| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Krauthammer: Give Petraeus This Chance... |
| 2007-07-13 |
| The stakes are too high not to. By Charles Krauthammer The key to turning (Anbar) around was the shift in allegiance by tribal sheiks. But the sheiks turned only after a prolonged offensive by American and Iraqi forces, starting in November, that put al-Qaeda groups on the run. — New York Times, July 8 Finally, after four terribly long years, we know what works. Or what can work. A year ago, a confidential Marine intelligence report declared Anbar province (which comprises about a third of Iraq’s territory) lost to al Qaeda. Now, in what the Times’s John Burns calls an “astonishing success,” the tribal sheiks have joined our side and committed large numbers of fighters that, in concert with American and Iraqi forces, have largely driven out al Qaeda and turned its former stronghold of Ramadi into one of most secure cities in Iraq. It began with a U.S.-led offensive that killed or wounded more than 200 enemy fighters and captured 600. Most important was the follow-up. Not a retreat back to American bases, but the setting up of small posts within the population that, together with the Iraqi national and tribal forces, have brought relative stability to Anbar. The same has started happening in many of the Sunni areas around Baghdad, including Diyala province — just a year ago considered as lost as Anbar — where, for example, the Sunni insurgent 1920 Revolution Brigades have turned against al Qaeda and joined the fight on the side of U.S. and Iraqi government forces. We don’t yet know if this strategy will work in mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods. Nor can we be certain that this cooperation between essentially Sunni tribal forces and an essentially Shiite central government can endure. But what cannot be said — although it is now heard daily in Washington — is that the surge, which is shorthand for Gen. David Petraeus’s new counterinsurgency strategy, has failed. The tragedy is that, just as a working strategy has been found, some Republicans in the Senate have lost heart and want to pull the plug. It is understandable that Sens. Lugar, Voinovich, Domenici, Snowe, and Warner may no longer trust President Bush’s judgment when he tells them to wait until Petraeus reports in September. What is not understandable is the vote of no confidence they are passing on Petraeus. These are the same senators who sent him back to Iraq by an 81-0 vote to institute his new counterinsurgency strategy. A month ago, Petraeus was asked whether we could still win in Iraq. The general, who had recently attended two memorial services for soldiers lost under his command, replied that if he thought he could not succeed he would not be risking the life of a single soldier. Just this week, Petraeus said that the one thing he needs more than anything else is time. To cut off Petraeus’s plan just as it is beginning — the last surge troops arrived only last month — on the assumption that we cannot succeed is to declare Petraeus either deluded or dishonorable. Deluded in that, as the best-positioned American in Baghdad, he still believes we can succeed. Or dishonorable in pretending to believe in victory and sending soldiers to die in what he really knows is an already failed strategy. That’s the logic of the wobbly Republicans’ position. But rather than lay it on Petraeus, they prefer to lay it on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and point out his government’s inability to meet the required political “benchmarks.” As a longtime critic of the Maliki government, I agree that it has proved itself incapable of passing laws important for long-term national reconciliation. But first comes the short term. And right now we have the chance to continue to isolate al Qaeda and, province by province, deny it the Sunni sea in which it swims. A year ago, it appeared that the only way to win back the Sunnis and neutralize the extremists was with great national compacts about oil and power sharing. But Anbar has unexpectedly shown that even without these constitutional settlements, the insurgency can be neutralized and al Qaeda defeated at the local and provincial level with a new and robust counterinsurgency strategy. The costs are heartbreakingly high — increased American casualties as the enemy is engaged and spectacular suicide bombings designed to terrify Iraqis and demoralize Americans. But the stakes are extremely high as well. In the long run, agreements on oil, federalism, and de-Baathification are crucial for stabilizing Iraq. But their absence at this moment is not a reason to give up in despair, now that we finally have a counterinsurgency strategy in place that is showing success against the one enemy that both critics and supporters of the war maintain must be fought everywhere and at all cost — al Qaeda. |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #5 Anonymoose --- thank you. Deep in my heart, I wanted to say this, but I have not the right words, or the back ground to back this up. Hehe.... I've envision, Patraeus, with all his military bearing, his confidence and his trust both for his warriors and his warriors for him, appearing before Congress. A screenwriter's dream. He, with shoulders back, head up, chin out, a soldier's stance for him, presenting to Congress, number by number, point by point, picture by picture, of the changes in Iraq. Presenting in such a way, there is no question, just silence when he finishes, cause, there is nothing left to say. I read this today, "They say that, in wartime, all the real leaders rise to the top and the "peacetime" leaders leave. I've been waiting around for awhile... maybe this war is finally starting to have that effect as well." |
