Hamilton, Madison, and Jay

This blog is devoted to a variety of topics including politics, current events, legal issues, and we even take the time to have some occasional fun. After all, blogging is about having a little fun, right?

Name:
Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States

Who are we? We're a married couple who has a passion for politics and current events. That's what this site is about. If you read us, you know what we stand for.

Monday, April 7, 2008

The Journal looks at "The Petraeus Effect"

General David Petraeus, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker are set for another round of idiocy from Congress as they present another progress report on the Iraqi theater of operations in the "War on Terror." There's speculation that both men will be derided by Congress as nothing more than "water carriers" for the Bush Administration. However, Journal's editors point out there is considerable that is owed to General Petraeus, and the Congress is wrong to try and attack him. their track record, as the editors illuminate, is far from stellar, to say the least:

As General David Petraeus briefs Congress this week on Iraq, it's clear his surge has achieved remarkable results. The most crucial is that the U.S. can no longer be defeated militarily in Iraq, which could not be said a year ago. The question now is whether Washington will squander these gains by withdrawing so quickly that we could still lose politically.

Sixteen months after President Bush ordered the change in strategy, the surge has earned a place among the most important counteroffensives in U.S. military annals. When it began, al Qaeda dominated large swaths of central Iraq, Baghdad was a killing zone, Sunni and Shiites were heading toward civil war, and the Iraqi government was seen as a failure.

The Washington consensus – as promoted by the James Baker-Lee Hamilton Iraq Study Group – portrayed retreat as the only option. "This war is lost," declared Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in April, thus telling U.S. soldiers they were risking their lives for nothing. As late as September, Hillary Clinton had the nerve to lecture General Petraeus in a Senate hearing that "the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief."

Today, al Qaeda has been cleared from all but the northern reaches of Anbar and Diyala Provinces, Iraqis feel safe enough to resume normal lives, Sunni sheikhs are working with coalition forces, and the long process of Sunni-Shiite political reconciliation has begun. The surge seized the offensive from the enemy so rapidly that it deserves to be studied for years as an example of effective counterinsurgency.

Yes, this progress has also required some luck and Iraqi help. Al Qaeda in Iraq overplayed its hand with a brutality that turned the Sunnis against them. Four years of war had made Iraqis tired of violence, and Sunnis began to understand that they couldn't win a civil war against the Shiites but could use the Americans as leverage to negotiate a better bargain. Some 90,000 Sunnis are now working with the U.S. as part of the "Sons of Iraq" movement.

None of this would have been possible, however, if Iraqis had not seen that the U.S. was committed to protect them. General Petraeus and his chief deputy, Lieutenant General Ray Odierno, pursued a strategy that secured the population while going on offense against al Qaeda. U.S. and Iraqi troops moved into neighborhoods and lived among Iraqis, who in turn began to supply valuable intelligence about the terrorists. Faster than even the surge's architects hoped, the strategy led to far less violence.

While Democrats still claim political progress is possible only if the U.S. leaves Iraq, the surge has proved the opposite. Better security required a larger U.S. presence, which in turn has made Iraqis feel more secure about compromise. The political progress has been especially significant at the local level, with greater cooperation from tribal leaders and local councils, most Sunnis saying they'll participate in provincial elections this fall, and more oil money flowing to the provinces from Baghdad.

Much remains to be done, of course, and a premature U.S. withdrawal would put these gains at risk. Al Qaeda must still be swept from Mosul and upper Diyala, with the same U.S.-Iraqi troop strategy that worked in Baghdad. Terrorist entry routes West of Mosul from Syria also need to be stopped. And as we've learned in the last two weeks, Iraq Security Forces aren't able by themselves to impose a monopoly of force on Basra and the Shiite South.

Iraqi troops have made progress as a fighting force, but they still require U.S. help for the toughest operations. Though poorly planned, the Basra offensive showed that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is finally willing to fight Shiite gangs. The U.S. media have portrayed the battle mainly as an intra-Shiite feud and thus another example of budding "civil war." But the fight is also about Iran's attempts to stir trouble and weaken the Maliki government in favor of Iran's allies.

The U.S. has been reluctant to help in Basra, which has been British turf as part of the coalition. But the U.S. has a national interest in resisting Iranian influence, and Basra is a crucial front in that effort. As for the Brits, their failure to engage in counterinsurgency has left the Basra vacuum to be filled by Iranian-backed "special groups." The British made the same strategic mistake that former U.S. Iraq commanders George Casey and John Abizaid made in 2006 in Baghdad. The U.S. will have to deploy one or more brigades to Basra to help the Maliki government assert its control.

The five U.S. surge brigades are scheduled to return home in July, and one question Congress should ask General Petraeus is whether that pace makes him uneasy. He's under enormous Pentagon pressure, especially from the Army, to send those troops home. But if, say, three brigades could help solidify the surge's gains by staying another few months, the General should say so. One of Mr. Bush's mistakes in this war has been deferring too much to Pentagon brass who have always had one eye on the Iraq exit.


Americans are understandably impatient with the war, but we have sacrificed too much, and made too much progress in the last year, not to finish the task. The surge has prevented a humiliating military defeat, and now is the time to sustain that commitment to achieve a political victory.

For the Democrats to attack him on the record of the Surge's success requires a suspension of disbelief. The man has accomplished what so many -- Republican and Democrat alike -- believed to be impossible. No one can say that the Surge hasn't succeeded (Unless you're Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and then you're quite simply nuts) in ways we couldn't have imagined.

But the key to that success was Petraeus putting his faith in the men and women under his command, and their faith in him, and in putting his faith in the fact that Iraqis want a better life, and one without the constant threat of violence or reprisal by an enemy our countries share. It is not the Iraqi that have both sides concerned. It is the foreign fighter -- the terrorist -- in their midst that threatens their way of life, and our security.

General David Petraeus executed a plan that involved the Iraqis as much as it involved us. He had to make the Iraqis believe, really believe, we were there in their best interests. He worked with Sunni and Shia to send that message far and wide that America will never leave you or abandon you. We are here to, quite literally, help. We understand you need time to make things work, and we're going to give it to you.

On the back of the Surge Iraqis have begun a painstaking process of political reconciliation, and have achieved most of the benchmarks set forth. The Anbar Awakening is real, and it is working against AQI. AQI is virtually nullified in Iraq, and despite critics, it is, in fact, in its last throes. Desperate times have called for desperate measures, yet they lack the desperate men to carry out such operations. AQI can't recruit new fighters. They took to victimizing the civilian populace, and it backfired on them in the Anbar Awakening and "Sons of Iraq" movement. The Iraqi security forces no longer fear dealing with AQI because their successes against it are overwhelming.

The Democrats can't pat themselves on the back for this. They didn't do it. They didn't help it. They hindered it with over sixty attempts to defund the operations in Iraq. They chastised him last September when he returned for his first report. They were silent when MoveOn.numbnuts ran the "Betray Us" ad in the New York Times.

He did this all. He and about 150,000 of America's finest sons and daughters. The Democrats have no bragging rights here, nor do they have the right to condemn and ignore the gains made that has turned a losing prospect into a welcome gain. Everyone believed that a year ago, there was no way we could conceivably win in Iraq. Even our most ardent friends had doubts. But now, those doubts are gone. While this is far from over, and we can expect to be there at least a decade, no one can argue that the Surge's success resides on the back of one man. That's General David Petraeus, and Democrats would be foolhardy to attack and demean this man, and his accomplishments.

Publius II

1 Comments:

Blogger David M said...

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 04/08/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

April 8, 2008 at 10:46 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home