The Petraeus Report on Progress in Iraq

9pm: Here are the two most important charts from Petraeus' presentation:

As Petraeus said - this level of violence is still "troubling" but the improvement is noticeable and very welcome.  Where would the level of deaths have been without the surge?

7.40pm: The British Conservative Party - once a strong supporter of the war - does not really know what it thinks anymore about Iraq.  It is divided from top to bottom on the issue and that explains this grey statement from William Hague, Foreign Affairs spokesman.

7.26pm: National Review Online has uploaded all of the General's slides and his full testimony.

7.04pm: US Ambassador Crocker is now speaking.  Progress in Iraq is happening but the path of progress is not steep, he says.  Continued significant US involvement will be necessary.

7pm: PETRAEUS HAS GIVEN BUSH ALL HE NEEDS TO KEEP TROOPS IN IRAQ FOR THE TIME-BEING.  THE DEMOCRATS MAY NOW LOOK LIKE THEY ARE PLAYING POLITICS IF THEY INSIST ON TROOP WITHDRAWALS AHEAD OF THE GENERAL'S RECOMMENDED TIMETABLE.

6.59pm: The General ends by paying tribute to "America's new greatest generation" and to USA's politicians for funding the military.

6.54pm: Petraeus says Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq.

6.50pm: Petraeus has recommended some troop withdrawals beginning at the end of the month.  Withdrawals could reduce troop levels to pre-surge levels by this time next year.  He is not prepared to make recommendations on troop numbers beyond that time frame.

6.48pm: Iraqi troops are getting stronger and are playing a fuller and fuller part in operations against enemies of the Iraqi people.

6.46pm: Most significant development during surge has been co-operation of tribal leaders in battle against al-Qaeda - notably in Anbar province.

6.44pm: Protestors are having to be expelled from the meeting.  Welcome to readers of Instapundit!

6.37pm: There has been a "significant" reduction in violence  - a 45% overall reduction in fatalities and a 70% reduction in Baghdad.

6.31pm: By next summer the US commitment to Iraq could be reduced to pre-surge levels by next summer.  With sufficient time, the General concludes, our objectives in Iraq can be made.

6.29pm: Petraeus (finally in front of a working microphone) opens by saying that he has not cleared his statement with the Pentagon or the White House.  It is his own report he says and opens with these words: "The military objectives of the surge are in large measure being met."

6.19pm: While we are waiting for the microphone to work the BBC is talking about its poll which found that a majority of Iraqis were unpersuaded by the surge strategy.

6.15pm: Omigod - Petraeus finally called to speak and the microphone doesn't work!

6.10pm: Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen calls on Democrats to disown the adverts of MoveOn.org that have portrayed General Petraeus as General 'Betray-us'.

6.02pm: Republican Duncan Hunter is now speaking in favour of the Iraq strategy.  The balance is welcome but I'd rather hear Petraeus.

5.58pm: As Lantos ends speaking and the first Republican starts speaking, the BBC breaks away to hear the Washington bureau's Adam Brookes repeat everything that Lantos and Skelton said.  The BBC obviously does not mean to hear a politician who agrees with the Iraq strategy.  This is the same BBC that this morning broadcast a report with contributions from MoveOn, Madeline Albright, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and John McCain (four-to-one 'impartiality').

5.54pm: This is getting exasperating.  Petraeus still hasn't spoken a word and Congressman Lantos has told him that the withdrawal of one or two brigades isn't enough.  LET THE GENERAL TALK!  "It's time to go and go now" he concludes.

5.46pm: Petraeus and Crocker haven't spoken yet but the opening remarks of Congressmen Ike Skelton and Tom Lantos have already made it clear that their minds are already closed.  They think the war is lost.  Earlier today, in a must-read WSJ article, Senators McCain and Lieberman asked: "The president had the courage to change course on Iraq. Does Congress?"  The answer is clearly 'no'.

Comments

[Joanna]

They shouldn't have let Lantos go first like that. Yes, it's pretty obvious they don't care, and if things in Iraq continue to get better, this will really hurt the Democrats in 2008.

[Umbrella man]

I cannot see Republicans defecting to the Dems' 'let's exit' side now.

[billm99uk]

The problem with all this moaning about the BBC is that it implies the other UK channels are better. They're not.

[Patrick Carroll]

Over this weekend the BBC World Service - via my XM Satellite Radio - was banging the drums about US Senators and Representatives going back to Washington having had an earful from their constituents about the Iraq war.

Complete Barbra Streisand!

What US Senators and Representatives actually heard about was illegal immigration.

While the war in Iraq is a concern for Americans, they're increasingly aware of the executive branch's unwillingness to establish an actual border with Mexico.

In my neck of the woods (Atlanta, GA) the two US Senators were actually booed when they showed up at a Republican meeting with the intent of representing Washington to us hicks, rather than being interested in what we hicks wanted represented in Washington.

