See other War, War, War Articles
Title: White House balks at first question from Raw Story: Did the surge set back Iraq's plan by five years?
Source:
Raw Story
URL Source: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Did_s ... _set_back_Iraqs_plan_0118.html
Published: Jan 18, 2008
Author: Eric Brewer
Post Date: 2008-01-18 14:16:36 by robin
Keywords: None
Views: 79
Comments: 3
Filed by Eric Brewer The following is the first White House report from Eric Brewer, who will periodically attend White House press briefings for Raw Story. Brewer is also a contributor at BTC News. He was the first person to ask about the Downing Street memo at a White House briefing. After all, a year ago when President Bush was selling his surge, he boasted that Iraq planned "to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November." I assumed that meant November of 2007, not 2012. So has the wildly successful surge set back Iraq's domestic security plans by five years? That was the question I intended to ask Tony Fratto at the White House Thursday. Just before I could, though, Olivier Knox of AFP asked a related question. Noting that various Iraq officials had floated different dates for when Iraq would take over its domestic security, Knox asked, "Has there been any kind of official notification from Iraq to U.S. officials about what date is the right one, given the variation in the public ones?" Knox tried again: "I understand that, but we're also talking about an ongoing United States' troop withdrawal from Iraq...I don't understand how 2009, 2012, 2018—I don't understand how these variations don't have an impact on the course of U.S. policy over the next couple of years." Tony answered that they do impact it, but that we have to let the discussion happen. Then I took a whack. I asked Tony: "Does the White House agree with the Iraqi defense minister's statement that Iraq may not be able to handle its domestic security until 2012?" Tony said, "I'm not going to comment on whether it squares with our internal thinking or not. I agree that he made that statement." [laughter] Me: Ok, well, a year ago the President said that Iraq has a plan to take over domestic security by last November. Now Iraq says maybe 2012. In the interim between those two statements there was the successful surge. So did the surge set back Iraq's plan by five years, or what? Tony: No, I don't want to make estimates that might either, that seem to accelerate or decelerate. I think that what we would like to say is that we would like to get through this period of bringing security to Iraq, allow them to make the political and economic reconstruction changes that they need to do. Just noting that we got some good news out of the IMF recently, and their expectations for Iraqi growth over the next year are, you know, growing as much as 7 percent, and that's good for the Iraq economy. We want to see continued progress there, and all of these things will have an impact as to what the nature of our relationship is with Iraq. But we want to have a long-term commitment to Iraq because they're our strategic partner in this region and they're very important and we have invested a great deal there. So, but I'm not going to try to, you know, play games with timetables and expectations. I agree with Tony that we certainly have "invested a great deal there," but, unfortunately, with no timetables or expectations for Iraqi security forthcoming from the White House, it looks like we'll be investing a great deal more.
White House balks at first question from Raw Story: Did the surge set back Iraq's plan by five years?
01/18/2008 @ 9:46 am
When the Iraqi defense minister — whose name is either Abdul Kadir (according to the NY Times) or Abdul-Kadir al-Obaidi (according to the Guardian U.K.) or Abdul Kadir Muhammed Jasim (according to the U.S. Department of Defense) — said on Monday that Iraq would not be able to handle its domestic security without U.S. help until perhaps 2012, I thought it would raise some eyebrows. 
Tony answered, "No," and added that it was all up in the air. That we're just starting to converse with Iraqis about a long-term security agreement, and that it's premature to talk about what that arrangement will be.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
#1. To: robin (#0)
It must take a special kind of person to be the White House spokesman. There's a few fallacies in the statement by Snow I quoted. Granted, a lot of what they say is only for domestic consumption, but there is no way that anyone in Iraq or the region would ever consider Iraq our "strategic partner." Partnership implies an agreement between equals. Iraq is a protectorate or a colony ruled by a US puppet regime. They may act like they have some say in their own country, but anything of import is coordinated through us. He also throws out the sunk costs fallacy, with the whole "we've invested a lot there." Of course we have. Doesn't mean it was worth it, or that we should continue to spend lives and money there on a fool's errand. The single largest problem the government of Iraq has is an ongoing crisis of legitimacy. Because we are seen as the power behind the "Democracy," and because we have forced the Iraqi government to make changes at our behest (and we've openly done it, rather than getting them behind the scenes and carefully couching the changes in a way that makes it appear the gov't changed their mind due to new information). Until the Iraqi government appears legitimate, nothing will change, and the state will be in constant crisis, always on the verge of collapse. The problem we've got is that, so long as we are there and openly appearing to be in charge, it's not going to get better, except in certain areas and only for fleeting moments. If we leave, the present government will probably cease to exist, but something truly Iraqi will eventually take its place. It'd probably end up being some weird cooperation between three regions (like during the Ottoman Empire) but it would truly be a state made from the will of the Iraqis.
But then this is a White House addicted to fallacies - and criminal actions. Putting it more colloquially it is simply "good money after bad". This adventure in empire has not served the interests of the American People and is more aimed at the advantage of interest groups, the Plutocracy and the Israelis, and their self aggrandizing machinations.
There are no replies to Comment # 2. End Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestTony: No, I don't want to make estimates that might either, that seem to accelerate or decelerate. I think that what we would like to say is that we would like to get through this period of bringing security to Iraq, allow them to make the political and economic reconstruction changes that they need to do. Just noting that we got some good news out of the IMF recently, and their expectations for Iraqi growth over the next year are, you know, growing as much as 7 percent, and that's good for the Iraq economy. We want to see continued progress there, and all of these things will have an impact as to what the nature of our relationship is with Iraq. But we want to have a long-term commitment to Iraq because they're our strategic partner in this region and they're very important and we have invested a great deal there. So, but I'm not going to try to, you know, play games with timetables and expectations.
#2. To: historian1944 (#1)
He also throws out the sunk costs fallacy, with the whole "we've invested a lot there." Of course we have. Doesn't mean it was worth it, or that we should continue to spend lives and money there on a fool's errand.
Replies to Comment # 2.