Deserting
Charles Krauthammer titles his column this week "Deserting Petraeus". He points out that a betrayal of the general that was sent to Iraq by a unanimous vote in the Senate just a few months ago – and just as that general's strategy is beginning to show some signs of actually succeeding – is wrong.
Finally, after four terribly long years, we know what works. Or what can work. A year ago, a confidential Marine intelligence report declared Anbar province (which comprises about a third of Iraq's territory) lost to al-Qaeda. Now, in what the Times's John Burns calls an "astonishing success," the tribal sheiks have joined our side and committed large numbers of fighters that, in concert with American and Iraqi forces, have largely driven out al-Qaeda and turned its former stronghold of Ramadi into one of most secure cities in Iraq.
It began with a U.S.-led offensive that killed or wounded more than 200 enemy fighters and captured 600. Most important was the follow-up. Not a retreat back to American bases but the setting up of small posts within the population that, together with the Iraqi national and tribal forces, have brought relative stability to Anbar……..
…….A month ago, Petraeus was asked whether we could still win in Iraq. The general, who had recently attended two memorial services for soldiers lost under his command, replied that if he thought he could not succeed he would not be risking the life of a single soldier.
Just this week, Petraeus said that the one thing he needs more than anything else is time. To cut off Petraeus's plan just as it is beginning — the last surge troops arrived only last month — on the assumption that we cannot succeed is to declare Petraeus either deluded or dishonorable. Deluded in that, as the best-positioned American in Baghdad, he still believes we can succeed. Or dishonorable in pretending to believe in victory and sending soldiers to die in what he really knows is an already failed strategy.
That's the logic of the wobbly Republicans' position. But rather than lay it on Petraeus, they prefer to lay it on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and point out his government's inability to meet the required political "benchmarks." As a longtime critic of the Maliki government, I agree that it has proved itself incapable of passing laws important for long-term national reconciliation.
I believe that Petraeus would not risk the lives of his soldiers if he thought Iraq was lost. He would be actively trying to get them out. He is not doing so. That should tell you more than the partisan posturing of politicians. We can not allow this man and the soldiers he commands to be kneecapped by politicians trying to micromanage a war and usurp constitutional powers they are not entitled to. Nor can we allow them to whitewash the damage that their undermining of the general and the troops will do to America's long-term interests. Whoever takes the White House in 2008 will have to cope with a vastly increased problem in the Middle East and a vastly diminished America as a result of the Reid-Pelosi led charge to retreat. The stupidity and short-sightedness in play here is breathtaking.
By TimF, July 13, 2007 @ 10:36 am
With the current crop of lifetime pol’s, why can’t it be BOTH deluded and dishonorable?
By Kathy, July 13, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
I believe that Petraeus would not risk the lives of his soldiers if he thought Iraq was lost.
One would hope not. And neither you nor I really know what is in David Petraeus’ head. That said, your analysis overlooks several salient points.
First, with all due respect to Gen. Petraeus’ experience and expertise, just because he does not think Iraq is lost, does not mean he is right. Soldiers (and that includes Petraeus) have a vested interest in believing that the “cause” — whatever they conceive that to be — is not lost. How could they not? They have sacrificed so much, and they would not be human if they did not want to believe that their sacrifices have been in vain. I’m not saying here that their sacrifices *have* been in vain — just that the need to believe in the possibility of victory does not necessarily mean that belief is warranted.
Second, if Gen. Petraeus *did* feel that Iraq was lost, it does not at all follow that he would be doing everything he could to get them out. That sort of effort would presumably entail making Pres. Bush and his associates aware that he felt Iraq was lost — and you and I both know what happens to generals who give Bush bad news. Perhaps he is not prepared to face the inevitable consequences of being the bearer of bad news.
And third, your comment about Congress usurping constitutional powers and “micromanaging” a war are misinformed (to put it as politely as I can). Congress funds wars. The Iraq war — the Iraq war *alone* — has cost this country close to half a trillion dollars to date, which includes the $100 billion additional that Congress recently authorized. In the first six months of FY2007, the U.S. has been spending $12 billion a month on the Iraq war — a sharp increase from FY2006, when we were spending $8.7 billion a month. By 2017, the costs of the Iraq war could rise to as much as $1.4 trillion. And don’t tell me we won’t still be in Iraq 10 years from now. The Bush administration has clearly announced its plans to occupy Iraq for the next 50 years.
Point of the above: Congress is constitutionally mandated to account for how the money it’s allocating — money which comes from all of our pocketbooks — is being spent, and it has the obligation, not just the right, to ensure that that money is not being thrown away on a war that is an abject failure and has no chance of success.
By Gaius, July 13, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
Your ignorance of and contempt for the military is astounding, as usual. You are wrong as usual as well.
By Quilly Mammoth, July 13, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
You have just called Petraeus a coward. I met the man many years ago and he struck me as one of the most intelligent officers I had ever met. His criticism of the way the Iraq War was handled was known, but done respectfully…he’s not a coward about that. Why, Kathy, do you think they _picked_ Petraeus to lead a change in tactics that is strikingly different from “Stay the Course”?
Let me help you. Because he didn’t think that the way we were doing things would lead to victory. And his two hand picked assistants are of the same ilk. Smart and not afraid to critique the way thinks are run. Easting. One of those men is H.R. McMaster, the hero of 73 Easting.
Don’t know about 73 Easting, Kathy? Google it.