What Petraeus Didn’t Say
From The Atlantic:
A critical moment during the Petraeus/Crocker [Congressional] hearings yesterday came when the general refused to play along. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), referring to the Democratic presidential candidates, urged, cajoled, and all but begged Petraeus to state that a rapid, one-brigade-a-month troop withdrawal would be a disaster. But Petraeus was cautious: “It clearly will depend on the conditions at the time.
This could be potentially undermining to any war hawks out there that assert a potential reduction in troops will precipitate immediate instability, the massacring of women and children, and the resurgence of al-Queda. Petraeus, someone I’ve regarded with relative esteem, seems to be understanding the game at hand. He knows that although the “surge” may have quelled some of the violence, it isn’t a permanent fix. The general understands that permanent American presence at the current rate is a political non-starter. He also understands that, more than likely, he’ll be working for a Democratic president come next year.
It will indeed be amusing to watch the GOP dance around the general who’s “surge” strategy they all but worshiped. As Petraeus and other policy makers begin to acknowledge the tactical and political realities of the situation, it seems that the forthcoming policy decisions will have support of both the Democrats, who want a reduction in forces, and the leadership, who have come to grips with the fact that massive troop occupation hasn’t accomplished the set goals. As Petraeus so sullenly put it during his testimony before Congress, “We havne’t turned any corners. We haven’t seen any lights at the end of the tunnel.”
Contrary to the McCain strategy of “stay in Iraq, as long as it takes,” the Democrats will have the opportunity to provide an alternative strategy, like a “residual” or “over-the-horizon” ready force. Instead of “stay the course,” perhaps what we can do is replace the current strategy for one that won’t keep us in Iraq for “100 years.”
Someone had pointed out earlier that McCain was praising the Basra crackdown during the testimony of Petraeus, but I have only seen him criticizing its effectiveness and the desertion and also the rise in violence within the Green Zone. It didnt sound like a praise that someone claimed McCain had done.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/04/mccains_qa_with_general_petrae.html
With respect to the main point of this post, I am glad that Petraeus is trying to stay above the political frey. He needs to be able to give his expert advice in order to further his duties as leader of the military in that region, not any political agenda that he may believe in or be pressured to advance. Aslo, I didn’t get a chance to respond to this earlier, but I thought that many of you who are now supporting the newly (that is a relative term) leaked policy by the two Democratic presidential candidates were all for a complete withdrawal. I remembered having discussions with you all on this exact topic. I am just wondering if you guys have changed your beliefs or what, because I am a little confused. Also, don’t you think that releasing this information in political debates (even if it is in the general election with McCain) that it would be detrimental to the candidate because (especially in Obama’s case) both candidates have been adamant about a complete withdrawal early on in their presidency? Even if it were a blow to shut McCain and the GOP as portraying the Democrats as “cutting and running” as they like to say, wouldn’t it be an even bigger blow to that candidates reliability and Democratic base support?
I apologize for bringing this back up, but I wanted to chime in and saw that it was too long ago that the post was made (in terms of number of blog posts).
“I am glad that Petraeus is trying to stay above the political frey.”
Me too, and I respect him for that. Petraeus needs to be kept on board, whoever makes the next Presidential administration.
“I thought that many of you who are now supporting the newly (that is a relative term) leaked policy by the two Democratic presidential candidates were all for a complete withdrawal.”
Maybe some time ago, but we’ve “matured” — to put it plainly. It hasn’t been a radical change, nor has it been just a partisan swing.
“both candidates have been adamant about a complete withdrawal early on in their presidency?”
They always gave the impression that they’d fully withdrawal; however, that wasn’t the case — nor is it the case now, not even close.
“wouldn’t it be an even bigger blow to that candidates reliability and Democratic base support?”
It’ll be interesting to see how this is played out. I suspect that they’ll catch flak for it, but this is politics and politicians say what people want to hear.
“I apologize . . .”
You don’t need to do that. It’s a good and extremely pertinent topic.
Lieberman-
“Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups in Iraq are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?”
“It certainly is. … That is correct,” said Petraeus.
“Unchecked, the ‘special groups’ pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq.”
Wonderful. Where to next!?
When exactly did killing soldiers from an occupying army become “murder”? I must not have gotten that memo. God, Lieberman is the worst politician ever.
That’s sort of what I thought. I am surprised that Petraeus didn’t correct that misnomer.
Then again, Lieberman has an agenda on hand. That is the invasion of Iran.
“These “special groups” are “funded, trained, armed and directed by Iran’s Quds Force with help from Lebanese Hezbollah. It was these groups that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq’s seat of government (the Green Zone) … causing loss of innocent life and fear in the capital.”
Thank you Petraeus. Keep supplying ammunition to the Bush Administration and future Admins to carry out even more illegal foreign interventions.
Gen Petraeus, follow Fallon’s lead. You and your troops can help to end this war since Congress won’t do it and the people at home are divided.
A Coup has Occured
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/ellsberg2.html
“I think we’ve got to somehow get home to them [in Congress] that this is the time for them to uphold the oath, to preserve the Constitution, which is worth struggling for in part because it’s only with the power that the Constitution gives Congress responding to the public, only with that can we protect the world from mad men in power in the White House who intend an attack on Iran.”