The Petraeus Report: This Is What We Waited For?

"And lo, Moses turned and went down from the mountain with the two tablets of the testimony in his hand." (Exodus 32:15)

After all the hoopla from the administration, you'd think General Petraeus' testimony would be delivered on stone tablets, too. But General Petraeus isn't Moses -- and he's not the commander in chief either. Many in the media and in Washington have turned to our military leaders to make sweeping policy decisions and undo four years of arrogance and error in Iraq. Instead, thankfully, our military continues to implement the decisions of their civilian leadership. That is, after all, what the generals should do in democratic nations.

Yesterday, General Petraeus gave a moderate and forthright accounting of the uneven military progress in Baghdad, based heavily on the Pentagon's very questionable data on Iraqi civilian deaths and sectarian violence. In contrast, Ambassador Crocker, delivering the less-anticipated but much more crucial report on political reconciliation, relied on individual anecdotes and far-fetched analogies. The combined testimony suggests that our limited military success has been undercut by the failure to achieve national political reconciliation, the president's stated goal for the surge. We've known all this for weeks, if not months. Remind me what we were all waiting for?

Even the big news -- the planned decrease in troop strength -- was nothing new. Hitting pre-surge levels by mid-2008 isn't just a strategic goal. It's a practical necessity. Top military brass admitted more than a month ago that the surge cannot persist after April 2008 without extending tours to 18 months or instituting a draft. Simply put, we're out of troops.

Which brings us to the real issue, one that falls outside the scope of General Petraeus's report. Because of the Iraq War, our military is stretched to the breaking point. Troops are now serving the longest overseas deployments since World War Two, and almost half a million troops have served more than one tour. Four-fifths of Army Guard and Reserve units not currently deployed have the lowest possible readiness rating, and 88 percent of those National Guard units are considered very poorly equipped. Bottom line: the war in Iraq is leaving us unprepared at home. That means we're at higher risk during natural disasters, as all 50 governors nationwide have warned. Moreover, as the recent arrests in Germany show, Iraq is not some kind of terrorist flypaper. We are still at risk outside Iraq, and particularly here at home.

For months, the lead-up to the Petraeus report has sucked up all the air in any public discussion of national security. In the last few days, the debate has gotten completely out of hand, culminating in repugnant personal attacks on General Petraeus before he even delivered his report.

Those with a partisan axe to grind will find plenty of material in the Petraeus-Crocker testimonies. But it's long past time to put aside the rhetoric, and to stop waiting for answers from on high. Any responsible person following the situation in Iraq knows how few options we have left. It's time to look at them honestly, and with the future readiness of our military in mind.

Follow Paul Rieckhoff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PaulRieckhoff

Comments

[jbloggz]

Just ask this general one question. If this surge is working and people have security and safety, would you live there as a civilian? Of course he wouldn't millions of people have been up rooted and are exiles in their own country, millions have simply left. There will be no hope until the oil runs dry and America moves on. That won't be for another fifty years. Petraeus is just a puppet who sings to his masters voice. If this is indicative of a 'general' in the US military then what about the rest of em?

[Nommo]

They'll soon be looking for a replacement for Belichek up there in New England...

[eVilempire]

Superb: we're fighting them over there so that we CAN'T fight them over here. Not sure why I would expect the "LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD" to have that kinda foresight. It's not like that's what we PAY HIM TO DO or anything...

[jaygirl]

I feel so sorry for American troops who are fighting in a reckless and illegal war, that isn't really a war, but an occupation of a sovereign nation. Many have been ill prepared, under equipped, over worked, and fed a pack of lies about the reason for the war. First it was WMDs, then getting rid of Saddam, then setting up a Democracy, when all the time we went to war to steal the OIL! Our National Guard has been deployed, re-deployed, and having their deployments extended. Remember these are not career soldiers. None, I would think, expected to be in Iraq for years, fighting an unrecognizable enemy who is retaliating to save their country and its resources. In the meantime, the U.S. is not well prepared for a big crisis at home. This "war" will never end until Bush procures the lion's share of the oil according to the treaty drawn up by his administration. As for Patreaus, his military career is on the line. He would say anything that is in line with the President's agenda. I, for one, don't believe a single word that comes out of the White House or the Military. We have been fed lies for 6 years. It's like the boy who called "wolf, wolf" all the time. No one believed him when the wolf finally came around.

[rboylern]

And now it's been announced that The Decider has decided to reduce troops to pre-surge level by sometime next year. What the hell good is that going to do? I think The Decider has decided that we must remain in Iraq at least until the Second Coming. We've built quite an impressive embassy there. All of this is most disappointing.

[Marnia]

No Matter how much we complain about the war and try to figure out what to do the solution for now remains with George bush.
Until Democrats get enough votes to override his veto on money and troops this country is bound and gagged by him.
In all my life I have never seen such a leader in the United states and those who blindly follow him.
Maybe we should be hearing Bob Dylan's song "On The Eve of Destruction" a hundred times a day.
There is not enough real news on TV and in the papers so not everyone knows what is going on in this country and a lot don't even give a darn.
It's always name calling and let the other guy raise his voice.
Cant'wait til 2009.

[GeorgiaBlue]

Yesterday was just confirmation that Li'l Georgie is a world-class COWARD! There was absolutely nothing surprising or new in the "testimony" of King David and Reluctant Ryan; I could have delivered it myself because we've heard it all before from L'il Georgie's own mouth. Li'l Georgie is such a coward because he cannot admit a mistake and is willing to pick a fall-guy to take the heat for him. He is desperately trying to hold on until he leaves so he can blame the next president and the Democrats for his failure in Iraq and he doesn't care how much blood is shed in the process. He has no conscience, no integrity, no truth, no intellect, no courage (see his National Guard record) and is only looking forward to "replenishing the ole coffers". Money is his God!

