The Petraeus Effect
Create Post
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1

    Exclamation The Petraeus Effect

    The Petraeus Effect
    April 8, 2008; Page A20

    As General David Petraeus briefs Congress this week on Iraq, it's clear his surge has achieved remarkable results. The most crucial is that the U.S. can no longer be defeated militarily in Iraq, which could not be said a year ago. The question now is whether Washington will squander these gains by withdrawing so quickly that we could still lose politically.

    Sixteen months after President Bush ordered the change in strategy, the surge has earned a place among the most important counteroffensives in U.S. military annals. When it began, al Qaeda dominated large swaths of central Iraq, Baghdad was a killing zone, Sunni and Shiites were heading toward civil war, and the Iraqi government was seen as a failure.

    The Washington consensus – as promoted by the James Baker-Lee Hamilton Iraq Study Group – portrayed retreat as the only option. "This war is lost," declared Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in April, thus telling U.S. soldiers they were risking their lives for nothing. As late as September, Hillary Clinton had the nerve to lecture General Petraeus in a Senate hearing that "the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief."

    Today, al Qaeda has been cleared from all but the northern reaches of Anbar and Diyala Provinces, Iraqis feel safe enough to resume normal lives, Sunni sheikhs are working with coalition forces, and the long process of Sunni-Shiite political reconciliation has begun. The surge seized the offensive from the enemy so rapidly that it deserves to be studied for years as an example of effective counterinsurgency.

    Yes, this progress has also required some luck and Iraqi help. Al Qaeda in Iraq overplayed its hand with a brutality that turned the Sunnis against them. Four years of war had made Iraqis tired of violence, and Sunnis began to understand that they couldn't win a civil war against the Shiites but could use the Americans as leverage to negotiate a better bargain. Some 90,000 Sunnis are now working with the U.S. as part of the "Sons of Iraq" movement.

    None of this would have been possible, however, if Iraqis had not seen that the U.S. was committed to protect them. General Petraeus and his chief deputy, Lieutenant General Ray Odierno, pursued a strategy that secured the population while going on offense against al Qaeda. U.S. and Iraqi troops moved into neighborhoods and lived among Iraqis, who in turn began to supply valuable intelligence about the terrorists. Faster than even the surge's architects hoped, the strategy led to far less violence.

    While Democrats still claim political progress is possible only if the U.S. leaves Iraq, the surge has proved the opposite. Better security required a larger U.S. presence, which in turn has made Iraqis feel more secure about compromise. The political progress has been especially significant at the local level, with greater cooperation from tribal leaders and local councils, most Sunnis saying they'll participate in provincial elections this fall, and more oil money flowing to the provinces from Baghdad.

    Much remains to be done, of course, and a premature U.S. withdrawal would put these gains at risk. Al Qaeda must still be swept from Mosul and upper Diyala, with the same U.S.-Iraqi troop strategy that worked in Baghdad. Terrorist entry routes West of Mosul from Syria also need to be stopped. And as we've learned in the last two weeks, Iraq Security Forces aren't able by themselves to impose a monopoly of force on Basra and the Shiite South.

    Iraqi troops have made progress as a fighting force, but they still require U.S. help for the toughest operations. Though poorly planned, the Basra offensive showed that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is finally willing to fight Shiite gangs. The U.S. media have portrayed the battle mainly as an intra-Shiite feud and thus another example of budding "civil war." But the fight is also about Iran's attempts to stir trouble and weaken the Maliki government in favor of Iran's allies.

    The U.S. has been reluctant to help in Basra, which has been British turf as part of the coalition. But the U.S. has a national interest in resisting Iranian influence, and Basra is a crucial front in that effort. As for the Brits, their failure to engage in counterinsurgency has left the Basra vacuum to be filled by Iranian-backed "special groups." The British made the same strategic mistake that former U.S. Iraq commanders George Casey and John Abizaid made in 2006 in Baghdad. The U.S. will have to deploy one or more brigades to Basra to help the Maliki government assert its control.
    * * *

    The five U.S. surge brigades are scheduled to return home in July, and one question Congress should ask General Petraeus is whether that pace makes him uneasy. He's under enormous Pentagon pressure, especially from the Army, to send those troops home. But if, say, three brigades could help solidify the surge's gains by staying another few months, the General should say so. One of Mr. Bush's mistakes in this war has been deferring too much to Pentagon brass who have always had one eye on the Iraq exit.

    Americans are understandably impatient with the war, but we have sacrificed too much, and made too much progress in the last year, not to finish the task. The surge has prevented a humiliating military defeat, and now is the time to sustain that commitment to achieve a political victory.