| Posted by: Sherry 2007-07-13 23:59 |
| #4 Again, I suspect that when September rolls around, the General will drop a bombshell: that the surge worked, and that large numbers of combat troops are packing up to come home. The democrats suspect this, and are shaking in their boots that's what he's going to say. Or if they don't suspect this, they are really, really dumb. But the irony is that as explosive as that sounds, the devil is in the details. Indeed a lot of troops will be coming home, because they are no longer needed, but lots will be staying on. Far more than just trainers, there will be lots of combat troops both in country and on the Gulf, more than enough to provide combat support and pickup operations as needed. A large portion of SOCOM will also be staying around. The idea is to have a big blow-off in which they loudly proclaim "The Troops Are Coming Home!", after which anyone who says we must "bring the troops home" will be looked at funny, like they haven't heard the news or something. It will kill Iraq as a campaign issue, mostly because the public will be fatigued from the whole anti war thing, and won't give two hoots about any more whining. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-07-13 22:37 |
| #3 Give him this chance, or else. September, not tomorrow. |
| Posted by: newc 2007-07-13 21:39 |
| #2 Benchmarks might have been a sop for the carping dhimmicrats to shut them up. I don't think they stand for much else. Can you imagine if WWII had been fought using "benchmarks?" Our leaders decided to win the war no matter what it would take or how long it would take. WIN the war and you will know when you have won. The rest of the laundry list can be addressed after the win. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-07-13 12:57 |
| #1 Correct in spirit, but it almost underlines the jaw-dropping weirdness of strategy discussions in the last few years. We didn't "discover" that killing the enemy, seizing the initiative, and living in his house was the way to defeat him - that was obvious, logical, commonsensical, and well established by, well, every such conflict in history. "Duh". The wonder was that Casey, Chiarelli, and the administration believed (if they did) for two minutes that the all-leverage, magic, and political progress "strategy" would achieve anything against ruthless killers and Sunnis who are undefeated, fearful, and arrogant. I also don't buy the excuse for the mediocre, er, moderate GOPers - they're grown-ups (hell, Lugar is even senior and "widely respected", according to major media, wow), they can think for themselves, they have access to info. They don't need to rely on the president's judgement, they can use their own. And when they do, and they can't explain it any better than they have (which is to say not at all - there's absolutely no there there, for example with Lugar), then a reasonable supposition is that they're 1) cowards 2) over their heads. The costs were "heartbreakingly high" when we were losing nearly as many people while doing essentially very little, other than to secure some elections (serious offensive action would have both secured the elections and made progress against the enemies). Now, at least, we're DOING something. Once again, the administration bears the blame for confusing people's heads with this silliness about "political benchmarks" and the importance of the legislative laundry list. Paranoid, arrogant, racist Sunnis, their fence-sitting neighbors, their Shi'a counter-parts, and the neighbors of those Shi'a who may be (temporarily) enlisted with the Quds force or some criminal gang - all people don't give a flying f**k about the oil bill, de-Ba'athification reform, or anything else on the list. I'll leave it to Krauthammer, as a trained psychiatrist, to judge whether it is a delusion or a hallucination to believe that security is not the first and essential step in winning a conflict like this. (there's also plain sloppy thinking in confusing the importance and timing of reconstruction as part of the overall process, which it is - but later) But these afflictions are found in abundance in uniformed personnel, and they will plague us beyond the current administration. Petraeus can help reduce the fever (wildly mixing metaphors) by achieving something with the sword here, and making sure it's reported accurately within the services. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-07-13 12:24 |