[OCPatriot]

Who is kidding whom? Getting the report from Petraeus is like getting the report from the fox who's guarding the henhouse. Of course he can say, we're making progress. What else can he say? - "No, let's throw in the towel and go home?" That wasn't his mission; they didn't give him a command to fail; how idiotic can you get, if you expect an objective report from this man? He probably even believes he's objective and telling the truth.

[campaignman]

continued from last posting...

The answer would be no. Thus, since we cannot permanently retain control over Iraq, we might as well leave sooner rather than later and save lives and billions of dollars.

Fundamentally, we should have used this two-day report to make a clear case for leaving. Instead, the Dems failed to have an effective plan to win this battle. It is another reason why I fear that we will lose the next Presidential election. It's a truism but if you fail to plan, you plan to fail. The GOP is still cleaning our clock on national security because we let them. It's painful to watch.

-- The End.

[campaignman]

continued from last posting...

The Dems should have made him repeat that all day long for two days.

As for 9/11. Instead of allowing the connection between the report on Iraq and the 9/11 attack to be made, Dems should have persisted in asking both men some key questions and get them on the record.

1) Was Al Qaeda in Iraq in existence prior to our invasion? If they dodged that, the follow-up would be have been: Don't you need to understand the history of your enemy to defeat it?

2) President Bush has repeatedly said that the United States was not attacked by Iraq, but by Al Qaeda, on 9/11. Do you agree with that?

Further, he has said that, in fact, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all - even though he believed there were at the time of our attack. Do yo agree with him on that too?

So, given that,

3) If our main concern today is not weapons of mass destruction and we can hold no grudge against Iraq since they were not involved in attacking us on 9/11, and we all consider Al Qaeda in Iraq as the main threat to America, why are we not devoting all military energies entirely to isolating and defeating the handful of members of Al Qaeda in Iraq and leaving the future of the country up to the rest of Iraq?

My guess is the answer to that would have been that now that we have destroyed the country, President Bush is worried that Iran will have too much influence in whatever final government emerges.

That would clarify that our real goal is not creating a democratic government or to being peace between to warring factions but to continue to control the government so that Iran will have less influence over it.

That would have put the real issue squarely before the public: Can the United States actually prevent Iran from gaining influence over Iraq without the United States permanently imposing its control over it?

to be continued...

[campaignman]

continued from last posting...

Both men told us that we are now working with the same Sunnis that had been killing Americans and that they are now going after Al Qaeda in Iraq. That's great. Given that, we should have simply announced our continued support for supplying those Sunni tribes with the weapons they need so we can get out of Iraq.

After all, the Sunnis are far better at fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq than we are and, if we leave, we also remove the main reason for that organization's existence.

Democrats should also have had a plan to ask Petraeus and Crocker over and over whether our policies to achieve peace by cutting deals with Sunnis run counter to bringing the Sunnis and Shi'ites together to run their nation.

The answer is yes and it would have been revealing to force them to admit that.

Building up Sunni militias to fight Al Qaeda also helps them become a better fighting force against the Shi'ites after they have defeated Al Qaeda.

Thus, the tactical success runs counter to the strategic goal. In light of that, they would have been forced to admit that our policy goal of bringing Sunnis and Shi'ites together is now a pretense.

to be continued...

[campaignman]

MoveOn.org and the Dems really blew this fabulous opportunity. It really makes me sick.

MoveOn.org made a mistake by attacking Gen. Petraeus. Guys in uniforms who have put their lives on the line for this country always have a big advantage.

Further, there was no upside to attacking a man's integrity because he is doing his job. Instead, MoveOn and the Dems should have used him - and the timing of this report - against the administration.

How?

Well, Gen. Petraeus offered facts and opinions based upon those facts. We should have skipped over his canned recommendations and reviewed the facts.

First, we should have asked him about the differences between the facts he was providing and the reports that they didn't reflect the real situation because the Pentagon, not him, was mis-defining acts of violence to create an image of progress.

The Pentagon is far easier to criticize than a person. It should have been blamed.

Second, after the Dems thanked both Petraeus and Amb. Crocker for their work, they should have simply claimed that the information provided justifies a decision to leave as soon as possible and explained why.

to be continued...

[DrSRKeister]

How long will we be in Iraq? Follow the money ! As long as Halliburton; Kellog, Brown and Root;and the major oil companies are doing well we will be in what we now know as Iraq. We are fulfilling the geopolitical dictums of Hitler's geopolitical adviser Karl Haushaufer,

Of course prior to the Cairo Conference of 1921 when Churchill and Lloyd George abrogated the promises of T.E.Lawrence to the Arabs, and Gertrude Bell drew the boundaries of a new "nation" we have had an entity which the Anglo/Americans have chosen to see as an country rather than a n area of diverse tribes and ethnic groups.

[quoveritas]

two words: LIP SERVICE!!!!!

It's the American way; to speak as a DEMOCRACY/REPUBLIC, but act as an EMPIRE.

I'm disappointed at the sheer naivete of the people posting here who thought something was ever going to result from this long awaited report.

[Kendo Nagasaki]

Napoleon had the good sense to retreat from Russia.

He escaped but his troops all died.

The Little Runt in charge escapes in lies.