    Ellie


  2. #2
    Advance copy of Petraeus' testimony to Congress
    Posted By Uncle Jimbo

    The tremendous sources here at Blackfive have gotten me a copy of the opening statement Gen. Petraeus will make tomorrow to Congress. It is refreshing to hear this kind of candor and I can't wait to see the stunned, slack-jawed looks on their faces. (I didn't use many of my code words, but LT Nixon noted in the comments that Gen. Petraeus would never use words such as naysayers or defeatists. This is an Uncle J wishful thinking edition) Once again, since I seem to have perfectly channeled a partisan Petraeus, I wrote this. He will be much more level and not take the shots I did.

    Members of Congress,

    I am here as you required by law to provide a report on progress made in the past 6 months in Iraq. I am not here as a partisan or supporter of any political candidate or agenda, simply the Commander on the ground and representative of all the 150k+ troops serving there. First I would like to honor their tremendous efforts and the sacrifices they all have made, the fallen, the wounded and the amazing families that support them.

    My last testimony provoked claims that disbelief must be willfully suspended in order to accept it. The uniform I wear precludes me from answering such slurs directly, but fortunately the facts about our successes in Iraq do a better job of refuting the naysayers and defeatists than I would.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the past 6 months have seen changes that have amazed many who have served there previously and returned. Areas that were al Qaeda strongholds and basically no-go zones for US troops now have Iraqi security forces in control and the local populace living safe and productive lives. Sectarian violence is down 90% from just a year ago, suicide bombings down 70%, and roadside IEDs dropped by 50%. Those are strong indicators of a greatly improved security situation.

    The question raised by many during my last testimony was whether the gains we have been making would lead to the political reconciliations necessary to allow a free Iraq to flourish as a stable democracy. There were benchmarks established by this Congress, and while it would be fair to question the efficacy of standards arbitrarily invented by an outside group, lets look at what the Iraqis have done. The recent $50 B budget they passed included sharing oil revenues, which now exceed Saddam era quantities, with all the provinces a major step toward gaining the trust of the people for the national government. They set provincial elections to ensure that all Iraqis have a voice in their government. Elections were boycotted by most major Sunni groups the first time and this new round will allow them to directly affect their own prosperity. They passed re-Baathification rules that allow members of the Baathist party to re-enter public society and to regain access to pensions they earned serving the previous government. These three steps alone illuminate the difference our change in strategy and the attendant increases in security have allowed to happen.

    These successes stem directly from the shared sacrifices our troops made by moving out among the people and using a counter-insurgency strategy. This allowed local Iraqis and the national security forces to begin to act against al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shia militias who were the causes of the death and destruction that had plagued Iraq. Our troops stood back to back with the Concerned citizens and Sons of Iraq who said Enough! to the horrific violence that plagued the country. They have now taken the lead in many operations and will continue to do so, but they still need our help and support and in some cases our direct combat power. The reason that the insurgent groups no longer sow chaos is that they cannot hide among a populace that doesn't support them or fear them. The Iraqi public and members of insurgent groups who saw the light have provided tremendous intelligence allowing the Iraqis, with our assistance, to kill or capture thousands of the killers who made Iraq a living Hell for several years.

    Recent fighting in Basra was portrayed in the media as showing the weakness of the central government in the face of a resurgent Mahdi Army supported, supplied and in many cases commanded by Iran. While it was pleasant to hear the truth about the Iranian influence the rest of the analysis was wholly inaccurate. A fair look would note that the Shia-dominated Iraqi Army marched on the Iranian-backed, illegal Shia militias in ways many said could not happen. They killed hundreds of the killers who previously had reigned in terror using power drills to rend the skulls of any who opposed them. Now the Kurds, Sunnis and moderate Shia in the Parliament are banding together to pass a law forbidding any group that has illegal militias from sitting in Parliament, which would effectively eliminate al Sadr's power base unless he disbands his militias.

    Pulling our troops out of this front in the long war on Islamic Extremism would jeopardize all of this and simply cede a victory to al Qaeda and Iran. That would leave us to fight them later in Iraq or elsewhere in the Middle East as they would know the US is the weaker horse as bin Laden has called us. Just this week al Qaeda's #2 Ayman Zawahiri answered a question posed to him by stating that the primary battle ground against the infidels was in Iraq. I am forced to agree with him and fortunately for us we are beating them soundly there. But to change strategy now would eliminate the progress we and the Iraqis have made and leave an opening al Qaeda would be sure to exploit.

    I, more than anyone, bear the responsibility for the lives of those under my command. If I could tell the President to bring them home because we have finished the job and secured victory I would do so immediately. But we are not through yet and to pull back now would dishonor the sacrifice of the 4000+ of our finest who have consecrated that ground with their blood. So I ask the Congress to truly support the troops and allow them to complete their mission. It is the best thing for them, for the Iraqis and for an America that honors it's commitment to freedom and liberty.

