Some thoughts on the "surge" discussions like in September Could Be Key Deadline in War.
The article asserts:
Democrats say that [late July] is a reasonable time frame for the first assessment of Bush’s troop increase, since the last of the additional troops being sent to Iraq will arrive this month.
But Petraeus has said repeatedly that it will be at least another month or two after the troops are in place before it will be possible to assess the impact of those reinforcements and, just as important, of the new U.S. approach that is moving combat troops off big, isolated bases and into dozens of smaller combat outposts across Baghdad.
The late July date is the correct one and unlike what the WaPo piece wants you to believe Petraeus has said just that. The "surge" is already complete. There is one brigade (3,200 soldiers) that has not yet arrived in Iraq but that is an aviation brigade. These are some 150 transport and attack helicopters and the personal to fly and maintain them. The brigade will certainly not man any combat outposts. It was not even included in the original "surge" count.
A bit funny is the cited article’s description of "big, isolated bases" versus "smaller combat outposts." In another report on the same page we learn:
.. defending their small outposts is increasingly requiring heavy bulwarks reminiscent of the fortresslike bases that the U.S. troops left behind.
To guard against bombs, mortar fire and other threats, U.S. commanders are adding fortifications to the outposts, setting them farther back from traffic and arming them with antitank weapons capable of stopping suicide bombers driving armored vehicles.
How many people get evicted from their houses for each of these "small" bases with a 200 yard security perimeter? How many new enemies does the U.S. create by this tactic?
The "surge" is complete. If Petraeus needs one or two month to
evaluate it results, late July is certainly the right timeframe to
confess the obvious outcome – more resistance, more death, more destruction, no
political progress.
Aside from that I agree with Atrios:
Bush is going to cling to his pet war until the end.
And Congress will let him get away with it. The new fad with the Democrats seems to be to set benchmarks not for Bush, but for the Iraqi government, the most important being a law to share oil revenues (80% U.S., 20% whoever?)
What right does the U.S. Congress have to tell the Iraqi parliament to do something about oil revenues?