The Petraeus Report

Those seeking definitive authority either for staying in Iraq or for leaving will be disappointed in the forthcoming Petraeus report. It would be a very great surprise if General Petraeus concludes that we have failed and should withdraw forthwith on the one hand, or finds that the vaunted "surge" is working so well that we can foresee victory in the foreseeable future on the other hand. Instead, like the war itself, this report will claim some success and, reluctantly, point to areas where progress has been limited.

This leaves open the question of what the fence-sitters, those suspending judgment until this report comes in, will do now. Assuming the report does not offer a solid conclusion of victory or failure, the votes still needed to end U.S. combat operations are right where they've been for months-blowing in the wind. There are very few examples in history where complex political and moral judgments have been resolved by some God-like authority.

This is even truer when the observer-authority has a stake in the outcome. Whatever General Petraeus thinks about the Iraq invasion deep in his soul, he would not be a senior military commander if he did not believe his soldiers could overcome almost any obstacle, including bitter insurgency, and if he did not take orders from civilian authority. For him to say, Let's pack up and go, would be a vote of no-confidence in his troops and in himself. Don't expect it.

On the other hand, wouldn't it be interesting, to say the least, if General Petraeus's report said this:

Mr. President:

The United States Army and Marine Corps achieved their principal mission of overthrowing Saddam Hussein and his government. We did so with dispatch and minimum loss of life. We were then confronted with a massive insurgency which U.S. civilian officials, including yourself, did not anticipate and for which we have not been given adequate personnel and resources. There is little if any prospect of resolving this insurgency anytime in the next decade, if not longer. Further, continued engagement in Iraq's civil war distracts us from our most urgent mission in Afghanistan and erodes our stature in the world. Therefore, it is my recommendation that all U.S. forces be withdrawn from Iraq in an orderly but expeditious manner. In the event that this recommendation is not accepted, I have attached my letter of resignation from the United States Army.

David Petraeus

General, United States Army

Comments

[RogueCowboy]

According to the Bush Administration and THE GENERALS ON THE GROUND:
June 24, 2003, President Bush declared al-Qaeda's leadership largely defunct
2003 Mission Accomplished
2004 We are making PROGRESS
2005 We are in the LAST THROES
2006 We should be able to draw down troops starting in Sept 2006
2007 January: A Surge of 22,500 will show significant results by July 2007
2007 July: We are making progress, wait until September
2007 September: We are making progress, wait until September 2008. We have only had the "SURGE" for 3 months.

If we STAY THE COURSE for one more year only 1000 more American Troops will die, 6000 more American Troops will be Wounded, 2500 Iraqi Security Forces will be killed, 10,000 Iraqi Security Forces will be Wounded, 15,000 more Iraqi Civilians will be KILLED, 40,000 more Iraqi Civilians will be wounded, 750,000 more Iraqis will be displaced from their homes, the Iraqi Parliament will meet 3 more of the 2007 benchmarks, still less than 50% of the 18 benchmarks and The GENERALS on the GROUND will report they are making progress and ask for 1 more year. The Bush Administration will ask for anther $200 Billion for 2009.
WAKE UP AMERICA! We should not have our Military trying to referee a CIVIL WAR in a country where democracy is a FOREIGN WORD and may NEVER be achieved.

[nunzia]

Stop calling it that. It's not Petreus' report.

[Qbear]

Petraeus shouldn't do this ALONE
Colin Powell and every 4 star General should stand before Congress and say,

"President Bush as commander in chief can surge, stay the course, turn another corner...without me, without me, without me, without me, without me."

[OETKB]

What we need is a bad peace where each faction may continue not to like each other, but decides it is not in their best interest to kill each other. We continue to get the background hum that tension is being ratcheted up that will hurl out of control in a revenge bloodbath as our troops withdraw. Our current policy of arming any group that pledges to destroy Al Quaida is pouring gasoline on this already growing conflagration. Not only is this sad position of strengthening belligerent groups now hardened into administration policy with the same abandonment of rationality, it is foisted on the American public as success. Nothing could be further from the reality on the ground. In spite of being told a million times the answer is political, this administration reaches for their holster. If Gen Petraeus suggests in any manner that more deaths will bring peace, it must be rejected.

[Cearbhallain]

As long as this war drags on, Bush and his pals make money. This is one of the reasons, the most important one, that he is dragging his feet on ending it. Bush and his pals know what they are doing, they just don't care about the price that YOU have to pay for it, because it's all profit for them. These people are not patriots, they are cynics. They know honesty like a con man knows honesty, that is, in how to exploit it.

[Dansden]

'DEAD CERTAIN' author should receive the equivalent of a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting 'behind the green zone of Lil BUSH bravados'.

Until the American voters who put this criminal in the White House become so embarrassed and disgusted by their vote that has now become 'an act of treason against the best that America stands for' we shall continue to allow BUSH'S LIES to rule this once great experiment in freedom, justice, and constitutional law.

