A Closer Look Here, There and Everywhere
by Trish PurcellFinally! The long awaited Petraeus report is in and now we know… what?
Is the surge a success? It’s hard to say, there is still a lot of violence but…well maybe… in some areas… but then there are the questions about the alliance with the Sunni tribal leaders against al Qaida – where could that lead down the road?
Is the Iraq government meeting its benchmarks? Well not really… but wait, at the local level there are some signs of progress… and taking into account the traumatic lives of the Iraqi people – first the years of fear under Saddam, now the fear of violence that is a daily constant – rapid change is improbable but movement from the bottom up seems encouraging, more likely to be sustainable than change from the top down.
Should we stay or should we go? Yes and no. We should stay but some of us can go. Maybe by April 2008 we will have drawn down the number of troops that were added in the surge. That puts us back to where we were in January when we ask for a reduction of troops. Does that mean when we are going to bring troops home, first we send more so that we can have a reduction without actually reducing the number of troops?
Is the war making America safer? Even Petraeus doesn’t know. “I don’t know, actually” he said when asked that question.
Reactions to the testimony of Petraeus and Crocker were just as mixed.
Senators said…
SEN. BARACK OBAMA, (D) "We have now set the bar so low that modest improvement in what was a completely chaotic situation ... is considered success. And it's not. This continues to be a disastrous foreign policy mistake."
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, (R) General Petraeus and his troops ask just two things of us: the time to continue this strategy and the support they need to carry out their mission. They must have both, and we should fight to ensure that they do."
Representatives said…
IKE SKELTON, (D) "General Petraeus who sits here before us is almost certainly the right man for the job in Iraq. But he's the right person three years too late and 250,000 troops short. If we had your vision and approach early on we might not have gotten to the point where our troops are caught in the midst of brutal sectarian fighting."
DUNCAN HUNTER, (R) "The idea that this Congress is going to arbitrarily overlay a requirement for a reduction in American forces when we are moving toward a maturing of the Iraqi forces and a successful handoff which will be a victory for the United States, I think should not be supported by this body."
Syndicated columnists said…
GENE LYONS, United Media: "The bitter but unmistakable truth about Iraq is this: From the vaunted 'Petraeus Report' onward, U.S. policy will have one overriding purpose, deflecting blame for the ongoing catastrophe everywhere but where it belongs -- on President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Bush remains incapable of accepting responsibility, Cheney of admitting error. All the rest is misdirection. Anybody who imagines differently hasn't been paying attention."
CAL THOMAS, Tribune Media Services: "The gist of the opposition to the war and to the reports by Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker is that they are either not telling the truth about Iraq, or they are not telling the entire truth.... [But] the only hope in this war is to win it, no matter how much frustration, or division in Iraq (and America) and no matter how long it takes."
Letters to the Editor said…
Richard C. Gentilcore, Fort Lauderdale, FL: I have heard Gen. David H. Petraeus, and I am not impressed. I learned in the Marine Corps (1966-69) during the Vietnam War that the military is the ultimate “can do” organization. Our generals can solve any problem, no matter how intractable. They will never give up or admit failure. They will always exude confidence and resolve, always see progress, however illusionary or fleeting, and they will always ask for a little more time “to get the job done.”
Beth Thurman, Fort Worth, TX: “I have no doubt that Gen. David H. Petraeus called the situation as he saw it with pure intentions and a mind to safeguard his biggest assets, his men on the ground. If the American people want to question the handling of the war, that is their right and privilege. If the American people want to question General Petraeus’s allegiance and honesty, they have nowhere to look but in the mirror.”
In my opinion, the one that nailed it was Rupert Cornwell in the Belfast Telegraph who said...
