New LA times poll, in line with Newsweek poll late last weekshowing a 15 point lead
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
The administration lacks an updated and comprehensive Iraq strategy to move beyond the “surge” of combat troops President Bush launched in January 2007 as an 18-month effort to curtail violence and build Iraqi democracy, government investigators said yesterday.
While agreeing with the administration that violence has decreased sharply, a report released yesterday by the Government Accountability Office concluded that many other goals Bush outlined a year and a half ago in the “New Way Forward” strategy remain unmet.
The report, after a bleak GAO assessment last summer, cited little improvement in the ability of the Iraqi security forces to act independently of the U.S. military, and noted that key legislation passed by the Iraqi parliament had not been implemented while other crucial laws had not been passed. The report also judged that key Iraqi ministries spent less of their allocated budgets last year than in previous years, and said that oil and electricity production had repeatedly not met U.S. targets.
Bush’s strategy of January 2007, the GAO said, “defined the original goals and objectives that the Administration believed were achievable by the end of this phase in July 2008.” Not meeting many of them changed circumstances on the ground and the pending withdrawal of the last of the additional U.S. forces mean that strategy is now outdated, the report said. The GAO recommends that the State and Defense departments work together to fashion a new approach.
The most startling illustration of the hindered strategy seems likely to be the current status of the Iraqi Security Forces — the policing and military presence that is supposed to allow U.S. troops to come home. According to the GAO, the percentage of Iraqi units “capable of performing operations without U.S. assistance” remains roughly 10 percent. Thus, while the number of forces has risen by more than 150,000, the actual assistance that American troops are receiving is far more negligible. Adding salt to the wound, the GAO notes: “Since 2003, the United States has provided more than $20 billion to develop Iraqi security forces.”
But when it comes to Iraqi security, the devil is in the details. Indeed, even stating that there has been an increase in Iraqi forces is a bit misleading. As the GAO notes, the methodology for counting these force levels contains inherent flaws, including tallying those who are dead or deserted.The number of trained Iraqi security forces may overstate the number of troops present for duty. According to DOD, the number of trained troops includes personnel who are deceased or absent without leave. For example, DOD reported that approximately 24,500 soldiers were dropped from the Iraqi Army rolls in 2007 because they deserted or were absent without leave. However, these troops are still counted in trained numbers. An April 2008 Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction report confirmed that a substantial number of Iraqi personnel still on the payroll were not present for duty for various reasons, such as being on leave, absent without leave, injured, or killed.
Two new government reports, one by the Pentagon, pointed Monday to encouraging security improvements in Iraq, but were decidedly pessimistic about prospects for political and economic progress and warned that costly military gains would remain fragile.
One report, by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, concluded that many political reconciliation efforts have stalled, that Iraq’s security forces remain largely unable to operate without U.S. assistance and that its central government has not fulfilled commitments to spend its own money on reconstruction.
As a result, a new U.S. strategy for attaining military, political and economic goals is needed, the GAO said.
The Pentagon, while not agreeing on the need for a new strategy, acknowledged problems throughout Iraq. The quarterly report on progress also cited continued dissatisfaction among Iraqis over essential services such as water, electricity, sanitation and healthcare and said government officials in Baghdad “lack the ability” to advance needed rebuilding projects.
Both reports cite dramatic improvements in security, and officials say the number of attacks is continuing to plummet. On Monday, Lt. Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, the No. 2 U.S. military commander in Iraq, said that the number of attacks had fallen from an average of 1,200 per week in June 2007 to 200 per week this June.
“Iraq is a much better place than it was a year ago across the board, politically, economically and from a security standpoint,” Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday. “But we are not at the sustainable point yet, we are not at the irreversible point yet.”
The GAO credited many security improvements to the U.S.-led initiative that pays former insurgents to guard their neighborhoods, a project the report called a “key component” of Washington’s strategy.
But ominously, both the Pentagon and GAO reports note potential problems with the so-called Sons of Iraq program. Most Sunni Arab groups whose members have been brought into the program have yet to reconcile their differences with the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government, the GAO report notes. The Pentagon said the program faces the challenge of combating infiltration by extremist groups and concluded that the Iraqi government cannot currently manage the effort.
Because of deep sectarian divisions, the Pentagon report predicted that future political and diplomatic progress in Iraq “may be slow and uneven.” The report also noted that new laws must be implemented fairly to avoid heightening sectarian tensions.
Pentagon officials argued that security improvements will provide more opportunities for Iraqi officials to compromise on key pieces of reconciliation legislation.
“Iraqis are taking advantage of some of those opportunities, but there is more they have to do,” said a senior Defense official, who spoke at a background briefing but was prohibited by the Defense Department from using his name.
The Pentagon report also repeated a frequent observation that Iran may pose the “greatest long-term threat” to Iraq. Despite an overall decline in attacks on U.S. forces, the report notes, the number of armor-piercing bombs increased in late March and hit an all-time high in April. Many of the weapons are made in Iran, U.S. officials say.
More broadly, the GAO said the Bush administration has not planned adequately for the drawdown of troops sent for last year’s buildup. Most of the additional forces are expected to leave Iraq by the end of July.
As we know, offshore drilling isn’t going to get any results at the pump, but McCain says that’s not a problem because it’ll help psychologically:
I don’t see an immediate relief, but I do see that exploitation of existing reserves that may exist — and in view of many experts that do exist off our coasts — is also a way that we need to provide relief. Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial.
Delivering a speech on energy policy in California this morning, John McCain emphasized the importance of pragmatism.
“Energy efficiency is no longer just a moral luxury or a personal virtue. A smarter use of energy is part of a critical national effort to regain control of our own energy future. And in this effort, practical ideas are worth a lot more than uplifting lectures.”
