They Did What !

Finally! The long awaited Petraeus report is in and now we know… what?

Is the surge a success? It’s hard to say, there is still a lot of violence but…well maybe… in some areas… but then there are the questions about the alliance with the Sunni tribal leaders against al Qaida – where could that lead down the road?

Is the Iraq government meeting its benchmarks? Well not really… but wait, at the local level there are some signs of progress… and taking into account the traumatic lives of the Iraqi people – first the years of fear under Saddam, now the fear of violence that is a daily constant – rapid change is improbable but movement from the bottom up seems encouraging, more likely to be sustainable than change from the top down.

Should we stay or should we go? Yes and no. We should stay but some of us can go. Maybe by April 2008 we will have drawn down the number of troops that were added in the surge. That puts us back to where we were in January when we ask for a reduction of troops. Does that mean when we are going to bring troops home, first we send more so that we can have a reduction without actually reducing the number of troops?

Is the war making America safer? Even Petraeus doesn’t know. “I don’t know, actually” he said when asked that question.

Reactions to the testimony of Petraeus and Crocker were just as mixed.

Senators said…

SEN. BARACK OBAMA, (D) "We have now set the bar so low that modest improvement in what was a completely chaotic situation ... is considered success. And it's not. This continues to be a disastrous foreign policy mistake."

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, (R) General Petraeus and his troops ask just two things of us: the time to continue this strategy and the support they need to carry out their mission. They must have both, and we should fight to ensure that they do."

Representatives said…

IKE SKELTON, (D) "General Petraeus who sits here before us is almost certainly the right man for the job in Iraq. But he's the right person three years too late and 250,000 troops short. If we had your vision and approach early on we might not have gotten to the point where our troops are caught in the midst of brutal sectarian fighting."

DUNCAN HUNTER, (R) "The idea that this Congress is going to arbitrarily overlay a requirement for a reduction in American forces when we are moving toward a maturing of the Iraqi forces and a successful handoff which will be a victory for the United States, I think should not be supported by this body."

Syndicated columnists said…

GENE LYONS, United Media: "The bitter but unmistakable truth about Iraq is this: From the vaunted 'Petraeus Report' onward, U.S. policy will have one overriding purpose, deflecting blame for the ongoing catastrophe everywhere but where it belongs -- on President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Bush remains incapable of accepting responsibility, Cheney of admitting error. All the rest is misdirection. Anybody who imagines differently hasn't been paying attention."

CAL THOMAS, Tribune Media Services: "The gist of the opposition to the war and to the reports by Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker is that they are either not telling the truth about Iraq, or they are not telling the entire truth.... [But] the only hope in this war is to win it, no matter how much frustration, or division in Iraq (and America) and no matter how long it takes."

Letters to the Editor said…

Richard C. Gentilcore, Fort Lauderdale, FL: I have heard Gen. David H. Petraeus, and I am not impressed. I learned in the Marine Corps (1966-69) during the Vietnam War that the military is the ultimate “can do” organization. Our generals can solve any problem, no matter how intractable. They will never give up or admit failure. They will always exude confidence and resolve, always see progress, however illusionary or fleeting, and they will always ask for a little more time “to get the job done.”

Beth Thurman, Fort Worth, TX: “I have no doubt that Gen. David H. Petraeus called the situation as he saw it with pure intentions and a mind to safeguard his biggest assets, his men on the ground. If the American people want to question the handling of the war, that is their right and privilege. If the American people want to question General Petraeus’s allegiance and honesty, they have nowhere to look but in the mirror.”

In my opinion, the one that nailed it was Rupert Cornwell in the Belfast Telegraph who said...

Not long ago, the Petraeus report was billed as the make-or-break moment. There are 49 Senate Republicans. By this summer, enough of them wobbled on Iraq to question the party's ability to muster the 41 votes needed to sustain a filibuster. Without a filibuster, the Democratic-controlled Congress would be able to bring matters to a head, with legislation demanding Mr Bush set a timetable for withdrawal.

But, the President urged, wait for Petraeus, and the thin red line held. Now it too looks stronger. The general's line that the surge is working, and that a troop drawdown can begin this year, appears to have convinced most of the doubters to give the White House more time to put Iraq in order.

So, huff and puff as they will, Congressional Democrats can do nothing, for the next few months at least. A besieged White House can meanwhile savor the rare pleasure of watching the opposite party tear itself apart, as the anti-war Democratic base vents its frustration and fury on a leadership that cannot deliver on the promises that carried Democrats to victory in the midterm elections just 10 months ago.

Such is the Petraeus effect in the Washington political hothouse. In the real world, of soldiers coming home in coffins, of Iraqi civilians slaughtered in car bombs and a country coming apart, it is another matter.

And isn't that the matter we should all be concerned about and talking about? This war is not fodder for political posturing, it is a matter of people living, dying, or being maimed for life. Shouldn't all other concerns – being right, winning or losing, blaming and finger pointing, gaining control of Iraq’s oil, political legacies – be looked at in the light of the cost in human lives?