The Assault On Petraeus

Team Infidel

Forum Spin Doctor
Washington Post
September 12, 2007
Pg. 19
By Michael Gerson
There is a long American tradition of savaging failed generals, from George McClellan to William Westmoreland. It is a more novel tactic to attack a successful one. Sen. Dick Durbin accuses Gen. David Petraeus of "carefully manipulating the statistics." Sen. Harry Reid contends, "He's made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be factual." A newspaper ad by MoveOn.org includes the taunt: "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" -- perhaps the first time since the third grade that this distinguished commander has been subjected to this level of wit.
Gen. Andrew Jackson probably would have responded to these reflections on his honor with a series of duels. Gen. Petraeus, in the manner of the modern Army, patiently answered with a series of facts and charts showing military progress in Iraq that seemed unimaginable even six months ago.
On Petraeus's brief watch, al-Qaeda in Iraq has suffered a major setback. It has been cleared out of the main population centers of Anbar province; its cells scattered into the countryside. The resentment of Sunni tribal leaders against al-Qaeda's highhanded brutality predated the surge -- but the surge gave those leaders the confidence and ability to oppose al-Qaeda. And this approach is showing promise among other Iraqi tribal groups as well.
In Baghdad, the Petraeus counterinsurgency strategy -- a kind of community policing with very serious firepower -- has reduced sectarian murders significantly. Some militia activity has been pushed outside Baghdad or gone underground -- and this is also a victory of sorts, because order in Iraq's capital has great symbolic and practical importance.
But for opponents of the war, such progress is beside the point. Anything less than perfection in reaching a series of benchmarks is evidence of failure and reason for retreat. Former senator John Edwards, bobbing like a cork on every current of the left, calls for "No timeline, no funding. No excuses" -- a sudden cutoff of resources for American combat troops. Other critics recommend that American forces withdraw into a noncombat, supportive role, with a "small footprint," while unprepared Iraqis are pushed into the lead -- exactly the strategy that led to the escalation of violence in 2006.
These are not serious options. But the administration does face a serious question: Even if this military progress continues, how does it lead to the endgame of American withdrawal instead of Iraqi dependence? In spite of recent gains, civilian casualties remain high, sectarian groups are still deeply at odds, and the central government remains corrupt and ineffective.
Administration officials answer that they are seeing a promising, bottom-up change in Iraq -- something organic, not imposed or designed. Instead of national, political agreement, Iraq is experiencing local, tribal reconciliation. Even without a national oil law, oil revenue is being shared. Even in the absence of a de-Baathification law, tens of thousands of former Baathists are getting their pensions. Grass-roots progress, the argument goes, will eventually produce more responsible, pragmatic political leaders -- Sunnis who oppose al-Qaeda and Shiites who fight Iranian influence -- as well as more capable and professional Iraqi military forces. And this would allow America to provide the same level of security with fewer and fewer troops.
Petraeus's recommendation of troop reductions beginning in December, with a return to pre-surge troop levels by summer, is a down payment on this expectation. But future reductions, he made clear, will be based on conditions in Iraq, not timelines. And those conditions are hard to predict.
At least three factors could complicate future withdrawals:
First, as the British leave, Basra and the south could descend into a chaos of battling militias -- threatening Iraqi oil fields and American supply lines. Would U.S. troops be forced to intervene?
Second, Iran may not tamely accept American progress in Iraq. Its government is already involved in the training and arming of proxies in Iraq. How would America need to respond if the Iranians escalate further and provide, for example, surface-to-air missiles to militias?
Third, even if Iranian-backed groups are isolated and undermined, the regular Shiite militias, often infiltrated into the police and Interior Ministry, are still forcing Sunnis out of mixed neighborhoods in Baghdad. What needs to be done to stop them?
Despite real military progress, the situation in Iraq remains difficult. Gen. Petraeus is a skilled leader, but we do not know if even he can win. We know, however, one thing: If he is slandered, his advice is dismissed and Congress cuts off funding for the troops he commands, defeat in Iraq will be certain.
 
I m not surprised that none of the Dem senators and congressmen didnt stand up to moveon.org thugs defending this fine and patriotic general. Shameful!
 
The left does this because General Petraeus' progress is possibly the worst thing that can happen to them politically at this point. If the war in Iraq does turn in favor of the US and the new Iraqi government, then several things happen
1) The democrats lose their main weapon: the war in Iraq. At least, the effect will be lessened significantly
2) They will not be able to pull out of Iraq and will be in fact pressured to do just as well.

What these people don't realize is that every war is different from the last war. There will be setbacks but you have to LEARN to fight these. Learning is not something done in 3 months. Heck, it takes years just to learn French for chrissakes.
These democrats do not care that a defeat here will lead to even worse violence on even worse terms and not to mention, betray the Iraqis who are in fact DEPENDING on America to be successful. They are willing to go to these lengths just to get into power. I think it's unexcusable. These people WANT to lose in Iraq. No need to think about the consequences, no need to worry about the future of Iraqis (something by the way they seemed to care so much about before the decision to go to war was made, except in an anti-war note) and sure as heck don't seem to give a damn about the whole situation in Iran and not to mention the reputation of their country.
You know why so much of Europe wants America to fail? Because it is jealous. It is jealous of America's power. They can't understand why a bunch of loud mouthed undisciplined cowboys could be the world's #1 superpower and they want that to end because they can't stand the humiliation. They are not wise or worldly. Heck, I basically LIVE in Europe. People in the US get the idea that they are worldy, wise and intelligent because only those who have those characteristics actually vsiit the US.
I just mention this because a lot of the anti-Bush crowd seem to have this strange affinity with Europe.
I have seen both worlds and Europe is a dinosaur.
It seems that these people will go so far as to making sure America loses that war that they will go and attack the General who is trying to make it all work and may be our first and last realistic chance to get something out of this whole mess.
 
Last edited:
People still don't get it.

Its not against Patreaus its about who Patreaus represents, of whose political ass he is trying to protect. What the pro-War crowd is basically saying:

"OK we lied in the past, but NOW we are telling the truth, you MUST trust us, you are a un-American terrorist sympathizer if you don't".

Do you have any idea the number of times we Americans have been sold the "winning in Iraq shtick" only to have the opposite be proven true. This latest episode is no different. You can parade all the generals you want, your credibility still stinks. Blaming the Left, Europe, Immigrants, whoever will not cover up that your lack of credibility and competence that is at the heart of the issue. Thats what happens when you get caught (several times) bungling things up then lying about it to cover your rear...

Read the polls. People don't trust the RIGHT anymore, its really that simple. And if the Democrats are Politically profiteering from the RIGHT's own lack of credibility (not to mention competence) whose is really at fault??? The GOP blaming the Democrats because of the disaster in Iraq, is like blaming the other football team for winning the game because your team kept fumbling the ball.

You don't score political points or sympathy by continually screwing up...

BTW, anybody who thinks Europe is a Dinosaur has obviously never lived here. Jealous in American power in what exactly? I got news for you, It's we that should be jealous. For example, did you know in the Netherlands there are greater civil liberties than in the USA? I speak as an American who has been here almost 10 years. Scoff if you want, my experience is greater than most of you all on this subject.
 
Last edited:
Petraeus' job is to win the military aspect of the war in Iraq. If you don't like the policy, that's your business with the White House.
Like I said, and you don't seem to get this, he gets his orders from the White House, he carries them out and makes sure it's done. Why does he seem to be supporting Bush and not the Democrats? Because Bush demands that this job is done and the Democrats demand defeat in Iraq. This is why. The objective of the Democrats is contrary to his orders from the president and his orders are (whether you like it or not) lawful. I've said this before, if you don't like the policy, that's your business with the White House, NOT the General. The Democrats and the far left dislike Petraeus because, again, his potential for success is a grave threat to their agenda. Whether or not this helps the security of the United States is a non factor. The reputation of the United States itself is a non factor. Certainly the deterrent factor of the presence of American troop deployment or carrier deployment is a non factor.
In Sun Tzu's Art of War, the greatest victory of all is one that is won without a fight. Do you think this will be possible with a US military that the enemies of America DO NOT fear? It is not.
With 10 years in I guess you're more qualified than I am. Maybe you've been in Europe for too long. Europe is a dinosaur. Heck, I have Austrians admitting it to me as long as they don't think I'm pro-American. No doubt there are plenty of smart and worldly Europeans as well, but people never realize there are also millions of incredibly stupid ones as well. I've met my share of them. There are of course places where the Europeans are thinking ahead, such as alternative energy to fossil fuels. This I support and I think the Europeans really have this right. The rest of the nonsense seems to be this identity crisis with a bunch of Germans thinking they're from Jamaica.
 
Petraeus' job is to win the military aspect of the war in Iraq. If you don't like the policy, that's your business with the White House.
Like I said, and you don't seem to get this, he gets his orders from the White House, he carries them out and makes sure it's done. Why does he seem to be supporting Bush and not the Democrats? Because Bush demands that this job is done and the Democrats demand defeat in Iraq. This is why. The objective of the Democrats is contrary to his orders from the president and his orders are (whether you like it or not) lawful. I've said this before, if you don't like the policy, that's your business with the White House, NOT the General. The Democrats and the far left dislike Petraeus because, again, his potential for success is a grave threat to their agenda. Whether or not this helps the security of the United States is a non factor. The reputation of the United States itself is a non factor. Certainly the deterrent factor of the presence of American troop deployment or carrier deployment is a non factor.
In Sun Tzu's Art of War, the greatest victory of all is one that is won without a fight. Do you think this will be possible with a US military that the enemies of America DO NOT fear? It is not.
With 10 years in I guess you're more qualified than I am. Maybe you've been in Europe for too long. Europe is a dinosaur. Heck, I have Austrians admitting it to me as long as they don't think I'm pro-American. No doubt there are plenty of smart and worldly Europeans as well, but people never realize there are also millions of incredibly stupid ones as well. I've met my share of them. There are of course places where the Europeans are thinking ahead, such as alternative energy to fossil fuels. This I support and I think the Europeans really have this right. The rest of the nonsense seems to be this identity crisis with a bunch of Germans thinking they're from Jamaica.

Well-Said....... :wink:
 
At this point the previous two posts by our esteemed Korean colleague sum up anything I might have to say.
 
I dunno why everyone is picking on Petraeus, he's only the messenger boy in this scenario. The White House has admitted that they edited the report.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top