Politicizing Petraeus - Part Two
Posted April 9th, 2008 by Da King
At least this time, the Left didn't slander general David Petraeus or call him a liar (not as much, anyway). There were no 'General Betray-Us' ads or references to the 'willing suspension of disbelief'. The Left learns to censor their more hideous traits, but they usually have to step in it a time or two before they do.
There has been undeniable progress in Iraq in the seven months since Petraeus last spoke to Congress, and substantial progress in the last year since the surge started. Anyone who denies those facts is simply not being truthful. However, as Petraeus put it, the progress is "fragile and reversible." Much remains to be done, and though we all want our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible (and for you Dems out there, that includes John McCain), the idea of a fixed timetable for withdrawal is neither wise nor workable if a secure Iraqi government is our goal. Both Petraeus and Iraq ambassador Ryan Crocker made that point during their testimony yesterday before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
There's something about a group of presidential wanna-bees (that's 'bees', as in buzz, buzz) and congressional partisans making political speeches disguised as questions for Petraeus and Crocker that irks me. With the cameras rolling, the effect is magnified, since the cameras amount to free political advertisement. Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich), who opened the proceedings, personified partisanship. He downplayed the progress of the surge, acted like the recent Basra flare-up nullified it all, and mentioned every possible negative aspect of the Iraq conflict. If there was a poster boy for the attitude known as "Defeatocrat," Levin was it. Since Levin said nothing at all helpful, I'll briefly paraphrase his opening comments and move on. Levin more or less said "Bush sucks, Iraq's a mess, screw the Iraqis, let's quit." Not exactly the can-do spirit that made america great.
When Barack Obama, an intelligent man, but one who frankly knows little more about Iraq than I or any other random person who follows the events knows, offers up his opinions to Petraeus, opinions are all they are, and they'd be insignificant, except Obama could be the next president, so we have to pay attention to him. Obama has spent a grand total of two days in Iraq in his lifetime, and those were in 2006. He couldn't possibly have an iota of knowledge about Iraq in comparison to Petraeus or Crocker. I don't mean this to be a particular criticism of Obama, since pretty much the same could also be said of Hillary Clinton or John McCain. In fact, if I heard what I think I heard yesterday, McCain repeated his blunder of not knowing whether Al Qaeda is Sunni or Shia. If McCain wants to be the big boss man, he should at least know a wahabbist from a wabbit, and it seems he doesn't. An insufficient regard for the different fractious elements within Iraqi society is a large part of the reason our troops are still there 5 years later. When McCain makes this mistake, I am reminded of gross oversimplifications like Dick Cheney saying "we will be greeted as liberators." Yes, by some Iraqis we were, but most definitely not by others, and Dick, what about the post-liberation ? The Bushies went in like a bull in a china shop, but didn't appear to know the first damned thing about what they were getting into, given the ensuing events.
Since Obama is the likely Democratic nominee for president, here's a link to a transcript of Obama questioning Petraeus and Crocker, and following is a cobbling together of key parts of that testimony:
OBAMA: I just want to close with a couple of key points.
Number one, we all have the greatest interest in seeing a successful resolution to Iraq — all of us do. And that, I think, has to be stated clearly in the record…I also think that the surge has reduced violence and provided breathing room, but that breathing room has not been taken the way we would all like it to be taken. And I think what happened in Basra is an example of Shia versus Shia jockeying for power that underscores how complicated the political situation is there and how we still have to continue to work vigorously to resolve it. I believe that we are more likely to resolve it, in your own words, Ambassador, if we are applying increased pressure in a measured way. I think that increased pressure in a measured way, in my mind — and this is where we disagree — includes a timetable for withdrawal. Nobody's asking for a precipitous withdrawal, but I do think that it has to be a measured but increased pressure; and a diplomatic surge that includes Iran. Because if Maliki can tolerate as normal neighbor-to-neighbor relations in Iran, then we should be talking to them as well. I do not believe we're going to be able to stabilize the position without them…Our resources are finite. And this has been made — this is a point that just was made by Senator Voinovich, it's been made by Senator Biden, Senator Lugar, Senator Hagel. There's a bipartisan consensus that we have finite resources. Our military is overstretched, and the Pentagon has acknowledged it. The amount of money that we are spending is hemorrhaging our budget, and Al Qaida in Afghanistan I think is feeling a lot more secure as long as we're focused in Iraq and not on Afghanistan. When you have finite resources, you've got to define your goals tightly and modestly.