    Ellie


  3. #3
    Petraeus Testimony: My Video Supplement
    Written by JD Johannes

    http://outsidethewire.com/blog/polit...upplement.html

    Ellie


  4. #4
    This Pause Won't Refresh
    By G. Tracy Mehan, III
    Published 4/9/2008 12:08:11 AM

    John McCain and the GOP are all in for the longer war in Iraq. This and the stalling economy present very real challenges to their holding on to the White House this November.

    Forget about the House and Senate. The Democrats will surely increase their numbers there.

    All of this came into sharp focus yesterday when General David Petraeus informed the Senate of his plans to keep force levels at pre-surge levels for at least 45 days after withdrawal of the last surge brigade at which time he will begin to review the situation again.

    There is "significant but uneven progress," said the General. This progress is "fragile but reversible." He testified that "The situation in certain areas is still unsatisfactory and innumerable challenges remain."

    The General steadfastly refused to indicate when further troops might be withdrawn from the theatre after the surge brigades are withdrawn. Troop levels will remain at pre-surge levels for an indefinite period of time. With the full support of President Bush and Senator McCain, and the assent of the Secretary of Defense, there will be no further draw down of our forces of any number within any time frame this side of a new administration in Washington.

    The surge has been replaced by a "pause" of unlimited duration which is beginning to look more like a permanent state of affairs. We have not lost this war, but it is hard to divine when we might win it.

    The U.S. Army and the Marines have gotten the counterinsurgency thing right. And, mercifully, death and carnage is down, although Americans are still dying and suffering serious injuries. But substantial political progress in a nation torn by sectarian and ethnic strife is pretty hard to discern. This, of course, was the original justification for the surge.

    The recent Basra operation was really troubling notwithstanding the statistics cited by General Petraeus on the build-up of Iraqi security and police forces. It looks like a botched job from the get-go with a thousand Iraqi deserters and Iran in the role of arbiter of a ceasefire.

    Swoop, a well-sourced website lauded by the Financial Times and the Washington Post, reports that, privately, Pentagon officials claim "many of our assumptions about the capabilities of the Iraqi Army and the progress of political reconciliation will have to be rethought" post-Basra.

    This source went on to report that the Saudis are very concerned that Iraq might break up into three parts which some experts have promoted for some time as a super-federalist approach to insoluble political differences. Caesar's Gaul was divided into three parts, too; but that was before he invaded it.

    This effectively means that "the U.S. cannot reinforce its operations in Afghanistan," notes Swoop. This is especially troubling if the new government in Pakistan becomes less friendly.

    You wouldn't know it observing the latest NATO meeting or listening to General Petraeus's testimony, but Afghanistan and Pakistan is where the real terrorist threat to the U.S. and Europe resides.

    So far those Sunnis of the so-called Awakening, the ones who used to kill our soldiers, are still willing to take our money. But what happens when the money is gone and the Shia-dominated government still won't let them into the game? General Odierno says this tactic is working. Time will tell.

    Andrew Bacevich, who is a Vietnam veteran and lost a son in Iraq, reminds us that it was General Petraeus himself, in 2003, on his first tour of duty in Iraq, who said to a reporter, "Tell me how this ends." Five years later, does he know the answer? He should not be faulted if he doesn't. He didn't start this war. Civilians did.

    Iraq is now Senator McCain's white whale and the GOP is the harpoon crew being pulled along in the boat. It should be quite a ride.

    William F. Buckley, Jr., and Ronald Reagan made the GOP a coalition of economic, social, and national security conservatives. In this election the national security folks are in the driver's seat with the other two holding on for dear life. Will it be farewell to tax cuts, the ban on partial-birth abortion, and law-abiding judicial appointees? The old Reagan coalition was fun while it lasted. We can only pray that this war doesn't do to it what World War I did to the Hapsburg Empire.


    G. Tracy Mehan, III, served in EPA in the administrations of both Presidents Bush.

    Ellie


  5. #5

    Exclamation

    'See No Progress'
    April 9, 2008

    A useful measure of General David Petraeus's achievement is the turn in the political mood, even in the U.S. Congress. In September, Senators felt entitled to lecture, even berate, the Iraq commander. This time he was accorded more respect, no doubt because the surge is showing results even Democrats can no longer deny. Instead, they ignored them.

    At yesterday's Senate double-header, General Petraeus was sober and candid in characterizing the security progress made since last spring, calling it "significant but uneven" and ultimately "fragile and reversible." He noted important advances: Both high-profile terror attacks and civilian deaths, including those due to ethno-sectarian violence, are in decline. Half of Iraq's 18 provinces are under Iraqi control, and Anbar and Qadisiyah are expected to transition over the coming months. Al Qaeda in Iraq has been greatly diminished because of "relentless pressure" and better counterinsurgency intelligence.

