Iraq - optimism is too much to expect!

My local paper, The Oregonian, has long been a supporter of the Bush administration's invasion and occupation of Iraq. It appears that they have now joined the reality based community. Today's editorial is an example.
A hunger for optimism
It's understandable that Americans yearn for good news from Iraq, but the current bounce is based on anecdotes, not an overall improvement

Victory in Iraq, a hardy few say, may be within reach.

Brookings Institution scholars Kenneth Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon roused optimism from an unexpected quarter late last month when The New York Times published their essay, "Stability in Iraq: A War We Just Might Win." The two analysts, who said they had previously been harsh critics of U.S. war policy, described high morale among U.S. troops, a reduction in corrupt Iraqi commanders and Iraqis' growing rejection of al-Qaida-styled extremism.

A New York Times/CBS News poll last month also revealed growing positive attitudes about developments in Iraq. A growing minority of people surveyed -- 42 percent in July, up from 35 percent in May -- said invading Iraq was the right thing to do. And the number of people who say the war is going "very badly" has fallen to 35 percent, down from 45 percent earlier in the month. While a majority of Americans still think the U.S. shouldn't have invaded Iraq and think the war is going badly, the recent trend has been in the opposite direction.

But such views seem to be based more on a wistful hope than any real, significant changes in Iraqi security or society.

Anthony Cordesman, an analyst for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, went on the same trip with O'Hanlon and Pollack, but his paper, "The Tenuous Case for Strategic Patience in Iraq," is far more subdued. "It has taken the mix of forces the United States and Iraq deployed over six months to establish a limited kind of security over half of Baghdad. The security has . . . not stopped sectarian cleansing," he said.

And the Pentagon reporter for The Washington Post, Tom Ricks, the author of "Fiasco," the authoritative book on the bungled occupation of Iraq, said flatly in Portland last week that "there are no good options at all." The United States and Iraq, he said, are "backing into a de facto partition of the country."

By the way, it was misleading for Pollack and O'Hanlon to have implied that their views had been reversed by their eight days in Iraq. Pollack has been a cheerleader for the imposition of democracy in Iraq since at least the summer following the U.S.-led invasion. As he wrote in January 2004, "Many positive developments since the end of major combat operations in April 2003 . . . make it eminently feasible for the U.S.-led reconstruction to produce a stable, prosperous and pluralist Iraq over the course of the next 5-15 years."

Even leading Democrats have acknowledged recently that an abrupt withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq would invite a catastrophic meltdown of order. Yet the Pentagon's deployment cycle means that troop strength will begin to decline next year at the latest. The problem for the United States remains, in what way will U.S. forces come home or redeploy, and how quickly will it happen?

Much is riding on next month's report to Congress by Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, whose counterinsurgency tactics are widely applauded. But we already know he won't say Iraq is lost, nor that victory is at hand. In all likelihood, he will point to some encouraging signs, acknowledge that the challenges remain immense and suggest that more time is needed.

But at this late stage, when so much has gone wrong, so much of Iraq remains terribly dangerous, the government is disintegrating and casualties are higher than they were a year earlier, optimism is too much to expect.

While everyone waits for the Petraeus report we find out that it will be written by 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.

Dead Fish, Gordon Smith and the Oregonian

When the Oregonian was finally forced into reporting on the 2002 Klamath fish kill they failed to mention Gordon Smith's involvement in spite of the fact he was a key player. Well the Oregonian is at it again.
Smith backs Cheney, farmers in fish-kill debate

Sen. Gordon Smith argues there is no evidence a massive fish kill on the Klamath River in 2002 was caused by water diversions to farmers.

Generating fresh controversy over a key Oregon environmental issue, the Republican senator also defends the role Vice President Dick Cheney played in intervening with federal officials to help farmers in the Klamath Basin. And he casts doubt on claims that the salmon die-off caused subsequent commercial fishing restrictions off the coast.

The Klamath issue is flaring anew because the House Natural Resources Committee is investigating whether Cheney exerted improper political influence to override scientifically based management of the water resources.

Environmentalists, who have long been at odds with Smith, said the senator's stance contradicts a study by the California Department of Fish and Game, which found that the water diversions played a key role in the deaths of some 77,000 salmon.

The debate over the Klamath fish kill comes as Smith is gearing up for what could be a tough re-election race next year. His staunch defense of the farmers gives him a chance to cement ties with rural voters who are a key part of his political base. But if he's seen as insensitive to environmental issues, it also could undermine his attempts to seek the political middle in Oregon.