…It's obviously not perfect. There's still violence, there's still some traces of Al Qaida, Iran has influence more than we would like. But if we had the current status quo, and yet our troops had been drawn down to 30,000, would we consider that a success? Would that meet our criteria, or would that not be good enough and we'd have to devote even more resources to it?
CROCKER: Senator, I can't imagine the current status quo being sustainable with that kind of precipitous drawdown.
OBAMA: …I'm not suggesting that we yank all our troops out all the way. I'm trying to get to an endpoint. That's what all of us have been trying to get to. And, see, the problem I have is if the definition of success is so high, no traces of Al Qaida and no possibility of reconstitution, a highly-effective Iraqi government, a Democratic multiethnic, multi- sectarian functioning democracy, no Iranian influence, at least not of the kind that we don't like, then that portends the possibility of us staying for 20 or 30 years.
If, on the other hand, our criteria is a messy, sloppy status quo but there's not, you know, huge outbreaks of violence, 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 Qaida base, that seems to me an achievable goal within a measurable timeframe, and that, I think, is what everybody here on this committee has been trying to drive at, and we haven't been able to get as clear of an answer as we would like.
CROCKER: And that's because, Senator, is a — I mean, I don't like to sound like a broken record, but this is hard and this is complicated.
I think that when Iraq gets to the point that it can carry forward its further development without a major commitment of U.S. forces, with still a lot of problems out there but where they and we would have a fair certitude that, again, they can drive it forward themselves without significant danger of having the whole thing slip away from them again, then, clearly, our profile, our presence diminishes markedly.
But that's not where we are now.
The first thing I'd take exception with is Obama saying they all [Democrats] want a successful resolution in Iraq. Many of his comrades most certainly do NOT care about that. Many of them just want to get out of Iraq, with little regard for the consequences. Obama himself voted to stop funding the war last year, and he also voted to start a troop withdrawal that, had it been adopted, would have had all our troops out by now. Thus, Obama is being disingenuous when he says nobody is advocating a "precipitous withdrawal.' Obama himself advocated that.
Secondly, nobody has ever said that Iraq has to become the perfect society with no traces of Al Qaeda and no traces of sectarian violence before US troops pull out. Obama is building a straw man argument there. What has always been the stated goal is for the USA to stand down as the Iraqi forces stand up. That is where the difficulty has lain, and no formally announced public withdrawal timetable is going to assist in that effort. Even if we get to a place where a withdrawal timetable is set, there is no advantage in making it public, other than to some politicians who want to take credit and garner some support from it. I also keep hearing Democrat after Democrat being all indignant that Bush will leave Iraq for the next president (who they presume will be a Democrat) to deal with. Yes, that's probably so, Dems. Deal with it. Your party is not more important than the country.
Go here for a transcript of general Petraeus' comments to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
April 9th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Timetables for withdrawal are one thing, but I think a lot of us would really just like to have a ballpark idea of how much longer we have to devote all these resources to a country for whom our interests are only concerned insofar as it doesn't devolve back into a "rogue state." Are we talking 5 years? 10 years? 20 years?
The problem is that it's not exactly crystal clear what will happen if we leave versus what will happen if we stay. We've proven that by surging, we can make Iraq not a civil-war torn hellhole, but since the word "surge" is inherently a temporary condition, it's hard to argue things will stay like this when we inevitably de-surge. I kind of thought leaving right around the Constitutional elections in 2004 was a good idea, but was told of all the bad, awful things that would happen if we did that. Then all those bad, awful things happened in 2005. Then they got worse in 2006. And EVEN WORSE in 2007. Now the surge has dampened violence to be sure, but to a level that's still worse than several years ago.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
The idea behind making a timetable for a withdrawal public is pretty basic: The idea is to scare the hell out of Iraqis to get together to find some stability. But more importantly it would force Iran, Arab states, and the entire international community to attempt to broker some deal the US can't. Its well known Iran does NOT want the U.S. to leave, because despite their links to Iraqi Shiites, they don't think all that fondly of them and they're concerned about problems it could cause within they're own state. However, they are perfectly content with the situation as it is now, because nobody is in power and it simultaneously bogs down the U.S while Americans dump billions of dollars down the drain.