    General Petraeus also emphasized the efforts made by Iraqis. The Iraq Security Forces have grown by 133,000 soldiers and police over the past year to 540,000. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the U.S. envoy to Iraq, added that political reconciliation is "moving in the right direction" but that it is not "linear," as some demand along the Western model. The Iraqi parliament is nonetheless reaching compromises, and local political disputes are being settled more through debate and less through violence.

    The security situation remains unstable, partially because of the "destructive role Iran has played," and that "special groups" of Shiite extremists backed by Tehran constitute the most lethal threat to safety. The worst course for the U.S. would be to withdraw now, they said. As Mr. Crocker put it, pulling out would lead to suffering "on a scale far beyond what we have already seen. Spiraling conflict could draw in neighbors with devastating consequences for the region and the world."

    Regrettably, none of this seemed to penetrate the minds of most Senate liberals. Democrats largely used the platform for reiterating the arguments they have made for 16 months, notwithstanding the changes on the ground. Joe Lieberman described the approach of his former party as "hear no progress in Iraq, see no progress in Iraq, and most of all, speak of no progress in Iraq."

    Hillary Clinton seemed to take umbrage at Mr. Lieberman's assessment. She devoted her time to arguing that, to the contrary, it would be "irresponsible" to remain in Iraq and said, "I think its time to begin an orderly process of withdrawing our troops." Under a similar barrage from other questioners, General Petraeus declined to commit to further troop reductions once the five additional combat brigades sent to Iraq last year have completed their pullout in July. He recommended a 45-day "period of consolidation and evaluation."

    If the hearings had a common theme, it was the contrast between the seriousness of General Petraeus and the sensitivity of Democrats to domestic political concerns. President Bush's worst mistakes in Iraq were due to standing by flawed strategies and old thinking. Democrats have now adopted that posture.

    Ellie


  6. #6
    Petraeus vs. The Party of Defeat

    By Jacob Laksin
    FrontPageMagazine.com | 4/10/2008
    Thou shalt not speak well of Iraq. That was the commandment imperiously handed down by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi this week, in anticipation of General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker’s testimony before Congress. Alluding to the recent clashes between U.S. and Iraqi forces and rogue Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr’s militia, Pelosi preemptively reproached the general: “I hope we don’t hear any glorification of what happened in Basra.” It was a vivid illustration of what has become the calcified consensus of the Democratic Party: When it comes to Iraq, all news is bad news.


    General Petraeus, to be sure, did not come to Washington to romanticize the struggles in Iraq. As befitting the analytical strategist that he is, Petraeus kept to a just-the-facts approach, calling the achievements to date "significant but uneven" and "fragile and reversible” in the absence of a sustained commitment by the United States. By way of illustration, he noted that while violence recently has been on the rise, most notably in Basra and Baghdad, the overall security picture has improved markedly. Both the number of major terrorist attacks and the number of civilian deaths has plummeted in recent months.

    There was much else in the general’s testimony to defy the Democrats’ fatalism. Contrary to the Democrats’ preferred image of Iraq as a country in disarray, Petraeus related that half of Iraq’s 18 provinces are under government control, with the once-restive province of Anbar expected to join the list in the months to come – a testament to the success of the much-maligned “surge” strategy and the directly related decline in the influence of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Against the critics’ charge that Iraq is an endless drain on American resources, Petraeus pointed out that Iraqis are assuming an ever-larger role for their own security, with Iraqi Security Forces growing to 540,000 troops.

    In spotlighting such successes, Petraeus never downplayed the numerous challenges that remain. Despite the encouraging growth in Iraqi troop strength, for instance, individual “units and leaders found wanting in some cases.” Even more problematic, according to Petraeus, is the role of foreign actors, most prominently Iran. The general pointed out that the recent fighting in Basra “highlighted the destructive role Iran has played in funding, training, arming, and directing the so-called special groups….” Funded, trained and directed by Iran's Quds Force and Hezbollah, these “special groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq.”

    To say that Democrats did not distinguish themselves in their responses to the general’s testimony is to understate the case. Although the competition for most embarrassing comment ran fierce, top honors surely had to go to Howard Dean. Following the general’s testimony, the Democratic National Committee chairman sent out a fundraising letter assailing Sen. John McCain’s “huge gaffe.” That supposed gaffe? “At least five times as a candidate John McCain has stated that Iran (a Shiite nation) is supporting Al-Qaeda (a Sunni group) in Iraq. This is not some minor mistake, but a significant gaffe. He clearly does not understand the sensitive political dynamics in that region of the world.” In reality, McCain never described al-Qaeda as a Shiite group. What he has said – and what Petraeus’s testimony amply confirmed – is that Iran remains a leading sponsor of terror in Iraq. That leading Democrats persist in denying that fact speaks volumes about their seriousness in the war on terror.