Smith said he has no regrets about his role in pushing the administration to aid the farmers, who had their water cut off for a year to protect both the Klamath River salmon as well as suckerfish in Klamath Lake.

"Whenever the government says to any group of Americans, we are cutting you off 100 percent, not one drop (of water), that gets my blood boiling," said Smith in an interview with The Oregonian. "I make no apology for going to bat and doing what I could with the influence of my office to defend farmers."

The senator first raised the issue Tuesday in an interview with the Eugene Register-Guard in which he sought to distance the fish deaths from the water diversions to farmers.

"I don't know that there's a connection between water for suckerfish that went to farmers, and salmon 18 months later that died of a gill disease," Smith told the Register-Guard's editorial board.

Smith subsequently acknowledged in an interview with The Oregonian that the fish kill came about six months after water was first diverted to farms, but he argued that the die-off could have occurred even without the diversions.

Even the headline is misleading. Smith is not backing Cheney he is defending himself. While Cheney and Rove pulled the strings in an attempt to get Gordon Smith reelected Smith himself was an active participant. As Michelle Neumann reported over at Blue Oregon science was ignored for purely political reasons, possibly a violation of the Hatch Act.

Yes, The Oregonian continues to carry Gordon Smith's water.

The Oregonian and Gordon Smith

It would seem that Senator Gordon Smith can't please anyone but the Oregonian. A few weeks ago we saw the Oregonian discuss the Cheney/Rove fish kill for Gordon Smith without once mentioning Gordon Smith. A week and a half later they were all over Gordon's support for an Iraq withdrawal bill that everyone knew had no chance of passage - a safe bill. This morning they are once again pushing Mr Smith's "independence".
Gordon Smith's path for Iraq
The Oregon Republican lights a "brush fire" in the Senate while pressuring the White House to alter its war strategy

H is detractors on the far right and far left will never give him credit for it, but Sen. Gordon Smith has pushed effectively in recent days to get the Bush administration's attention on the desperate need for change in U.S. policy on Iraq.

Last week the Oregon Republican also put to rest, or should have put to rest, any lingering skepticism about the sincerity of his change of heart on Iraq.

Smith launched his offensive July 11 in a Senate floor speech in which he hailed the Levin-Reed amendment as a "glide path home for U.S. troops." That Democratic proposal, ordering withdrawal of American military forces in Iraq, was blocked by his GOP colleagues, but Smith insists many of them will eagerly join him if the Bush administration doesn't act soon.

"What I have helped to light is a brush fire in the Republican conference," Smith said in an interview last week.

That brush fire in the Republican conference may yet ignite but it won't be the result of anything Mr Smith did but what the Republicans hear when they go home in August. The fire has been started under Mr Smith because....

Smith, who is up for re-election next year, revealed his reversal on the war last December in the Senate when he assailed the president's Iraq policies as "absurd." Because of its timing, only a month after war-weary U.S. voters had removed Republicans from control of the House and Senate, the startling floor speech sparked inevitable criticism in Oregon.

After three years of steadfast support for the war, Smith's abrupt switch was derided back home as politically motivated. Then in the ensuing months he gave critics more fodder in a series of votes and statements on Iraq that struck many as contradictory or confusing.

And the Oregonian give Mr Smith plenty of opportunity to blow his own horn>

Smith earnestly believes he has been consistent since his Dec. 7 bombshell, and he says he is receiving "overwhelming appreciation" back home from "the common-sense center of Oregon." Whatever the case, he has done much this month to demonstrate the sincerity of his views on getting out of what he declared on July 11 to be a "low-grade civil war that we cannot win, and which is not ours to win."

His actions resulted two weeks ago "in a long, heart-to-heart phone conversation with President Bush on Iraq," Smith says. And on Wednesday, after he tried to rally Senate Republicans to support the Democrats' troop-withdrawal amendment, he got an hourlong private visit from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Both Bush and Rice "listened and listened intently" to what he had to say about Iraq, he said Thursday.

"They're riding a tiger now, and they need to get off of it," he said. "They need to let the American people know they're listening and making adjustments."

Failure of the Levin-Reed amendment means no change in Iraq strategy is likely before Sept. 15, when Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is required to report to Congress on the war. Regardless of the content of that report, the prospects for a much-needed change in U.S. policy on Iraq appear to have been significantly improved by the fire Smith helped light within the Republican Party.

Sorry, but Smith's change of heart is all about saving his own political hide. He may not be a moderate but he is a politician that knows which way the wind is blowing. He also knows that his friends at the Oregonian will be there to help him push his faux moderate credentials.