Not long ago, the Petraeus report was billed as the make-or-break moment. There are 49 Senate Republicans. By this summer, enough of them wobbled on Iraq to question the party's ability to muster the 41 votes needed to sustain a filibuster. Without a filibuster, the Democratic-controlled Congress would be able to bring matters to a head, with legislation demanding Mr Bush set a timetable for withdrawal.But, the President urged, wait for Petraeus, and the thin red line held. Now it too looks stronger. The general's line that the surge is working, and that a troop drawdown can begin this year, appears to have convinced most of the doubters to give the White House more time to put Iraq in order.
So, huff and puff as they will, Congressional Democrats can do nothing, for the next few months at least. A besieged White House can meanwhile savor the rare pleasure of watching the opposite party tear itself apart, as the anti-war Democratic base vents its frustration and fury on a leadership that cannot deliver on the promises that carried Democrats to victory in the midterm elections just 10 months ago.
Such is the Petraeus effect in the Washington political hothouse. In the real world, of soldiers coming home in coffins, of Iraqi civilians slaughtered in car bombs and a country coming apart, it is another matter.
And isn't that the matter we should all be concerned about and talking about? This war is not fodder for political posturing, it is a matter of people living, dying, or being maimed for life. Shouldn't all other concerns – being right, winning or losing, blaming and finger pointing, gaining control of Iraq’s oil, political legacies – be looked at in the light of the cost in human lives?
Well put together Trish. It would appear the situation in Iraq, surge or no surge, varies with just whom you ask, and who has what invested in it. Unfortunately our troops, as well as the Iraqi people, are the ones caught in the middle.
I didn’t find it encouraging that Joe Klein, a columnist for Time Magazine, when asked about why Petraeus would say he didn’t know if the surge had made America safer, told Chris Matthews “Well, you know what? It was the truth. It's what he really believed. Then a really funny thing happened. I was in the room. They went into recess and clearly someone from the White House called him up and said, are you kidding me! And when he came back, he was asked another question by a senator, and he went back to that statement. And he corrected himself, and said he hadn't thought it through or whatever.” I believe General Petraeus is an honorable and capable man, but I can’t say that he is beyond sugar coating things in Iraq for the sake of the President, and because he was commissioned to accomplish a particular mission. That’s human nature.
What is most galling is that this has become as much a political game, as it is a strategic issue. Personally, I could care less about any attempt by the President to try and salvage his legacy, and pass this problem he has created onto his successor. If that plays any part in this, it is appalling. And I don’t necessarily believe it follows that if the US troops leave Iraq it will become a terrorist haven, or that it will trigger a regional conflict. I’m not really qualified to say one way or another, but I’m sure suspicious when I hear this explained by the very people who lied to create this mess in the first place, and have sustained it ever since. There are also quite a few experts saying it just ain’t so, maybe some of the same people who tried to warn of the dire consequences of invading Iraq in the first place?
Of course I don’t necessarily agree with your assessment that some of the issues involved are important enough “we should all be concerned about and talking about” them. After all, we have really important things to ponder, like the Britney Spear’s failed come back, the New England Patriot’s cheating scandal, O. J. Simpson’s latest arrest, Larry Craig’s wide stance, and when and where the “moment might be right” for Cialis.
I am torn about Petraeus. I believe he is basically a good man just as I think Colin Powell was. Perhaps as the Ft. Lauderdale ex-Marine wrote (in his letter to the editor), the military being the ultimate “can do” organization is the explanation for how good men can be manipulated for political purposes.
When a man who spends his whole life solving problems to “get the job done”, is told by his boss that the job must be done, what would it take for him to say he can’t. The very nature of the military precludes giving up. And of course there is the additional pressure of ruining a long and distinguished career by speaking out against the decider who does not take kindly to being told no.
Those considered the best of our military – Petraeus and Powell – seem to lack that extra measure of courage and fortitude needed to rise above the political pressure cooker and do what is best for the country no matter the personal cost. Our world is sadly in need of a super hero or two but there seem to be none on the horizon.
Alas how true, the need for a super hero. He/she is sorely missed. One can only hope, that when there is the need, life finds a way to fill the void.