    No better was the performance of the Democratic presidential candidates. In his remarks, General Petraeus stressed the importance of maintaining a troop presence to consolidate the progress made in recent months. Drawing down troops was a key priority, but it had to be done “without jeopardizing the security gains that have been made.” To that end, Petraeus advised against further troop withdrawals after the last of the “surge” troops leave this summer.

    The logic of that position plainly escaped Hillary Clinton. When her turn to question Petraeus came, Clinton lashed out at the notion that a too-hasty withdrawal would be irresponsible. “I think it could be fair to say that it might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced the results that have been promised time and time again at such tremendous cost.” Clinton thus dismissed the demonstrable results that the surge already has produced and committed herself to the one course – premature withdrawal – that would be the most likely to undo them. It was an impressive performance only in comparison to her disgraceful exhibition last September, when she all-but called Petraeus a liar and insisted that it would require a “willing suspension of disbelief” to support the U.S. policy in Iraq. Events, needless to say, have been unkind to that view.

    Only slightly more pragmatic was the reaction of frontrunner Barack Obama. The Illinois senator had kind words for the general and, to his credit, offered a commendably realistic vision of achievable success in Iraq, one in which “there's still corruption, but the country is struggling along, but it's not a threat to its neighbors and it's not an al-Qaeda base.”

    Yet there is one flaw in the kind of success that Obama believes to be within reach: It will be fatally undermined by the immediate withdrawal of troops that has been a centerpiece of Obama’s campaign. Thus, General Petraeus took pains to emphasize that routing al-Qaeda could not be achieved only with counterterrorist strikes. It would require, among other things, “major operations by coalition and Iraqi conventional forces,” as well as “sophisticated intelligence effort.” To remove American troops on Obama’s accelerated timeline, then, would be to frustrate the very real progress that is being made to defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq.

    In the end, neither Democratic candidate gave any indication that they understand the stakes in Iraq. Nor was there any evidence that they – or anyone else in their party – would be willing to make the necessary if unpopular decisions needed for success. Sen. Joe Lieberman, himself gracelessly purged from his former party, was entirely on the mark when he described the Democrats’ attitude this week as “hear no progress in Iraq, see no progress in Iraq, and most of all, speak of no progress in Iraq.”

    That left Sen. McCain the lone adult in the presidential race. Not shying away from the difficult questions – McCain pressed Petraeus about the underperformance of some Iraqi security forces – the senator nonetheless put the war in its proper context: “Successes is within reach,” he said. “Yet should the United States instead choose to withdraw from Iraq before adequate security is established, we will exchange for this victory, a defeat that is terrible and long lasting.” It was a statement that underscored yet again the difference between McCain and his Democratic counterparts. While Sens. Obama and Clinton are playing to the anti-war gallery, McCain, alone among the presidential contenders, is auditioning for the role of commander-in-chief.
    It need hardly be said that success in Iraq is far from assured. But there is no gainsaying that progress – though often painfully slow – continues to be made. That was by no means obvious last fall, when top Democrats were mocking advocates of the surge as fantasists detached from reality. If General Petraeus's remarks confirmed one thing, it is that today it is the Democratic Party and its presidential paladins who are hopelessly out of touch.

    Jacob Laksin is a senior editor for FrontPage Magazine. He is a 2007 Phillips Foundation Journalism Fellow. His e-mail is jlaksin@gmail.com

    Ellie


  7. #7
    Petraeus’s Policy Quandary
    by Jed Babbin (more by this author)
    Posted 04/11/2008 ET



    “We are not self-employed,” said Gen. David Petraeus in response to a question of how he would advise the next president on Iraq. In hearings last Tuesday and Wednesday, Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker reported again to four congressional committees on the situation in Iraq.

    Petraeus, answering that question from House Armed Services Committee Member Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) in Wednesday’s hearing, came as close to striking back at congressional buffoonery as he ever has. His point -- that the military doesn’t set policy, civilians do -- reveals the core of the political battle these hearings have become.

    The Democrats have chosen to not debate the merits of the counterinsurgency Gen. Petraeus is leading brilliantly. They are single-issue debaters, speaking only of how to end the war, how quickly to withdraw and how much more the Iraq conflict will cost -- in dollars, not lives -- before we can. Their quarrel is with President Bush, not with the two gentlemen who are responsible for implementing his policy in Iraq. By quibbling with Petraeus and Crocker about “what comes next” the Democrats avoid speaking responsibly about what they would do about a war that will not be over even if -- by some Obamamanic prestidigitation -- every American soldier was out of Iraq before January 21, 2009.

    Come General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker and all the Democrats ask -- in about fifty different ways -- is “when and how will this war be over?” That question can only be answered by President Bush. The best Gen. Petraeus could do is explain that the current phase-down of troop levels, which will bring them down to just slightly above pre-surge levels, will end in July and that it will take about forty-five days to consider the situation that then exists to decide whether and when other troops can be sent home.