[coloneblog]

There's only one way to get Dub's attention towards getting him to attempt to resolve his bloody, bumbling, vicious war in Iraq; threaten to tax the rich to pay for his war. It's become quite apparent that Bush's Iraq strategy is to drag-out resolution of the War and to hand it off to the next administration; most likely, a Democratic Administration. Now, Bush wants another $50 billion. Please, please, now the Democratic Congress has the chance to force "the decider" to decide on his own war. They should put forth House/Senate bills for the $50 billion, but make it conditioned on establishing an Iraq War Tax, the entire burden falling on America's richest to pay for this ongoing war retroactive back to March 2003. Then we'll see how committed Bush is to his own war when he comes to the realization that those he's served the past 6 1/2 years are going to have to pick-up his war tab. He vetoes it, he's de-funding his own war. He signs it, the Congress will have created a pool of funds to start paying down this extremely expensive war, put money to better care for our returning GI's and towards rebuilding the US military. Gosh, they should even be able to get enough Republicans to support it to get it passed and if need be, override a veto. The tax is the only way to get Bush's attention on the Iraq War!

[newsweek1945]

Why wait for "the report", or any other "report"? All of this is bullshit. I"m tired and am sure that the people are tired, but afraid of "emboldening(again)" the terrorists. Now, the "chimp" goes to Iraq for the third time when he did'nt even go to VietNam the first time to bullshit the troops who are also intimidated to speak out as we did in VietNam. No one wants to called anti-American by the most dangerous threat to the spirit of Americanism that has ever sat in the white house. This creature is a sham and a shame! We are in shit so deep that it will take a generation if not forever the chance to show the world who we could truly be. He's probably going to live a long time...choppin' wood, and the real world that he created will be that wood to burned on the pyre.

[realitytrumpsbull]

Yeah, but the chances of Petraeus including an "I quit" letter stand somewhere between the fat cowboy and the catholic sister, Slim, and Nun. Actually, what's probably needed to 'win' the 'war' is 'impeachment', followed by bringing our troops home. It was BushCo's misadventure, it was a land-grab for oil, they lied about it, stuffed Large Sums Of Money in their pockets, and now they're wondering why people are voicing objection to the entire criminal enterprise...actually, they're not wondering, they're busy hiding their money...

[Tosenseworth]

This blog accepts three basic arguments, almost without rebuttal; 1. Bush is totally intractable, 2. Big Business is making too much money to work towards peace. 3. Our Representatives in Washington are too corrupt to find a solution.
"Bush is intractable", limits our options. If true, why bother? Business may be profiting, but, if he is truly unmoveable, what should they do? Send their workers home??
If congress fails to move him, can this fairly be called "corrupt"? If the rising Dem opposition is dismissed as too weak and equally corrupt, we might as well settle into accepting the Iraq "War" as regular TV fare and not expend all this energy on wrenting our garments.

Shouldn't we try to sustain positives? Surely "Biden's plan is flawed!", may be a reasonable argument, but what use is it??. There can be no perfect plan, but surely any plan that moves us toward an exit is worth supporting. Let's keep in perspective the fact that there are those in congress attempting to put some plan forth, and therefore the body cannot be simply dismissed as "corrupt". Unless we can manage to unite under the simple banner that this "war" is wrong and must be ended, we shall be as ineffectual as congress, for the same reasons. Let's recognize Biden, and others, for their intent, if not their imperfect answers. They are confronting the same intransigence and are forced to face the same realities as we.
How about a discussion of how we might actually assault the Limbaugh fortress, rather than pick away at Biden et al. How do we let Fox News know we are not all wusses too fearful to defend ourselves against imminent threats from al Qaedda? Which blogs should we be writing to with our opposition to the war? Those who condemn the war/invasion/occupation should support any who offer a way out, and vigorously attack only those who support "Staying the Course". Surely we can find unity in this, or can we??

[dukeman]

A government beaurocrat will give an assessement of his own performance.

He will claim that he is successful. Big Surprise.

[outnow]

The mission was control of the oil. The US military will be all elbows for the rebound. It ain't over until the fat lady signs. When the oil is under control we will still not leave because we will be "guarding" the control. This is the express terms of our National Security Policy Statement.

Petraeus is a pawn. He wrote an op ed in 2004 before the election about how well things were going - a violation of policy for a General, according to some, if not all, authorities.

Senator Hart, you are an optimist but should watch the run up to the new war with Iran this week. Just as much candor will emerge about the terrorism and WMD. Please fasten your seatbelt.

[drblack]

Any former General who didn't act,speak and think the way Bush wanted him to was fired so I should believe Petraeus why?
If he says it it isn't true because it is like Bush saying it and he has lied so many times .

[HamletsMill]

To all,

I want to say this is the best well written thread that I have read in the seven months I have been on HuffPo. Very thoughtful and well written posts from many of you. It is an honor to read them. Thank you all.

[afroditealcmaeonides]

The Insurgecy WAS ANTICIPATED BY GEORGE TENET AND THE CIA REPORTS BUT IT WAS OVERLOOKED FOR OBVIOUS REASONS......