Krugman: Time to Take a Stand
Brett
before Congress next week: he'll assert that the surge has reduced
violence in Iraq - as long as you don't count Sunnis killed by Sunnis,
Shiites killed by Shiites, Iraqis killed by car bombs and people shot
in the front of the head.
Here's what I'm afraid will happen: Democrats will look at Gen.
Petraeus's uniform and medals and fall into their usual cringe. They
won't ask hard questions out of fear that someone might accuse them of
attacking the military. After the testimony, they'll desperately try
to get Republicans to agree to a resolution that politely asks
President Bush to maybe, possibly, withdraw some troops, if he feels
like it.
There are five things I hope Democrats in Congress will remember.
First, no independent assessment has concluded that violence in
Iraq is down. On the contrary, estimates based on morgue, hospital and
police records suggest that the daily number of civilian deaths is
almost twice its average pace from last year. And a recent assessment
by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found no decline
in the average number of daily attacks.
So how can the military be claiming otherwise? Apparently, the
Pentagon has a double super secret formula that it uses to distinguish
sectarian killings (bad) from other deaths (not important); according
to press reports, all deaths from car bombs are excluded, and one
intelligence analyst told The Washington Post that "if a bullet went
through the back of the head, it's sectarian. If it went through the
front, it's criminal." So the number of dead is down, as long as you
only count certain kinds of dead people.
Oh, and by the way: Baghdad is undergoing ethnic cleansing, with
Shiite militias driving Sunnis out of much of the city. And guess
what? When a Sunni enclave is eliminated and the death toll in that
district falls because there's nobody left to kill, that counts as
progress by the Pentagon's metric.
Second, Gen. Petraeus has a history of making wildly
overoptimistic assessments of progress in Iraq that happen to be
convenient for his political masters.
I've written before about the op-ed article Gen. Petraeus
published six weeks before the 2004 election, claiming "tangible
progress" in Iraq. Specifically, he declared that "Iraqi security
elements are being rebuilt," that "Iraqi leaders are stepping forward"
and that "there has been progress in the effort to enable Iraqis to
shoulder more of the load for their own security." A year later, he
declared that "there has been enormous progress with the Iraqi
security forces."
But now two more years have passed, and the independent commission
of retired military officers appointed by Congress to assess Iraqi
security forces has recommended that the national police force, which
is riddled with corruption and sectarian influence, be disbanded,
while Iraqi military forces "will be unable to fulfill their essential
security responsibilities independently over the next 12-18 months."
Third, any plan that depends on the White House recognizing
reality is an idle fantasy. According to The Sydney Morning Herald, on
Tuesday Mr. Bush told Australia's deputy prime minister that "we're
kicking ass" in Iraq. Enough said.
Fourth, the lesson of the past six years is that Republicans will
accuse Democrats of being unpatriotic no matter what the Democrats do.
Democrats gave Mr. Bush everything he wanted in 2002; their reward was
an ad attacking Max Cleland, who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam,
that featured images of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
Finally, the public hates this war and wants to see it ended.
Voters are exasperated with the Democrats, not because they think
Congressional leaders are too liberal, but because they don't see
Congress doing anything to stop the war.
In light of all this, you have to wonder what Democrats, who
according to The New York Times are considering a compromise that sets
a "goal" for withdrawal rather than a timetable, are thinking. All
such a compromise would accomplish would be to give Republicans who
like to sound moderate - but who always vote with the Bush
administration when it matters - political cover.
And six or seven months from now it will be the same thing all
over again. Mr. Bush will stage another photo op at Camp Cupcake, the
Marine nickname for the giant air base he never left on his recent
visit to Iraq. The administration will move the goal posts again, and
the military will come up with new ways to cook the books and claim
success.
One thing is for sure: like 2004, 2008 will be a "khaki election"
in which Republicans insist that a vote for the Democrats is a vote
against the troops. The only question is whether they can also, once
again, claim that the Democrats are flip-floppers who can't make up
their minds.