The War Czar

The "War Czar" testified on the Hill a couple of days ago. I'm not sure what this guy brings to the equation. I reminded of the last time there was a "Czar" that was the drug czar and that didn't work out all that well.

However, what this general had to say was interesting:

He told senators at a confirmation hearing that Iraqi factions "have shown so far very little progress" toward the reconciliation necessary to stem the bloodshed. If that does not change, he said, "we're not likely to see much difference in the security situation" a year from now.

The article goes on to say that in four key areas (revisiting the Iraqi constitution, distribution of Iraq's oil wealth, agreement on provincial elections and a de-Baathification law) there has been almost no progress.

It seems unlikely that there will be any major progress on these issues by September. September which has become the golden month the make or break month. This is when General Petraeus gives his report to Bush and Congress on the surge.

It seems to help boost the next step after the surge which is in the planning stages, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is to step down. Part of the reason giving by Secretary Gates was:

Gates said that his decision was rooted in political considerations and that he took guidance from members of Congress who warned that Pace could face a maelstrom on Capitol Hill where lawmakers would dissect the military's failures in Iraq.

And that would be such a terrible thing. But it make sense if you want to try and sell a next step.

It seems the next step is set up permanent bases in Iraq. Over the past few weeks there has been a concerted effort to use a different analogy on Iraq not comparing it to Viet Nam but to Korea. If you follow that analogy to its logical conclusion, it points to keeping a large American presence in Iraq for decades to come. I cannot image that the American people will allow such a thing to happen. But the wishes of the American people are the last thing this administration has on its mind. It seems the Bush administration wants to have this new plan set up and in effect so that whomever is in the Oval Office next will have to go along with it.

However there just might be a fly in the ointment on this one. In a recent column by Howard Kurtz is this interesting mention:

"This week, the Iraqi parliament 'passed a binding resolution that will guarantee lawmakers an opportunity to block the extension of the U.N. mandate under which coalition troops now remain in Iraq when it comes up for renewal in December.' But if you didn't read that in an exclusive alternet.org story by Raed Jarrar and Joshua Holland, or if you didn't get an email from a friend (as I did) saying, Didja see this?, you might not know that a majority of Iraqi lawmakers has now fashioned a two-by-four to thump President Bush on the head and end our occupation.

Of course the regular media was interested in more important things like Paris Hilton.

So Bush's plans may be for naught. Clearly the Iraqis don't like the idea of being the next Korea. It will be interesting to see if the Iraqis ask us to leave but the administration doesn't feel that it is time to go what exactly happens.