It's the same reason why policy makers use tough language in negotiations since the beginning of time.
At any rate, the U.S. is truly screwed. You can't stay stay because the Army is breaking, occupation is viewed horribly by the rest of the world, and the future financial implications are immense. But, you can't leave because it will be a blood bath that could destabilize the entire region, esp. in the era of globalization.
Really, the only hope is to beg regional and international powers to get heavily involved in talks to broker a true deal. It will be hard as hell, but nothing else is tenable.
Also, the title "Politicizing Petraeus" is comical, because the Bush Administration has done exactly that. They've made Petraeus the point man in order to deflect attention away from the administration. Congress job is to badger a testimony witness for answers, and it's pathetic that such a well-respected general like Petraeus (and Crocker in DoS, for that matter) is forced to be the public face of this war at this point.
You can guarantee Petraeus has different thoughts on how this whole thing should be handled.
April 10th, 2008 at 7:15 am
I think Petraeus is the perfect choice to brief Congress on the status of Iraq. If not him, then who ?
April 10th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Who's to say a timetable won't just send Iraqi leadership looking for new alliances, possibly with the last governments and groups we'd like them to align themselves with. I guess nobody's saying it, but a permanent presence in Iraq is success.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:29 am
larry: Now who's being silly? Iraqi leadership is already looking for alliances.
No one but you says a permanent presence in Iraq is a success. You and the PNAC patriots.
How did that permanent presence thing work out in Saudi?
And where is it written that the U.S., alone, gets to shape the world the way they want it? I can't find that link.
April 10th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Alliances… yes, like using Iran's help to broker a truce between Maliki and Sadr.
People don't realize that these worst-case scenarios that always get tossed around in withdrawal discussions might end up happening whether we withdraw or not. These people have a severely warped impression of the ability of our government to make desirable stuff happen in the Middle East. Either that, or we're just hoping for all kinds of rosy, optimistic scenarios (like, a unified Iraq not ruled by an iron fist and not heavily influenced by Iran) to play out while we happen to be in Iraq. Conversely, we could leave Iraq and hope for all those good things to happen as well.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:38 am
King,
General Petraeus is the only qualified person to deliver the status of this war and there can be no other. The left see's him as biased, but based on their previous treatment of him………….maybe he should be. Instead, our military exists as a non-partisan entity and it's loyalty exists to this country first. In this particular case, the consensus on the far-left was once again determined before this general even sat down. Had he come here with nothing but grim news, he would have been offered an analyst position beside Wolf Blitzer and a VP spot by Osama H.
We still have a long way to go and maybe if "they" allow the military to do it's job, without partisan interference, the resolve may come sooner. The anti-war lobby continues to create an atmosphere that rewards Islamo-fascism, for acts of terror, and this is why we've seen a spike in violence the last few weeks. We saw the same in October of 06'. I'm only surprised that the terrorists haven't yet endorsed Osama or Shrillary. They've done everything else but.
As far as timetables, who can predict what happens in such an erratic environment? It would better serve this country to enact term-limits for our partisan friends and that's a timetable we could all live with.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:58 am
"The anti-war lobby continues to create an atmosphere that rewards Islamo-fascism, for acts of terror, and this is why we've seen a spike in violence the last few weeks."
There we are again with the same answer the supporters of Vietnam-forever, headed by the Straight Talker himself, gave so many years ago.
Thinking like that expressed by my friend Alex here starts with the given that whatever America does is Good and Right.
It's only those who dissent who have made our enemies take heart. It's the dissenters who are rewarding our enemies.
