"lowering expectations:" a euphemism for admitting mistakes? or changing course? never!

from The Washington Post, U.S. lowers expectations for Iraq:

Updated: 11:32 p.m. ET Aug. 13, 2005
The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.

The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society where the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.

"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."

Where to begin on a statement like this? First, notice that it's anonymous. Second, duh!, plenty of really smart and experienced people, including analysts and military generals, warned that initial efforts weren't sufficient to secure the peace, let alone win hearts and minds. Third, "timetable?", what timetable? The only one I'm aware of is the schedule for elections and the process of approving of a constitution, which was set by the coalition's provisional authority and which could just as easily be changed to fit reality. Fourth, it's been 28 months and senior officials are still "absorbing the factors of the situation"?!? Fifth, regarding "the unreality that dominated at the beginning," that came from no place short of the top: again, plenty of people tried to speak honestly and truthfully about very different expectations for the war and its aftermath: those people were much more on target; sadly, they were fired, demoted, or publicly disgraced, while those who were willing to push "the unreality" were awarded promotions and medals!

And what of the grand goals that were given as later justification for the war (after no WMD were found, so that the need for 'pre-emptive war' was discredited, *and after the suggestion that Iraq had ties to 9/11 was exposed as a fabrication)?
"The US no longer expects to see a model new democracy [strike one!], a self-supporting oil industry [strike two], or a society where the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges [strike three - you're out!]."
Sounds like failure to me - not on behalf of US troops, who are doing the best job possible and making huge sacrifices under pretty awful conditions and often given less than adequate resources. No, this is a failure of planning and leadership, and again goes all the way to the top. What exactly has President Bush accomplished in this poorly planned, premeditated war? Nothing that the American people were asked to fight and die for.

More from the article:

"Iraqis are taking control of their country, building a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself. And we're helping Iraqis succeed," President Bush said yesterday in his radio address.

Iraqi officials yesterday struggled to agree on a draft constitution by a deadline of tomorrow so the document can be submitted to a vote in October. The political transition would be completed in December by elections for a permanent government.

But the realities of daily life are a constant reminder of how initial U.S. ambitions have not been fulfilled in ways that Americans and Iraqis once anticipated. Many of Baghdad's 6 million people go without electricity for days in 120-degree heat. Parents fearful of kidnapping are keeping children indoors.

Barbers post signs saying they do not shave men, after months of barbers being killed by religious extremists. Ethnic or religious-based militias police the northern and southern portions of Iraq. Analysts estimate that in the whole of Iraq, unemployment is 50 percent to 65 percent.
...
The ferocious debate over a new constitution has particularly driven home the gap between the original U.S. goals and realities after almost 28 months. The U.S. decision to invade Iraq was justified in part by the goal of establishing a secular and modern Iraq that honors human rights and unites disparate ethnic and religious communities. [That's incorrect. The decision to invade Iraq was justified by the threat of a nuclear cloud *and alleged links to Al Qaeda. The "goal of establishing a secular and modern Iraq..." was only made after the war began, when no WMD were found *and the alleged links were widely recognized as unsubstantiated.]
...
"We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic," said another U.S. official familiar with policymaking from the beginning, who like some others interviewed would speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity. "That process is being repeated all over."
...
In the race to meet a sequence of fall deadlines, the process of forging national unity behind the constitution is largely being scrapped, current and former officials involved in the transition said.
...
The goal now is to ensure a constitution that can be easily amended later so Iraq can grow into a democracy, U.S. officials say.
...
Washington now does not expect to fully defeat the insurgency before departing, but instead to diminish it, officials and analysts said. There is also growing talk of turning over security responsibilities to Iraqi forces even if they are not fully up to original U.S. expectations, in part because they have local legitimacy that U.S. troops often do not.

"We've said we won't leave a day before it's necessary. But necessary is the key word — necessary for them or for us? When we finally depart, it will probably be for us," a U.S. official said.

So much for staying the course.

Pressed by the cost of fighting an escalating insurgency, U.S. expectations for rebuilding Iraq — and its $20 billion investment — have fallen the farthest, current and former officials say.
...
Oil production is estimated at 2.22 million barrels a day, short of the goal of 2.5 million. Iraq's pre-war high was 2.67 million barrels a day.
...
Water is also a "tough, tough" situation in a desert country, said a U.S. official in Baghdad familiar with reconstruction issues. Pumping stations depend on electricity, and engineers now say the system has hundreds of thousands of leaks.

"The most thoroughly dashed expectation was the ability to build a robust self-sustaining economy. We're nowhere near that. State industries, electricity are all below what they were before we got there," said Wayne White, former head of the State Department's Iraq intelligence team who is now at the Middle East Institute. "The administration says Saddam ran down the country. But most damage was from looting [after the invasion], which took down state industries, large private manufacturing, the national electric" system.

Ironically, White said, the initial ambitions may have complicated the U.S. mission: "In order to get out earlier, expectations are going to have to be lower, even much lower. The higher your expectation, the longer you have to stay. Getting out is going to be a more important consideration than the original goals were. They were unrealistic."

*update Aug. 22, 2005