McCain didn’t mention Barack Obama, but the reference to “uplifting lectures” was probably a shot in the Democrat’s direction. Fine.
McCain also, by the way, spoke about energy policy during a town-hall event in California yesterday, and struck a different note.
Yesterday, McCain admitted that his offshore drilling proposal would probably have mostly “psychological” benefits, NBC/NJ’s Adam Aigner-Treworgy reports. At a town hall in Fresno that primarily focused on energy issues, McCain was asked a question about the price of gas and the viability of various short-term solutions. […]
“In the short term I’d like to give you a little relief for the summer on the gas tax,” McCain began, referring to his controversial proposal to temporarily suspend the federal tax on gasoline. But then he made a surprisingly candid admission: “I don’t see an immediate relief, but I do see that exploitation of existing reserves that may exist — and in view of many experts that do exist off our coasts — is also a way that we need to provide relief. Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial.”
Got that? McCain believes we have to focus on “practical ideas,” which in this case aren’t actually practical, and won’t have a pragmatic effect. At the same time, we have to worry less about practicality, and consider what might have a “psychological impact” on the country, whether the policy makes sense or not.
What?
I’m starting to get the sense that McCain didn’t exactly think his energy policy through before he started talking about it. Indeed, this isn’t the first time he’s had back-to-back contradictions on the subject.
Here’s McCain on April 15:
“I propose that the federal government suspend all taxes on gasoline now paid by the American people — from Memorial Day to Labor Day of this year. The effect will be an immediate economic stimulus…. [B]ecause the cost of gas affects the price of food, packaging, and just about everything else, these immediate steps will help to spread relief across the American economy.”
And here’s McCain 48 hours later:
“I think psychologically, a lot of our problems today are psychological — confidence, trust, uncertainty about our economic future, ability to keep our own home. [A gas-tax holiday] might give ‘em a little psychological boost. Let’s have some straight talk: it’s not a huge amount of money…. A little psychological boost. That’s what I think [a gas-tax holiday] would help.”
So, a seasonal tax cut that will serve as “an immediate economic stimulus,” and at the same time, the same policy won’t produce any real savings, but it might alleviate “psychological” problems.
The incoherence here is breathtaking. McCain believes drilling is part of a short-term solution. He also believes drilling offers no real short-term solutions. McCain believes a gas-tax holiday will produce big savings for consumers. And no savings for consumers. McCain believes we need pragmatic policies that work. He also believes we need psychic policies that make people happy whether they work or not.
I have no idea what John McCain is talking about. The real question, though, is whether John McCain knows what John McCain is talking about.
Oil companies and many lawmakers are pressing to open up more U.S. areas for drilling. But the industry is drilling on just a fraction of areas it already has access to.
Of the 90 million offshore acres the industry has leases to, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico, it is estimated that upwards of 70 million are not producing oil, according to both Democrats and oil-industry sources.
One Democrat staffer said if all these existing areas were being drilled, U.S. oil production could be boosted by nearly 5 million barrels a day, although the oil industry said that number is far too high and one government agency said it was impossible to estimate production.
Recent proposals to open up offshore coastal areas near Florida and California, as well as Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, might yield 2 million additional barrels, according to estimates from various government sources that also stressed the difficulty in making forecasts. The United States currently produces 8 million barrels of oil and other petroleum liquids a day and consumes about 21 million.
Oil companies “should finish what’s on their plate before they go back in line,” said Oppenheimer analyst Fadel Gheit.
Some Democrats also charge that oil companies are deliberately not drilling on the land to limit supply and drive up oil prices.
“Big Oil is more interested in pumping up prices and pumping up their own profits rather than pumping more oil,” said Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass), who has co-sponsored a bill to charge oil companies a fee for land they hold that’s not producing oil. “We should not even begin discussing handing over more public land to the oil companies until they first use [the land] they already hold.”
But the oil industry says it pays millions of dollars for these leases, and that it would not make sense to purposely leave the areas untapped.
Rather, years of exploration is required before drilling can even begin. In some cases, no oil is found on leases they hold. In others, drilling the wells and building the pipelines takes years. It is especially hard now that a worldwide boom in oil exploration has pushed up the prices – and timelines – for skilled workers and specialized equipment.
“No one is sitting on leases these days,” said Rayola Dougher, senior economic advisor for the American Petroleum Institute. “Those making those assertions don’t understand the bidding and leasing process.”
Gheit agrees that it’s unlikely that hoarding is going on.
With prices at $135 dollars a barrel, everyone is trying to pump as much as they can, he said. But fearing oil prices will eventually fall, the industry is leery about making too many investments in the fields it has – many of which are in deepwater areas that can be pricey to develop.Instead, they’re holding out, hoping the government will open areas closer to shore that would be cheaper to work on.
The presumptive Republican candidate John McCain has come out in favor of lifting bans on oil-drilling off most of the East and West coasts of the United States. Added supply, the thinking goes, would ultimately bring down the price of oil. The bans were enacted in the 1970s following several coastal oil spills.
Critics say lifting the bans would do little to ease the nation’s energy crisis in part because it would take years to produce meaningful amounts of oil, noting how much is currently going untapped.
Gheit hasn’t seen the legislation proposed by Markey and others, but he thinks the government should revise the leasing process to encourage more drilling on existing areas before it puts more acres up for bid.
Sounds like Big Oil wants what essentially amounts to a big government bailout, by having easy to develop areas opened up, even if it won’t see any results fore decades, rather than trying to develop the harder lands they have. Like a kid who doesn’t want to eat his veggies, but wants a big scoop of icecream instead.
As I said drilling is just a McCain/Bush Pander
Axt113's Desk 