The September Report on the 'Surge' Will Be a Big Crock!!

Due around mid-September is a final progress report on the current 'surge ' strategy in Iraq.

Now, it was billed as a report not only written by the military itself, but as the report of the last person who still seems to hold credibility with Congress - General Petraeus.

Me, being me, was always suspicious about the report because as so full of integrity as Gen. Petraeus is reported to be he is just a General who works at the discretion of the President. He is tasked with implementing policy the President wants, whatever he thinks. I'm a little skeptical of how credible Petraeus will be although it might be completely moot whether he is or not (I'll tell you why later in this post)

I always believed that the September report would purport to say that there IS progress even if there are some problems and that we should continue in Iraq: Republicans waverers who keep saying 'lets wait till the September report' will stop wavering.

And they will 'give the strategy more time to work' and Democrats will be able to get less votes for any withdrawal resolution in Congress. I still believe this will happen.

Back on July 17, 2007 I said this shortly after the interim July surge progress report:

Come on!! Who actually believes that any report coming from the Bush Administration this September will say anything but what they feel is necessary to say in order to maintain (and in this case further escalate) our presence in Iraq.


Like the flawed and dishonest Iraq Progress report released this past week, the report in September will fudge figures, distort reality, and lower the bar of what is 'progress' in order to claim that there is some progress due to their surge (where there is actually none).


They will then claim that these optimistic signs of progress prove that the surge is making progress in Iraq, and that they will say is why they will need an 'even bigger surge' to make even bigger gains.

*sigh* It appears we live with a government whose governing philosophy is based around the idea of "when your stuck in a ditch, keep digging"

The only thing I am not so sure about is whether they plan on escalating the surge after September.

First, I'm not exactly sure they CAN: Those troops whose tours they extended to 15-months have to be rotated out, so I'm not sure how they can bring even more troops in. They may just decide to shift troops around depending on the province.

But, what I am still sure about is that the report will be used as an cudgel against Democrats and Republicans who say we should withdraw: "See there is some progress!! We must stay and keep it going or it was for nothing" Republican withdrawal waverers will have a reason to stick with the war and we'll be stuck with this war until a new president enters 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

White House Ghostwriters

Except, guess what? It turns out that this September Surge Progress report by Gen. Petraeus will not be written by General Petraeus or anyone in the military - It will be written completely by the White House staff.

Administration and military officials acknowledge that the September report will not show any significant progress on the political benchmarks laid out by Congress. How to deal in the report with the lack of national reconciliation between Iraq's warring sects has created some tension within the White House.

Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

And though Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report's data.

In other words: Petraeus can say what he wants, and recommend what he wants to his hearts content but ultimately it is up to the White House to make and include everything in the report. A politicized report from the White House would not exactly be unusual.

But you may be thinking "well what if he is dutifully listening to the advise of his generals"?

To which I would say: "He only listens to generals when they tell him what they want to hear. When generals [In this case the Joint Chiefs of Staff] recommended against the surge, he didn't listen. When they warned the president before the war that he would need many more troops, he didn't listen. When the CIA warned and the intelligence community warned that post-invasion Iraq would be full of trouble and that there should be planning for it, he didn't listen.

This White House has a history of hearing only what they want to hear and listening to things that they want to listen to. And this, added to the fact that the White House is writing the report, lead me to believe that the report will paint an optimistic picture of the situation in Iraq.

It has no credibility, and I'm basing that on their history of fudging reports about Iraq (about everything), one just recently in July.

Want an even more recent example of this Administration fudging numbers (or plain lying) to claim its surge is making progress:

How's today (August 15, 2007) for recent?

And while top U.S. officials insist that 50 percent of the capital is now under effective U.S. or government control, compared with 8 percent in February, statistics indicate that the improvement in violence is at best mixed.

U.S. officials say the number of civilian casualties in the Iraqi capital is down 50 percent. But U.S. officials declined to provide specific numbers, and statistics gathered by McClatchy Newspapers don't support the claim.

The number of car bombings in July actually was 5 percent higher than the number recorded last December, according to the McClatchy statistics, and the number of civilians killed in explosions is about the same.

These U.S. officials have the balls to put out press releases that completely lie...It's good that McClatchy News Service had the damn balls to mention that, well...their numbers sound like complete BS.

The article also says this:

Despite U.S. claims that violence is down in the Iraqi capital, U.S. military officers are offering a bleak picture of Iraq’s future, saying they’ve yet to see any signs of reconciliation between Sunni and Shiite Muslims despite the drop in violence.

Without reconciliation, the military officers say, any decline in violence will be temporary and bloodshed could return to previous levels as soon as the U.S. military cuts back its campaign against insurgent attacks.

Lets put this together: 1) US officials are claiming reduced violence...but its not exactly checking out...and they aren't giving any numbers to back it up....but those who are keeping tabs say its BS

2) US military officials are saying that this "drop in violence" (that doesn't exist) is showing no signs of bringing a Sunni/Shia reconciliation necessary to keep the violence from going back up again. In other words: Even IF you assume their BS is true, it's not helping to achieve the ultimate goal of the "surge," which was to create a more peaceful security situation to allow Sunnis and Shias in Iraq to come together and work their problems out politically.

Needless to say that hasn't happened. In fact, last I hear, all Sunni cabinet ministers have completely withdrawn from the Shia-dominated Iraq government. I'd call that "anti-progress."

I've had quite a few posts that detail other instances of Bush BS, and 'Surge' progress BS so I'm not basing this on one event.

There is a history here and I have no reason to believe that it will be different this time around.

This September Report will be a completely White House-written piece of crock and the "Kewl Kidz" in the Washington Media will eat it up hook, line, and sinker.

My only hope is that Petraeus, in his testimony to Congress when the report is released will let slip a little more reality to Congress that what is found in his boss' report.

If he, indeed, really is still a man of integrity.


PS: Roundup post for tomorrow