    But forty-five days from the end of July is mid-September, when the presidential campaign will be racing across the nation and the media at breakneck speed. Long before that, Sen. McCain’s wish for a campaign by Marquis of Queensbury rules will have evaporated. It will be hard, tough and nasty. Can Petraeus and Crocker avoid becoming fodder for the political loose cannons? It appears not.

    Early Thursday morning, President Bush announced that he’d accepted Petraeus recommendation that withdrawals cease in July and added that Petraeus would have “…all the time he needs…” to consider what comes next. In a conference call shortly after the President’s announcement, I asked Gen. Petraeus if there were some way to avoid his next report becoming the biggest political event in September. He demurred, saying that the process of reporting was well-established and used frequently (by teleconferences) with his chain of command including the White House.

    A White House’s political calculation will determine when Petraeus and Crocker are next subjected to the campaign media machine. It will be no earlier than mid-September, after both presidential nominations are set. If Sen. Obama is the Democratic nominee, as seems most likely, the next set of hearings may be the determining event of the campaign. The Democrats, at least, will attempt to make it so.

    Between now and then, there needs to be some critical thinking in the White House about the central question of this week’s hearings. If there is not, nothing Petraeus and Crocker will be able to do in the coming months will have much effect on the President’s Iraq policy that more and more Republicans are concluding is failing.

    The President has always defined victory as an Iraq that can govern, sustain and defend itself and be an ally in the larger war. But as the testimony of Petraeus and Crocker illustrated this week, that cannot occur while Iran (and Syria and others of Iraq’s neighbors) continue their intervention to prevent it.

    From Petraeus’s and Crocker’s statements this week, it’s clear that they believe resolving Iran’s interference is a sine qua non of establishing Iraq’s security. In the Thursday morning conference call, Gen. Petraeus indicated that it was the central issue of the way ahead. Iran, in Petraeus’s view, is “the wolf that’s running closest to the sled.” Its running room has been reduced by the Shia backlash to the violence its Qods Force (part of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps that was declared a terrorist organization last October) has inflicted on Iraqis. But it is the dominant force preventing success (by the President’s misguided definition) in Iraq.

    But Iran has far more leverage on -- and far better planning for -- Iraq than the White House does. For example, Moqtada al-Sadr, the murderous Shia cleric whose militia was attacked by Iraqi forces in Basra with very mixed results, is in Iran. Why?

    Gen. Petraeus confirmed that Sadr is in Iran, apparently studying to raise the level of his religious credentials. No one knows if Iran plans to declare him an ayatollah and supreme leader of the Shia in Iraq. The current highest Shia cleric -- al-Sistani -- knows he is endangered by Sadr. Sadr was directly responsible for murdering one competing Shia cleric before American forces arrived in Baghdad. He wouldn’t hesitate to kill Sistani if he could (Sistani’s son recently said that militias should not have weapons, only legitimate security forces should.)

    But the signals on Sadr are, Gen. Petraeus said, conflicting and unclear. And the Iranians are believed to be divided on their strategy to dominate post-American Iraq. They are desperate to be able to declare they have defeated us, but they are held back by their desire to avoid a Sunni resurgence in a failed Shia state. They are in no worse a position than we are, and probably in one that’s a good bit better.

    In a White House meeting a few weeks ago, a top White House official indicated that the President wants to make one last big change to affect events in Iraq and the larger war. What that will be, he indicated, was still very much undecided. What the President must do, as I’ve written many times, is to correct the public’s current misunderstanding of what this war is by redefining the enemy and the elements of which victory must consist.

    If Iraq becomes a democracy, that’s -- at best -- an ancillary accomplishment. We are at war with the ideology that is radical Islam and all its adherents. Those nations that sponsor radical Islamic terrorism -- Iran, Syria and, yes, Saudi Arabia -- must be compelled to end that sponsorship by whatever means necessary. Nothing less will comprise victory.

    Will President Bush reach this conclusion and reorient the war before he leaves office? Probably not. He’s still in thrall to the neocon nightmare of nation-building. Fire the neocons, Mr. President. Redefine the war to fit reality. And then set about fighting it in a manner calculated to win decisively.

    Ellie


  8. #8
    Petraeus, Crocker and Mike Monsoor
    by Roger D. Carstens (more by this author)
    Posted 04/11/2008 ET


    This week I had the opportunity to attend two very important events: General David H. Petraeus’ testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Medal of Honor Ceremony for Navy SEAL MA2 Michael Monsoor. While both events were markedly different, I came away with the same thought: that honor lies not in leaving one’s comrades behind, but rather in staying to do the hard job in the face of great sacrifice.

    The two events had one fundamental difference. The Congressional hearing was politics, not substance. Precisely the opposite is true for the ceremony honoring the fallen SEAL hero.

