When General David Petraeus was first appointed the U.S. Supreme Commander in Iraq back in February, Republicans and Democrats alike generally approved. Petraeus was seen as having three strong qualities for the job. First, he knew how to work with the local population. Second, he was a strategic, long-term thinker. Third, he believed the final solution for Iraq would be political, not a military one.
Yesterday, Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, provided much-anticipated testimony before Congress regarding the progress of the so-called "Surge" in Iraq. That testimony left Democrats deeply dissatisfied and anti-war activists howling in outrage.
The political group MoveOn.org led the charge. Anticipating Petraeus's testimony, they took out an ad in the New York Times that read, "General Petraeus or General Betray Us? Cooking the books for the White House." That invective provided endless fodder for Republican politicians to chew on and spit out during the hearings, rather than focusing on what Petraeus had to say.
In many ways, the General gave one of the more fair and impartial evaluations of Iraq that I have ever heard from a Bush appointee. While he provided voluminous data that showed violence was down, he readily admitted it was still nowhere near acceptable levels. He also conceded Iraqi officials were slower than expected at ending sectarian strife and taking over security responsibilities. Ambassador Crocker was, if anything, even grimmer regarding the political situation.
Where the two fell short of satisfying Democrats was their refusal to conclude from all this that Iraq was a failure and massive troop withdrawals should commence immediately. Instead, Petraeus and Crocker argued for yet again more time to allow conditions in Iraq to stabilize.
The disappointment at such news is hardly surprising for a country already grown weary with the war. A New York Times/CBS poll finds that sixty-two percent of Americans believe the Iraq war was a mistake, fifty-nine percent say it is not worth the cost or loss in lives, and nearly two-thirds say the US should reduce its troops there now or withdraw them. Even two-thirds of the military families polled disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq and fifty-six percent said members of his Administration had misled the public when making its case for the war.
Likewise, an AP-Ipsos survey found that only thirty-six percent of Americans believe the troop increase has helped stabilize Iraq.
That perception is reinforced by a poll in Iraq, conducted jointly by ABC News, Britain's BBC, and Japan's public broadcaster NHK. It found a similar majority of Iraqis unhappy with the war's progress, with forty-seven percent desiring coalition forces to leave the country immediately. Despite Petraeus's data, seventy percent of those surveyed believe security has worsened where the added forces were sent, with another eleven percent saying the buildup has had no effect. Only a quarter said their own communities had become safer in the past half year.
Even if Petraeus is correct, the results he reported had a definite "so what?" quality about them. Reducing violence in Iraq was a desired outcome but it was also the means to an end, "buying time . . . for Iraqi political reconciliation," as columnist George Will notes. Yet a recent study by the Government Accountability Office, demonstrated that Iraq has partially achieved only four of eighteen political and military goals.
As Democratic Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, pointed out yesterday, the issue at stake is something larger than whether the Surge is (marginally) curbing violence. It is whether "the war [is] worth the risk of breaking our army and being unable to deal with other risks to our nation."
All of this has caused most left-leaning pundits and analysts to join the bandwagon denouncing Petraeus as little more than an Administration shill. In the Washington Post, columnist Eugene Robinson bemoans the "Six Months Without End" and the New York Times lead editorial dismisses Petraeus and Crocker's testimony as "Empty Calories."
Yet there was one thing Petraeus accomplished - which no other commander before him has done - that causes me to believe he is less a betrayer and more a delayer. This was the announcement of his intention to immediately withdraw a two thousand-member Marine unit without replacement. This will be followed in mid-December with the departure of an Army brigade numbering thirty-five hundred to four thousand soldiers. Yet another four brigades will be withdrawn by July 2008.
Petraeus had no specific withdrawals in mind and said it would be March 2008 before he could offer any other, based on ongoing conditions in Iraq. However, has anybody really thought about what this means?
Granted, I side more with Democratic Representative Tom Lantos of California, the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, that this is only a "token withdrawal," as opposed to Petraeus's insistence that it represents a "very substantial withdrawal."
Still, even if they are tokens, these withdrawals represent the first drawdown in U.S. troop levels since the Iraq war began. Furthermore, they are announced withdrawals with dates associated with them. This is something that, up to now, President Bush has opposed on even the smallest scale as a timetable - an unacceptable signal that would give our enemies advance notice of our intention to leave and embolden them.
But there was no belligerent disavowal of this or any other aspect of Petraeus's testimony by Bush. In fact, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said the President "liked what he heard last week" when he was first briefed on Petraeus's plans.
That briefing, as you may recall, resulting in Bush making an unexpected visit to Iraq. It seems to me this argues in favor of Petraeus making headway in convincing Bush that withdrawals, rather than tantamount to surrender, were in fact part of a necessary strategy to bring about long-term success in the region; a strategy necessitated by the President's unwillingness to recruit, train and equip the necessary forces required, even after deciding to attack Iraq.
Petraeus may have convinced Bush that he was not simply his best military friend in Iraq but his only friend. Newsweek reports a separate internal that is report being prepared by a Pentagon working group will "differ substantially" from Petraeus's recommendations, instead recommending "a very rapid reduction . . . as much as two-thirds of the existing force very quickly."
So columnists and editors on big papers from both coasts might want to lift their heads above the noise of the "it's not enough!" crowd long enough to hear what the more conservative heartland thinks about Petraeus. The Chicago Tribune, for example, found his schedule for troop reductions "somewhat speedier than expected." And they predict, correctly I believe, that many "Americans who want a scheduled drawdown of U.S. troops got part of what they desire."
It is probably unsurprising that Petraeus, like many of the soldiers he commands in Iraq, desires to avoid an end to the war that makes all they have tried to accomplish there seem in vain. To that purpose, he does indeed delay the demands of anti-war activists who want an immediate, large-scale end to our involvement there. However, he also has belayed the odorant insistence of his Commander-In-Chief that any timed withdrawals are no different from capitulation.
Iraq is a political war right now in Washington, with both Parties counting on it as the lynchpin for victory in the 2008 Presidential election. For Republicans, the aura of success there is key. For Democrats, it is forcing a change of course through troop reductions. Petraeus understands all final solutions are political ones and so offered something to which both Parties can cling.
If his recommendations are followed, then troop levels will be back to pre-Surge levels and no tours will be extended for forces currently serving in Iraq by the time President Bush leaves office. That may not seem like much but Petraeus also believes all final solutions are long-term ones. And as he has already demonstrated both in Iraq and yesterday in Washington, he knows how to work with the local population.
