Bushie, and apparently found one in Petraeus. He implemented Bush's surge and now nine months later all evidence suggests he's failing. But we're supposed to believe everything is fine and if we stay the course, we win! Despite the GAO's assessment that Casey's assertion before the surge was correct.

And it's interesting. Recently, Bush stated that it was a mistake to withdraw from Vietnam, because of the damage it did to America's credibility. And that's incredibly telling. Essentially, it means that the lives of American soldiers are less valuable than the country's--and by extension the President's--saving face. More than 58,000 Americans died in that war, and Bush is saying that it wasn't enough. Well, Mr. Bush, only 3,774 American soldiers have died in Iraq so far, so I guess we have plenty more to go, huh?

Bush apparently believes that no matter what, we will succeed in Iraq. But what if we don't? After more than four years, we're no closer now than we were than to winning this war. So what? We just keep going, keep sacrificing people until 10,000 are dead and the military is just crippled? It's like continuing to drive your car after the red oil light comes on--insanity. Insanity with a pretty high cost.

So, bottom line--can we trust Petraeus' report?

Of course we can.