When I listen to the BBC and compare what it's saying to what I'm seeing on local TV, or reading in local newspapers, I'm increasingly convinced that it has it's story, that it wants out, and devil take the facts.

[Steevo]

What Petraeus is saying for the most part is what is being reported by those handful of real reporters one the ground in the red zone surviving off donations.

"I cannot see Republicans defecting to the Dems' 'let's exit' side now."

Hopefully, not.

"The problem with all this moaning about the BBC is that it implies the other UK channels are better. They're not."

:-)

[lgude]

The MSM control of public opinion has been seriously undermined by the independent journalists embedded in Iraq. Yon, Totten, Roggio and others. It is great to see Steevo's comment above saying "What Petraeus is saying for the most part is what is being reported by those handful of real reporters on the ground in the red zone surviving off donations." TV and Cronkite completely changed the public perception in Vietnam, the first TV war - now a few courageous and talented independent journalists are making this the first internet war. The monopoly power to control the 'narrative' and package it to push a political agenda corrupted our media so badly that a handful of self funded individual startups have become the new source for reliable information about the war. Meta news like blogging the grossly manipulative packaging done by the BBC just creates more awareness of the media as scam. We are watching the 20th century media crash and burn and the 21st century media arise from the ashes.

[Joanna]

Has anyone noticed the Taiwan referendum? Perhaps Iraq shouldn't be our biggest worry after all.

http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=132072&ran=78996

It is off topic, though.

[Simon Newman]

"THE DEMOCRATS MAY NOW LOOK LIKE THEY ARE PLAYING POLITICS IF THEY INSIST ON TROOP WITHDRAWALS"

No fear of that, *sigh*

[Simon Newman]

Patrick Carroll:
"Over this weekend the BBC World Service - via my XM Satellite Radio - was banging the drums about US Senators and Representatives going back to Washington having had an earful from their constituents about the Iraq war.

Complete Barbra Streisand!

What US Senators and Representatives actually heard about was illegal immigration.

While the war in Iraq is a concern for Americans, they're increasingly aware of the executive branch's unwillingness to establish an actual border with Mexico. "

Yeah, both the BBC and The Economist (now getting as bad as the BBC) claimed that John McCain's Presidential bid was sunk by his being pro-war, rather than the real reason - that he with Ted Kennedy was behind the failed Amnesty bill for all illegal immigrants. This is one area where there's a big split between the pro-uncontrolled-Mexican-immigration policy of the Bush White House and the real concerns of the Republican base, but you won't hear that from the liberal internationalists of right (including BritainandAmerica.com!) or left (BBC et al).

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"6.19pm: While we are waiting for the microphone to work the BBC is talking about its poll which found that a majority of Iraqis were unpersuaded by the surge strategy".

I can't understand why the BBC should be spending your money (not mine) on a poll in Iraq, can you? The BBC can't be anti- American it is "impartial" And in any case, can we believe it not knowing how the question was framed or if those polled had to pay to phone in with their answer when the result was already decided? Stranger things have been known

[Patrick Carroll]

Hi Simon,

Thanks for the note.

All I wanted to say was that Chambliss and Isaacson came down to tell us what we should think about, well, everything, and especially the border issue, and got booed for their efforts.

Soon thereafter, both changed from being for completely open borders to being relative border hawks. That whole re-election thing, don't you know.

In the meeting where I saw them booed, the basic assumption was that Iraq was, if not won, at least a smaller and smaller problem, and that the issue now was the million-or-so illegal Mexicans in Gwinnett County, GA, and the best way of getting them home.

In recent days we've had news reports of illegal immigrant Mexicans showing up in Atlanta with contagious tuberculosis, so they're taking a bit of the gloss off the President's compassionate conservatism, at least as applied to the southern border.

Bottom line? Iraq is no longer an issue for debate - it's to be won. The new most-important issue is making sure Mexico begins, rather than ends, at the Rio Grande.

Patrick
--

[Patrick Carroll]

Hi Simon,

BTW, McCain loses out because of the McCain-Feingold act. He tried to take away our First Amendment rights to free speech, only to empower Soros and Soros's sock-puppets, ACT and ACORN.

Patrick
--

[Simon Newman]

To go with the above graphs, see this one on Coalition/NATO dead in Afghanistan and Iraq:

http://www.d-n-i.net/charts_data/iraq_fatalities.pdf

There does not seem to be a downward trend, the 6-month moving average trend line is still heading upwards. However Afghanistan appears to be making up a higher proportion.

[JF]

Simon, what would you consider to be an acceptable death rate in this type of conflict?

[Steevo]

Simon, combined with other statements you've made in complete darkness of how to understand this war, this site "Defense and National Interest" is credible to YOU. That's what this is about. Having more credit and a direct angle to, discredit Petraeus. Hmm. No surprise to me.