    The Petraeus hearings were uneventful: they played out pretty much as predicted. I could have written about them before they even happened. Petraeus gave an honest assessment of the conflict he has been tasked to manage while making the case for keeping U.S. force structure at pre-surge levels in order to consolidate the gains made over the past year.

    Congress, for their part, behaved like… well, they behaved like Congress. ‘Nuff said.

    To me the most memorable moment was when Representative Wexler (D-FL) passionately asked General Petraeus to define what victory means as it relates to the war in Iraq. This moment was important in that the sentence “what exactly is victory mean here? No one can seem to tell us what it means to win,” is uttered perhaps a million times a day here in DC by those who oppose our efforts in Iraq.

    The exchange between Representative Wexler and General Petraeus went like this:

    REP. WEXLER (D-FL): “What has all this been for? And please, respectfully; don't tell us, as you told Senator Warner yesterday, to remove a brutal dictator. That's not good enough. …

    “For what did Stuart Wolfer and the other 4,024 sons and daughters die for? And how will we define victory so that we can bring this never-ending war to a close?

    “And if I will, when Mr. Burton asks for a definition of what is failure, we get a litany of items! But when Mr. Ackerman asks ‘what's the definition of victory,’ we get little. Please tell us, General: what is winning?”

    GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS: “First of all, Congress, let me tell you that what we are fighting for is national interests. It is interests that, as I stated, have to do with al Qaeda, a sworn enemy of the United States and the free world.

    “It has to do with the possible spread of sectarian conflict in Iraq, a conflict that had engulfed that country and had it on the brink of civil war.

    “It has to do with regional stability of a region that is of critical importance to the global economy.

    “And it has to do with certainly the influence of Iran, another obviously very important element in that region.

    “In terms of what it is that we are trying to achieve, I think simply it is a country that is at peace with itself and its neighbors.

    “It is a country that can defend itself.

    “That has a government that is reasonably representative and broadly responsive to its citizens.

    “And a country that is involved in, engaged in, again, the global economy.

    “Ambassador Crocker and I, for what it's worth, have typically seen ourselves as minimalists. We're not after the Holy Grail in Iraq. We're not after Jeffersonian democracy. We're after conditions that would allow our soldiers to disengage. And that is in fact what we are doing as we achieve progress, as we have with the surge and that is what is indeed allowing us to withdraw the surge forces.

    “Again, well over one quarter of our ground combat power, five of twenty brigade combat teams, plus two Marine battalions and the Marine expeditionary unit by the end of July.”

    WEXLER: “Thank you.

    OK: that was big stuff.

    But definition of victory aside, my main takeaway from the hearing was this: to leave Iraq before we consolidate recent political, military and economic gains places the country on a probable path towards civil war, Iranian meddling, a massive humanitarian crisis, and perhaps even genocide.

    And who wants any of that?

    Certainly not the Democrats. After all, most Dems would argue that the U.S. is not doing enough to stop the humanitarian disaster in Dafur (and I would agree); and yet it seems to be OK to leave Iraq behind knowing that it would most likely descend on a fast moving train into chaos.

    And certainly not the Republicans, who for the most part, believe that a “precipitous withdrawal” (new catch phrase in DC, by the way) would greatly damage U.S. prestige and lead to decreased ability to speak with moral, military and political authority.

    Which brings me to the Medal of Honor ceremony for Navy SEAL MA2 Monsoor, a solemn and emotional event that paid respect to a young warrior who gave his life for his comrades. The ceremony was everything that one could expect from the Navy and SEAL communities: powerful, reverent, and yet humble – in a way that truly echoed the way these quiet Naval Special Forces warriors live and fight.

    The ceremony was emotional for me, and I would be lying if I did not admit to tearing up more than once. It really was a fitting tribute to a young man who died doing something that he loved; and for those he loved.

    MA2 Monsoor received our nation’s highest military honor for diving on a grenade to protect his fellow SEALs who would have undoubtedly been killed by the blast.

    What is most notable, however, is that when the grenade that took his life landed at his feet, MA2 Monsoor was standing right next to a door that would have allowed him to easily escape the explosion. Essentially, in a split second, MA2 Monsoor had to make the most important decision of his life: escape the blast by exiting through the door he was standing next to and leave his brother SEALs exposed to the effects of the grenade; or to drop onto the grenade and thus trade his life for those of his SEAL brothers.

    In that split second when the choice between self-preservation and selfless sacrifice presented itself, MA2 Monsoor did not walk away.

    And that brings me full circle to my takeaway from the hearings.

    Not unlike MA2 Monsoor’s decision, I believe that we have to make a similar choice with regards to Iraq. We can walk away and leave the Iraqis to face the effects of our departure. Or we can stay, despite great sacrifice, and do the hard work necessary to gain victory (as defined by General Petraeus in his testimony) and prevent Iraq from spiraling into chaos.