Meanwhile, a small band of religious extremists without state support and without a military, are continued to be called, Islamofascists, a complete misnomer.
April 10th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Rev: Thinking like that expressed by my friend Alex here starts with the given that whatever America does is Good and Right.
It's only those who dissent who have made our enemies take heart. It's the dissenters who are rewarding our enemies.
I never ever stated that whatever America does is good and right. However, the consideration of our soldiers should always trump the political aspirations of the wreckless. For every 10 soldiers which are falsely accused of atrocities, interview 10 that are proven heroes. There is absolutely no positive coverage, other than Fox, when it comes to our bravest.
My problems stem with moveon.org, codepink, westboro baptist group, and others that take things above and beyond voicing dissent. Smearing generals, crashing funerals, and destroying government property are acts only reserved for the sick few. Ratings sell.
If anyone has the right to take things to the extreme, it would only be the families of the soldiers. Aside from Cindy Sheehan, and a limited handful, there hasn't been too many loons running around dishonoring their kin's service. If there are, they may have also been banished from their families…….such as Cindy.
If the media only changed their biased ways, our enemies would be stunned. Maybe martial law is the answer to restore some sort of order.
They're all Islamo-fascists. Just to what extreme, is the question.
April 10th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Unfortunatley we lost the war the day Sadr who had a warrant for his arrest challenged the US to come and get him and we didnt. The lesson learned was dont fear us just probe for that line not to cross and when you might be there back up just a little and wait us out. You cant win wars by being compassionate, tolerant and understanding(that comes after you win) and assume that the other side will adopt the same approach. Generally they view it as a sign of weakness.
April 11th, 2008 at 5:52 am
King,
When you need a break from the trials & tribulations of weighty matters like the war, politics, the economy, take a 4-minute break at the video-link below to recharge your batteries — especially if you like cats. You won't be sorry.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qit3ALTelOo
April 13th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Alex,
From Al Qaeda's talking points, it sounds to me like a US president who would pull out of Iraq would serve Al Qaeda's interests nicely, so I think Al Qaeda would prefer either Obama or Hillary.
—
Zawahiri interview:
Q: The defeat of the Americans began in Kabul, and is passing by Baghdad today, so where will it end?
ZAWAHIRI: As for America’s defeat, it will end in the White House, with Allah’s permission.
Q: What do you expect to happen in Iraq after America’s withdrawal with Allah’s permission?
ZAWAHIRI: I expect the Jihadi influence to spread after the Americans’ exit from Iraq, and to move towards Jerusalem (with Allah’s permission).
There is no doubt that the American collapse has begun, and the myth of unipolarity has ended. And the raids on New York and Washington were identifying marks of this collapse, but I point out that the collapse of empires doesn’t come in a single moment, but rather, may take decades, and the collapse of the Soviet Union is the nearest example of that. And the withdrawal of America from Afghanistan and Iraq will be in the interest of the Muslims with Allah’s permission, and the Jihadi vanguard has announced that its objective on which it will not compromise - at this stage - is the withdrawal of all unbelieving forces from the lands of the Muslims.
—-
Of course, my pal the Reverend would read that and say 'yes, we should pull out of all Muslim lands, and then there will be peace'. The Rev would leave out the part where we would be abandoning the Middle East to the extremists, who would take over, establish a Caliphate, cut off our oil, destroy our economy, destroy Israel, and then complete their plan to destroy the great american empire. That stuff is inconsequential, I suppose. We must be fascists to resist that.
April 13th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Vince,
That was a great video, but it made me a little sad. My cat got run over by a car one week ago. That was the first and last time he ever ran into the street. Rest in peace, little Reggie.
April 15th, 2008 at 7:06 am
So sorry, King.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
What I don't understand is why you give so much weight to the statements of an isolated extremist nut.
It would be like using the ramblings of Charles Manson, who also had a handful of followers, to base domestic policy on.
Simply ridiculous.
What America needs to be doing, instead of occupying Iraq, is killing guys like Zawahiri. Oh yeah, but then The Dick wouldn't have those scary enemies to..um…scare us with, would he?
Cartoonish characterizations.