That's not precisely how the NYT chose to spin it - their headline was The White House Scales Back Talk of Iraq Progress - but that's precisely what the story means.
An excerpt:
The Bush administration will not try to assess whether the troop increase in Iraq is producing signs of political progress or greater security until September, and many of Mr. Bush’s top advisers now anticipate that any gains by then will be limited, according to senior administration officials.
In interviews over the past week, the officials made clear that the White House is gradually scaling back its expectations for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. The timelines they are now discussing suggest that the White House may maintain the increased numbers of American troops in Iraq well into next year.That prospect would entail a dramatically longer commitment of frontline troops, patrolling the most dangerous neighborhoods of Baghdad, than the one envisioned in legislation that passed the House and Senate this week. That vote, largely symbolic because Democrats do not have the votes to override the promised presidential veto, set deadlines that would lead to the withdrawal of combat troops by the end of March 2008...
Several American officials who have spoken recently with Mr. Maliki say they believe that he would like to achieve the kind of political reconciliation that Mr. Bush outlined in January as the ultimate goal of the troop increase. But they say the Iraqi prime minister appears to have little ability to manage the required legislation, including bills requiring fair distribution of oil revenues among Iraq’s Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, and reversing the American-led de-Baathification that barred many Sunnis from participation in the new government.
The Democrats may not have the votes not to override the veto, but if this story is correct - and given the "senior administration officials" sourcing, its hard to believe that it isn't - it won't be long before Republican Senators begin to flip. Remember that of the 33 Senate seats up for reelection next year, Republicans have to defend 21 of them, and only 8 of them are considered right now by CQ to be safe (and one of them, Chuck Hagel, is already on our side). That leaves 13 that are within striking distance next fall, 5 or 6 of which will become almost sure things as this war drags on. Short version? He may hold his veto now, but eventually, Bush is going to have to give.
David Kurtz's analysis is dead on: all of this is just an elaborate charade designed to run out the clock and leave the problem for the next administration to solve, never mind the pain and suffering that will cause both soldiers and civilians between now and then.
UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan focuses in on the administration's retreat from a focus on positive outcomes (i.e. successes) to outputs (i.e. activity. i.e. the opposite of inactivity).
Now the president is telling us not to expect any measurable progress by September - no actual "outcomes." Instead, we are to look for "activity." Did Maliki shave this morning? Did Sadr take his afternoon walk? I guess this might be another device to lower expectations - lower them? - but it's essentially a statement that we have no reason to believe that the current strategy can do anything serious to affect the entire country - but that we're staying with it anyway.
In the end, his conclusion is the same as mine: come September, the Republican party bolts. If they think that will somehow get them off the hook for their years of unquestioning support for this disastrous war, they are very sadly mistaken. This war belongs to one party and one president. And it will haunt them - and sadly, us - for a generation to come.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