    I will be the first to admit that the analogy does not hold up entirely, as I believe that staying in Iraq does not equate to diving on a grenade. But the idea of sacrificing for a cause that is worthy and perhaps bigger than yourself -- and doing so when the easy thing to do is to walk away -- is the analogy that I offer. And like MA2 Monsoor, I choose to stay.

    MA2 Michael A. Monsoor, USN -- official U.S. Navy Medal of Honor Website: http://www.navy.mil/moh/monsoor/

    Ellie


  9. #9
    Politicians Demand Petraeus and Crocker Make Impossible Predictions
    by Oliver North (more by this author)
    Posted 04/11/2008 ET
    Updated 04/11/2008 ET


    Five years ago this week, American soldiers and Marines liberated Baghdad from Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guards and the foreign “fedayeen” who had flooded into the despot’s capital. For those of us who were there, it was an unforgettable event. But, as Ambassador Ryan Crocker so cogently noted this week while he and General David Petraeus were testifying before Congress, “the euphoria of that moment evaporated long ago.” The assembled lawmakers, perched on their raised daises, barely noted the anniversary -- while subjecting the warrior and the diplomat to a sixteen-hour-long spectacle. For the General and the Ambassador, it had to be an excruciating exercise in patience and bladder control.

    The “hearings” -- two in the Senate and two more in the House -- were all carefully choreographed to give maximum exposure to the potentates on the Potomac. The masters of the mainstream media were all gathered. Professional protesters were present. The solons, all carefully prepared by their staffs, made their little speeches, and then shamelessly angled for the best “gotcha” question to win the sound-bite sweepstakes -- and the “honor” of being replayed repeatedly on the news and entertainment channels. Like so many of these “hearings” it was a bit like Ringling Brothers’ “Greatest Show on Earth” -- without a ringmaster. I know -- as they say -- I’ve “been there, done that.”

    Sadly, the attending members of Congress evinced little interest in hearing from a decorated General fighting a bloody military campaign or a skillful U.S. Ambassador trying to help a democratically elected government survive against brutal foreign and internal foes. Rather, it seemed as though our elected representatives would have preferred hearing from soothsayers who could read palms and interpret horoscopes. That our Congress has sunken to such a level is a sad testament to the state of our political process.

    One of the inquisitors demanded to know, “Is success truly almost at hand? Or is this, you know, a commitment without end?” Not satisfied with General Petraeus’ response that further troop reductions would be “conditions-based,” the Senator insisted on a “rough estimate.” The General’s no-nonsense reply: “It is just flat not responsible to try to put down a stake in the ground and say, ‘This is when it will be.’”

    When will it end? When will we be out? When can we take the money we’re spending on the war and divert it to bailing out our constituent borrowers and lenders caught up in the sub-prime mortgage mess? General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker came equipped with facts, maps, charts and progress reports, but for this crowd they should have brought Ouija boards, Tarot cards and a crystal ball.

    In the long bloody autumn of 1944, no congressional committee chairman challenged Dwight Eisenhower to set a “reasonable timetable for a change of mission and redeployment of our troops” from Europe. Nor did any member of Congress summon Admiral Chester Nimitz in the aftermath of the battle for Iwo Jima to answer inane questions like: “Can you give us any idea as to how long it will take,” to defeat Imperial Japan? Such timorous bleating would have been unthinkable then, and it should be today.

    At the close of his remarks, General Petraeus noted that, “Nothing means more to those in harm’s way than the knowledge that their country appreciates their sacrifices and those of their families.” That sentiment may have been lacking on Capitol Hill -- but it was abundantly evident at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

    While Congress was berating the General and the Ambassador, the Commander-in-Chief was honoring one of the 4,000 Americans who have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq. In an Oval Office ceremony, President Bush presented the Medal of Honor -- our nation’s highest award for valor -- to the parents of Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael A. Monsoor, a Navy SEAL. “Mike” -- as his fellow SEALs called him -- was killed September 29, 2006, in Ramadi, Iraq when he threw himself on top of an enemy grenade in order to spare the lives of his fellow SEALs.

    His platoon commander, now a Lieutenant Commander with whom our FOX News Team has been embedded, said of the 25-year-old hero, “He made an instantaneous decision to save our teammates.” Though wounded by shrapnel in the explosion, one of those with him that terrible morning said of Mike Monsoor’s unhesitating action: “He never took his eyes off the grenade. His only movement was down toward it. He undoubtedly saved mine and the other SEALs lives.”

    Mike Monsoor is just the fourth member of our Armed Forces to be awarded the Medal of Honor since war was declared against us on 9-11-01. Call your grandstanding member of Congress and ask if he or she knows their names.

    Ellie


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not Create Posts
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts