From The Right: What Will General Patraeus Say

The Petraeus Report

What’s likely to happen after General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker deliver their eagerly awaited report to Congress about progress in the Iraq war?  Whatever they may have to say, does anyone really expect it will change people’s minds about pulling American troops out of Iraq? 

 

Everyone’s for that, aren’t they?  But, the question is how many and how fast and whether or not we should leave any of our forces behind at all, truly a Hobson’s choice.

 

Recent reports coming out of Iraq pretty well agree that the “surge” is working.  So, what else are we likely to hear from Petraeus and Crocker?

 

My Take

General Petraeus’ report will likely indicate that the “surge” has been successful but that more needs to be accomplished before our troops can be safely withdrawn.  And, he will undoubtedly make a case for additional time.

 

The response from the left will probably be tepid at best and downright hostile at worst, while the right may be willing to allow additional time, but with strings attached. In short, no one will be satisfied, despite the many platitudes we are likely to hear.

 

Lorie Byrd, writing on Townhall.com (Aug. 31, 2007), said, “I don’t know what the September report from General Petraeus will say, but it’s already being attacked on liberal blogs and elsewhere in the media. One recent criticism was that the White House was going to write the report, not Petraeus.”

 

“Instead of the news of progress being celebrated, or even acknowledged, many of those opposed to the war have attempted to suppress that news or deny it. While there is still news of violence to be reported from Iraq, it is no longer possible to deny the positive developments being reported from the region and still retain any credibility,” she added.

She further reported that U.S. Rep. Brian Baird, a liberal Democrat who recently visited Iraq, stated, “As a Democrat who voted against the war from the outset and who has been frankly critical of the administration and the post-invasion strategy, I am convinced by the evidence that the situation has at long last begun to change for the better. I believe Iraq could have a positive future.”

 

A New Strategy

For months, we have been subjected to a steady drumbeat of negative, defeatist statements from the Democrats, typified by Senate Leader Harry Reid’s assertion that “the surge has failed” – before it even started. Everyone seems to be calling for a “change of strategy” without actually specifying what that should be, other than pulling out.

 

Furthermore, the latest National Intelligence Estimate, which is presumed to closely mirror the forthcoming testimony Petraeus and Crocker will deliver to Congress, warned that support for U.S. troops to leave Iraq could increase violence in the region. (The Run-Up to the Petraeus Showdown, Amanda Carpenter, Townhall.com, Aug. 29, 2007). 

 

“Even if one believes the surge to be a remarkable policy achievement, one has to admit that the U.S. military cannot surge indefinitely. As such, the real measure of success is about things other than security, because it isn’t as if the surge is eliminating all possible founts of violence. No, the surge is primarily suppressing them. That is an important distinction, as it means that once the surge ends, there will be a resumption of violence,” said Steven L. Taylor on politicalmavins.com.

 

This became abundantly clear in recent statements made by both the Iranian and U.S. presidents. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad confirmed the NIE’s judgment nearly word for word in a Tuesday news conference in Tehran. He made it vividly clear that Iran intends to “fill the gap” that will be created by the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, while Bush said, “if Americans were forced out of the Middle East, extremists of all strains would be emboldened by the knowledge that they forced America to retreat...Iran could conclude we were weak – and could not stop them from getting nuclear weapons.” (“The Run-Up to the Petraeus Showdown” by Amanda Carpenter, Townhall.com, Aug. 29, 2007).

 

The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)

“The GAO report was on track to conclude that at least 13 of the 18 benchmarks set to judge the Iraqi government’s performance in the political and security areas haven’t been met.”  However, before we conclude that the NIE assessment is the definitive basis for determining that we should declare the effort a failure and just get out, the White House claimed that “A bar was set so high that it was almost not able to be met (and) White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said, one of the things it does not take in account, which is not on the benchmark list, is the cooperation of the Sunni tribes, who have decided to fight back against Al-Qaida.” (Associated Press, Yahoo! News, Aug. 30, 2007).

 

Author Austin Bay also made some interesting observations about the situation in Iraq on Townhall.com, Aug. 29, 2007.

 

“Petraeus’ report is a creature of this instantaneous and pervasive media. For better or worse, he is responding to the condition and using the condition.”

 

“War doesn’t operate on media time or political calendars. Petraeus’ report will address that fact. The Baghdad clock and the Washington clock run at difference speeds.”

 

“Washington’s clock – at least the one run by the likes of Sens. Carl Levin and Hillary Clinton – is set to the 2008 election.”

 

“Petraeus’ pivotal moment is the rare opportunity to correct what media analysts call the ‘dominant narrative.’ That dominant narrative has been defeat. Defeat has been a useful narrative to that large percentage in the political class who are mere politicians, not statesmen.”

 

Strategic Overview

Perhaps the best analysis of the situation in Iraq has been made by the Geopolitical Intelligence Report, (Aug. 27, 2007), which offered the following observations, among others:

 

“What, then, is the United States to do? In general, there are three options available: The first is to maintain the current strategy...The second is to start a phased withdrawal…The third is a rapid withdrawal of forces...All three conventional options suffer from fatal defects.”

 

“...the current reality is that any withdrawal from Iraq would create a vacuum, which would rapidly be filled by Iran. Alternatively, Iraq could become a jihadist haven...”

 

“The solution is to be found in redefining the mission, the strategic goal. If the goal of creating a stable pro-American Iraq is no longer possible, then what is the U.S. national interest?”

 

“The new U.S. mission, therefore, must be to block Iran in the aftermath of the Iraq war. The United States cannot impose a government on Iraq; the fate of Iraq’s heavily populated regions cannot be controlled by the United States.”

 

“The mission would be to position forces in such a way that Iran could not think of moving south into Saudi Arabia…This goal could be achieved through a phased withdrawal from Iraq, along with a rapid withdrawal from the populated areas and an immediate cessation of aggressive operations against jihadists and militia. It would concede what the NIE says is unattainable without conceding to Iran the role of regional hegemon.”

 

As usual, there are no easy answers to complex problems. To get a better sense of the complexity of the Iraq situation, I recommend that you review the Army’s 242-page manual on counterinsurgency, which Petraeus’ is credited with having authored. To find it on the Internet, Google: Army Counterinsurgency Field Manual.

 

© 2007 Harris R. Sherline, All Right Reserved