Republicans have been portraying Gen. David Petraeus as an almost God-like figure, the man who will carry finally lead an American victory in Iraq and, come September, will report back on the progress brought by the "surge" he advocated and is in charge of. Congressional Republicans constantly repeat that Gen. Petraeus's report in September will be the key to their decision on whether to continue to support unlimited funding of the Iraq War or to join Democrats in calling for a phased withdrawal.
Gen. Petraeus may be a respected military leader. He may also be less than objective in evaluating the success of his own mission. In a USA Today interview last week under the headline "Petraus Says Security Crackdown Working," Petraeus reported that when he drives through the streets of Iraq, he sees "astonishing signs of normalcy" in half, perhaps two-thirds of Baghdad. "I'm talking about professional soccer leagues with real grass field stadiums, several amusement parks--big ones, markets that are very vibrant."
Such reports reminds one of Sen. John McCain's stroll through a Baghdad market last month, in which he too reported normalcy, although to make the stroll he was outfitted with body armor and, on Gen. Petreaus's orders, was accompanied by 100 soldiers, 3 black hawks and 2 Apaches. Sectarian snipers were reported to be back in the market the next day.
Petreaeus's upbeat assessment was immediately contradicted by one of his own generals and by the Pentagon. The same day that Petreaus was touting the progress of his "surge", the Pentagon released its quarterly assessment of security conditions in Iraq which reported that in the February to May period in which the "surge" was taking effect, "the aggregate level of violence in Iraq remained relatively unchanged". "Violence has decreased" in Baghdad and Anbar Province "but has increased in most provinces, particularly in areas around Baghdad and in Nineva and Diyala Provinces," according to the Report.
The Report noted that even the decrease in violence in Baghdad may be temporary and that sectarian killings in Baghdad have begun rising again. According to the Report, attacks on civilians and Iraqi and American troops have exceeded 1000 per week since the beginning of 2007, the highest level in the history of the war. 230 American deaths in April and May were the highest for any 2-month period since the start of the War. In addition to the continued violence, according to the Report, Iraqi political leaders have failed to make political progress on issues like a new law apportioning Iraq's oil revenue and setting a timetable for provincial elections.
Despite Petraeus's claim of "normalcy" in half to two-thirds of Baghdad, Lt. Gen Raymond Odierno, commanding General of the multinational corps in Baghdad, gave a starkly different portrayal saying that only 40% of Bagdad is safe "on a routine basis", with 30% lacking control and another 30% suffering a "high level of violence". Even Odierno omitted to state whether the sections of Bagdad rated as "safe" were safe because of the presence of US forces and the Iraqi Army, or safe because they are under the control of sectarian militia who protect their own neighborhoods.
On the heals of Petraeus's assessment of substantial "normalcy" in Baghdad and the Pentagon's simultaneous pessimistic report, last week Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid began to question Petraeus's credibility. "I was a little disappointed, to say the least, today reading the USA Today newspaper where he's saying things are going fine," Reid told a Capitol Hill news conference. He also questioned the credibility of Petraeus's prior testimony to Congress when in a previous tour of duty the General was in charge of training Iraqi troops. "He told us it was going great; as we've looked back, it didn't go so well". Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey said on Wednesday, the same day as Petraeus's USA Today interview, that on average Iraqi units arriving in Baghdad for the surge are only at 75% of their mandated strength. He added that one in six Iraqi policeman trained by the US had deserted, disappeared or been killed or wounded. Referring to Petraeus'a much touted testimony to Congress in September, Reid said he is "waiting to see if General Petreaus can be more candid with us."
White House spokesman Tony Snow attacked Reid saying "at a time of war, for a leader of a party that says it supports the military, it seems outrageous to be issuing slanders toward...the man who's responsible for the bulk of military operations in Iraq." But by making Petraeus the man whose word in September will be the deciding factor in their decision on whether to support further unlimited funding of the Iraq war or to join Democrats in supporting a phased withdrawal, Republicans have turned Petraeus's credibility into fair game. If his depictions of progress this week are contradicted by the Pentagon and his own generals, why should his word in September be the primary factor in evaluating the success of the "surge"?
Does anyone really think that the General who devised the strategy for the "surge" and led its implementation is going to come back in September and say "I made a mistake. The surge is a failure. 1,000 more American soldiers and untold numbers of Iraqi's have died for my mistake." Come September, he is almost certain to report a mixture of good and bad news and say he needs more time.
Gen. Petraues may be a distinguished soldier. But so was Gen. Douglas McArthur who was relieved of his command of the Korean War by Pres. Harry Truman for insubordination. So was Gen. William Westmoreland, the American commander in Vietnam, under whose command, the American military "won every battle until it lost the war" and who was relieved of his command by Lyndon Johnson after the Tet Offensive turned the American people against the Vietnam War. If Gen. Petreaus is to join Pres. Bush as the "decider" for Congressional Republicans on their future support of the Iraq War, then his credibility is very much an issue.
