(HOST) Commentator Bill Seamans thinks that the September report on the U.S. Surge in Iraq will hold few surprises.
(SEAMANS) From today’s perspective it looks like the much-heralded Iraq report to be submitted on September fifteenth by General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will be a disappointment for those who hope that it will offer a new quicker way out of Iraq. We foresee a crashing anticlimax because so much of what they will say already has been leaked. A New York Times editorial said "the war plan simply assumes that a large-scale United States military presence in Iraq will continue for at least two more years." The Iraq summary is expected to set off a rumble of criticism by Congressional Democrats who want a phased removal of our troops started sooner. Opponents charge that Bush and company have tried to raise the national fear of terrorism level to win support for the review which, they assert, will merely embellish the status quo in Iraq.
Gen. Petraeus is expected to claim that the Bush surge has subdued insurgents especially in Anbar Province, a terrorist strong hold. But, again, the leaks lead us to expect that opponents of the Bush war will charge that examples of so-called progress were cherry-picked while the rest of Iraq remains in turmoil and continues claiming heavy American casualties.
It’s expected that President Bush will use the Petraeus/Crocker estimate as part of a White House announcement outlining what he will call a new strategy. The Washington Post says that Bush will claim his surge is working and that protecting American interests in Iraq will require a sustained commitment of American forces – that any rapid withdrawal would be catastrophic for the United States
and its regional allies. We the people will be asked for more patience.
And so we can assume that in nuanced political cover language we will be told that the oppressive burden on our already stretched out army will continue with no relief in sight. That could set up another battle in Congress over how we can muster enough fresh new
troops to keep our army from "breaking," as one General said. Longer tours and recalling the National Guard and reserves are morale breakers and political poison. Sustaining volunteerism has become a tough challenge for the recruiters.
This all brings us back to General Douglas Lute, President Bush’s new so-called war czar, who said in his first public interview that the critical strain on the army made it worth considering a return to a military draft. "I think it makes sense," he said.
Thus we ask whether the Petraeus/Crocker appraisal and Bush’s new strategy announcement concerning the continued commitment of American troops in Iraq will force a reluctant Congress to consider what has up to now been politically unspeakable – the possible imperative need for a military draft.
Bill Seamans is a former correspondent and bureau chief for A-B-C News in the Middle East.