Thanks to Kari at Blue Oregon for the mention.

Gordon is at it again

Yes Gordon Smith is at it again. He has thrown his support to a safe Iraq withdrawal bill, one that has no chance of passage, for some good press from the Oregonian which will prove he is a moderate.
Smith backs Iraq withdrawal by spring

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., will be the lead Republican co-sponsor of legislation that would withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq by the spring of 2008.

Under the proposed amendment to the Defense Department authorization bill, sponsored by Democratic Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the United States would begin withdrawing troops within 120 days. It calls for withdrawal of all troops but those involved in counterterrorism efforts by the spring.

Smith voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq in 2002 and was a public supporter of President Bush's war strategy until December, when he gave a speech calling the Iraq policy "absurd."

Now the "O" to it's credit does point out that Gordon still supports super Iraq war hawk John McCain's bid for the presidency.

Smith has been among a small group of senators advising Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign. The Arizona Republican, however, has supported President Bush's strategy of increasing troops in Iraq and in a statement on the Senate floor today cautioned against withdrawal.

Considering the condition of McCain's failing campaign this would indicate that Gordon is not only a hypocrite but a dumb hypocrite.

Update
Gordon gets some national press:

That proposal, sponsored by Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (Mich.) and Sen. Jack Reed (R.I.), would begin troop reductions no later than 120 days after enactment. U.S. forces would then shift their efforts to targeted missions such as counterterrorism. The process would have to be completed by April 30, 2008.

The plan "says that America will no longer be the policeman of a civil war," said Sen. Gordon Smith (Ore.), the sole GOP co-sponsor of the Levin-Reed measure. "But no terrorists in Iraq can ever sleep peacefully because it does not call for a pullout from Iraq, but a responsible way forward."

It's not easy being Gordon

I'm sure that it was with great joy the the Gordon Smith fan club at the Oregonian put George Will's column on Gordon on the op ed page today. Yes with his political career on the line wingnut Bush sycophant, Senator Gordon Smith, has suddenly seen the light when it comes to the Bush/Cheney cabal's debacle in Mesopotamia. And alone he is, or so says Will.

An Iraq Caucus of One

Last month in Iraq, Sen. Gordon Smith, the Oregon Republican, had lunch with three soldiers from his state, one of whom had been working with an Iraqi officer training police cadets. That soldier told Smith that when the cadets learned that the Iraqi officer was Catholic, they stoned him. To death.

As the legislative branch gropes for relevance regarding Iraq, attention is focused on Democrats. They control Congress and could end American involvement in Iraq, but -- so far -- they flinch from wielding the only power that can do that, the blunt instrument of cutting off funds. Consider, however, Smith's plight.

The commander in chief is of Smith's party; Smith's Oregon base retains a loyalty, albeit attenuated, to the president; Smith's party is a minority in Congress, and he is essentially a one-man minority faction in the Republican Senate Caucus. So far.

Actually George I think Chuck Hagel has been in that "caucus of one" a lot longer than Mr Smith who apparently saw the light last July.

His path to this uncomfortable position began when he boarded a red-eye flight to Washington from Portland last July, carrying what he thought might be interesting reading -- the book " Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq" by The Post's Tom Ricks. "By the time I landed at Dulles," he remembers, "I was sick to my stomach." He was convinced that the American mission in Iraq was (in the words of a U.S. official in Iraq, quoted by Ricks) like pasting feathers together and hoping for a duck.

OK, if he saw the light in July why did he wait until after the November elections to say anything?

A few hours after Smith arrived in Washington that day, Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld attended the Republican senators' weekly lunch, where Smith asked if he had read "Fiasco." Rumsfeld said he had not and asked the name of the author. Smith recalls that when Rumsfeld was told it was Ricks, he dismissively said, "Oh, that guy writes for The Post." Five months later, Smith went to the Senate floor, where, distraught and speaking extemporaneously, he declared:

"I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal."

And you can tell how serious he is, he still supports the senile uber hawk John McCain.

Smith has endorsed John McCain's presidential campaign. But the core of McCain's campaign is the puzzling doctrine that if we do not win in Iraq "they will follow us home." The global threat of terrorism cannot be defeated in Iraq, so, will terrorists not "follow us home" only if U.S. forces continue to engage them in Iraq -- where Gen. David Petraeus says there can be no military solution to that nation's afflictions? If so, that implies a need for endless engagement in Iraq, which is not a politically possible option.

I'm sorry Mr Will, The Oregonian, I'm not buying Gordon's born again change of heart. He is a wingnut politician who sees his career on the line and will say anything to save it.