This site really doesn't like to say too much about their makeup. NPR is mentioned as a source. I'll qualify, *liberal* and largely anti-war NPR. And in the "About Us"... they don't give their names, just reference to being inspired by Franklin C. (Chuck) Spinney. Yes old Chuck, "maverick" according Time Magazine, liberal/left-wing anti-military Time Magazine for god knows how long.

Believe what you want Simon.

We'll see more of this folks. It won't be hard with the slightest effort on Google now. The Left is in all out demonize mode. Petraeus is public enemy no.1.

BTW: for any who haven't downloaded their pdf 'proof'? Golly, a graph. That's it. Because they say so. Obviously enough for some.

[Denise]

Patrick, hey neighbor! I'm in Flowery Branch, GA just 5 minutes from the Atlanta Falcons training facility. Anyway, you're so right on immigration. I can totally relate being here in Hall County where there are so many illegals. I was among many sending faxes and phone calls to the offices of Chambliss and Isaacson to get them to change their stance on immigration. I don't like McCain for the very reasons you mentioned. That and the issue of climate change. What rubbish. He's not getting my vote.

[Simon Newman]

JF:
"Simon, what would you consider to be an acceptable death rate in this type of conflict?"

I'd say that was a sily question. But I'd think that a declining death rate would be a hopeful indicator of progress towards a peaceful situation, which is supposedly the goal.

[JF]

Simon,

I'd say that was a sily question.

Really? Have a look at these numbers and see if it doesn't change your mind:

Wars ranked by total deaths
1 American Civil War (1861–1865) 625,000
2 World War II (1941–1945) 405,399
3 World War I (1917–1918) 116,516
4 Vietnam War (1964–1973) 58,151
5 Korean War (1950–1953) 36,516
6 American Revolutionary War (1775–1783) 25,000
7 War of 1812 (1812–1815) 20,000
8 Mexican-American War 1846–1848 13,283
9 Philippine War (1898–1902) 4,196
10 Iraq War (2003–present) 3,725

Every death is a tragedy, certainly. However, the question is one of optics. For those looking at the trees (e.g., you), this war has been a horrible disaster. Many are calling it the worst foreign policy mistake the US has made in the last century. For those of us who can step back and look at the forest, as indicated by the numbers above, perhaps it's not so silly of a question, given the relative paucity of deaths compared to the cause for which our soldiers are fighting.

But I'd think that a declining death rate would be a hopeful indicator of progress towards a peaceful situation, which is supposedly the goal.

Certainly. But war is not as clean as that, so I would ask you to point out a precedent to me. In which major war has the death rate seen a straight decline through the course of the war, as opposed to, say, the Vietnam War, which had a death rate that looked like a bell curve.

[Simon Newman]

JF:
"I would ask you to point out a precedent to me.."

I can't think of any precedent for a major insurgency war being brought to a successful conclusion. Defeat - failure - with 4,000, 40,000 or 400,000 dead is still failure. The way to win counter-insurgency campaigns is to prevent them becoming major wars.

[JF]

Simon Newman,

I can't think of any precedent for a major insurgency war being brought to a successful conclusion.

There is some debate over whether Vietnam was a successful example of counterinsurgency before the Democratic Congress betrayed our South Vietnamese allies by killing funding and blocking arms sales. But an indisputable success was the Malay Emergency.

I may disagree with you on many points, but I think we can agree on this: that just because you aren't aware of something doesn't make it false. Before making sweeping generalizations, Simon, it would be helpful to do a little research to back up your case with data. Who knows, with a little effort, you might even convince me next time. But when you make a claim and I ask for examples, and you can't back it up, it does critical damage to your thesis.

[Simon Newman]

JF - Malaya is a good example of a minor insurgency prevented from becoming a major war, the British successfully applied de-escalatory strategies (and the US has recently been applying de-escalatory strategies in Sunni Iraq, even as it is escalating conflict with Shi'ite Iraq). The British in Malaya had a big advantage here in that the insurgency was restricted to the minority ethnic Chinese, with very little support from ethnic Malays - likewise Northern Ireland, with IRA support restricted to the ethnic Irish-Catholics with no appreciable support from the majority Ulster-Protestants.

Vietnam - a major mixed conventional/insurgency war that was lost, of course - the insurgents achieved their goals, the counter-insurgents failed. I think it's true that North Vietnam was only able to achieve final victory over South Vietnam via a conventional offensive because the US Congress had withdrawn military support to the South. It's also true that the Tet Offensive had greatly weakened the insurgent forces. But that doesn't mean the US was ever about to win the war.

I think the lesson of Malaya is that it's possible to win a counter-insurgency war via de-escalatory 'policing' strategies, as long as the insurgents' support is restricted to a minority of the population. Victory in Iraq would be possible if the US had support from majority Shi'ite Iraq and was opposed only by minority Sunni Iraqi nationalist/Ba'athist and Islamist/AQI forces, but that does not appear to be the case.