« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Petraeus: September "Not A Deadline For Change In Policy"
For weeks, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker have dialed down expectations that their progress report on Iraq, scheduled to be delivered to Congress in September, will represent a decisive moment for the war. Today, in an interview with the Times of London, Petraeus went much further:
“That is a deadline for a report not a deadline for a change in policy, at least not that I am aware of. Ambassador Crocker and I intend to go back and provide a snapshot at that time, however focused the photograph is at that time and begin to describe what has been achieved and what has not been achieved and also to provide some sense of implications of courses of action. Neither of us is under any illusion.”
More controversially, Petraeus defended his decision to arm and equip Sunni tribal fighters vowing to go after al-Qaeda. In recent weeks, the Maliki government has expressed concern that Petraeus's approach both undercuts the effort to build an Iraqi Army and risks creating a new series of quasi-official Sunni militias. But Petraeus, who formerly helmed the U.S. training effort in Iraq, portrayed the militiamen as potential Army recruits:
"In Anbar Province tribes have always been important. You can't ignore the tribes, they are of enormous importance. If you have a police support unit, you put them through a 40-hour course we call them police auxiliary in the US. You want to tie them in. Get them on the payroll. Then you can get them to enlist in the army. Those are working. They swear allegiance to Iraq. Those oaths mean something to people who put premium on honour."
To date, many militiamen have enlisted in the Iraqi security forces, but the result has often been increasing sectarianism within the Army and police, rather than the development of a national espirit d'corps. It may be that the "photograph" Crocker and Petraeus provide in September will be of two missions -- fighting al-Qaeda and supporting national unity -- that conflict with each other.
Comments (17)
Samsara wrote on June 22, 2007 9:10 AM:“That is a deadline for a report not a deadline for a change in policy, at least not that I am aware of."
OK, that’s it! General Petraeus just lost the benefit of my doubt. If Harry Reid wants to call him incompetent, be my guest.
We had six years of this kind of "Rumsfeld speak" coming from the Pentagon. Now it’s coming from our commander in the field. He knows damn well that both parties in Congress are looking at the September report as being central in determining the future course of the war. He is just echoing the White House spin.
Sorry general, lying to the American people is Tony Snow's job. How about you give a fewer interviews and focus on keeping a few more dads and moms alive after your surge to nowhere.
Eugene Robinson called it, Bait and Switch.
David wrote on June 22, 2007 10:27 AM:http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070621/A_OPINION0608/706210313/-1/A_OPINION06
Intoning that Petraeus is incompetent and lying shows ignorance. Obviously, if you had read and thought about what is contained in the manual about counter-insurgency, that Petraeus co-authored, you'd have a more firm grasp on what Petraeus knows and understands. Petraeus is one of the better Generals to come along in a long time.
Samsara wrote on June 22, 2007 11:32 AM:David,
I am ignorant of the manual and would be obliged if you could tell me where I could find a copy. The competence of our commanders and out troops is being wasted in Iraq because Bush has placed them in a situation where victory depends on the competence of the Iraqis. As to General Petraeus, I hope you are right about him, and that in September he speaks the truth, but trying to spin the media is not his job.
Scott L wrote on June 22, 2007 11:53 AM:Say hello to General Westmorland-- sorry General Petraeus. And the band plays on.
yathrib wrote on June 22, 2007 12:04 PM:Your photo shows the two-star Lt. Gen. Petraeus; the Iraq War has been good for his career. He received his second star in 2004 before he began training the Iraqi Army (I'm glad they're leading the fight these days, I just wish it weren't against American forces), his third star (Maj. Gen.)when he came back to the US (where he wrote a novel, Field Manual 3-24, in which smart generals given enough resources can bring order to failed countries), and his fourth star (Gen.) when he went back to Iraq.
David wrote on June 22, 2007 1:10 PM:Counterinsurgency Field Manual, FM 3-24
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf
you can even purchase the manual here:
David wrote on June 22, 2007 1:19 PM:http://www.amazon.com/Counterinsurgency-Field-Manual-Intelligence-Ring-bound/dp/1422008517
To Samsara,
Victory in Iraq?
you mean defeating the Iraq Army and overthrowing Saddam and the Baathists?
you mean making sure Iraq was rid of WMDs?
you mean getting elections to happen and them starting a Constitution for themselves?
so far, we've accomplished a great deal.
As to your point about trusting the competence of the Iraqis? Good point!
Samsara wrote on June 22, 2007 5:51 PM:David,
Thanks for the link. I will read and think about the ideas in the manual as you suggest. :)
The military has accomplished or made possible all that you list. The question is, how much more needs to be done before our troops can be re-deployed?
Victory in Iraq?
Victory in Iraq is defined by the administration in Stages.
Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html
Ok, let’s take for granted that these goals are achievable. They will require a commitment beyond the Bush administration, perhaps well into the next decade. I think it is high time a debate took place reflecting the political realities. Bush’s term will soon end, and his successor is unlikely to have the same goals. It is even less likely to have the same level of commitment to the Al-Maliki government. When General Petraeus says that his report is not a deadline for a change in policy, he is setting the stage for the can to be kicked down the road another few months. I don’t want that, and neither should General Petraeus.
It is time to make the hard decisions about our involvement in Iraq. Let’s get the facts from our generals, and then find a way forward that has the support of a majority of Americans as represented in the United States Congress. That’s how I would define victory in Iraq, and it starts at home.
John R. Mitchell wrote on June 23, 2007 4:44 AM:My Fiancee, John R. Mitchell and I have posted some completely outrageous comment in the past few years and want to apologize to this forum.
I’ve been under the umbrella of an illness most people do not talk about. The doctors currently have me under closer supervision and back on a regular schedule of routine medication.
John Mitchell and I have been on a roller coaster ride of medication, professional help and conspiracy theories for years. So needless to say we both have illnesses we will, for obvious reason, not post here today.
Again If you would like more information please write or email me at:
John Mitchell
SeeDee wrote on June 23, 2007 8:15 AM:C/O
Robin Boerner
Po Box 771765
Eagle River, Alaska 99577
Email: Johnmitchell@makethearmyhonest.com
Cell: 907-360-0224
Allowing (or urging) Field Commanders and/or Theater Commanders to speak on matters of policy involving the operations they command is a bull-s..t tactic that has been used in wars like 'Nam and this debacle in Iraq because the Commander-in-Chief and his spokesmen cannot convince the American public of the rightness of his policies.
Certainly, not even Eisenhower spoke out on policies involving political questions in the ETO during WWII...and when prima donna MacArthur did so in the Korean conflict he was fired (rightly so) by Truman.
Samsara's mention of the 'few more months' remaining in Bush's term may be eclipsed by the even shorter tenure of the Americans' choice for PM in Iraq (al Maliki). What then?
Try to defend Petraeus all you like...he still comes across as a syncophantic but-kisser of the upper echelon...and if you think his record of 'training Iraqis' is so great, why are we still having to back up every action in which they engage?
Reid was correct in tagging Petraeus (if, indeed, he was referring to Petraeus) as in-competent.
I suppose David would try to tell us that Rumdfeld (Who was finally, reluctantly, let go by 'W') is/was not in-competent, too.
Samsara wrote on June 23, 2007 10:57 AM:John and Robin,
Best of health to both of you.
David wrote on June 23, 2007 1:08 PM:re: Samsara
Date: June 22, 2007 5:51 PM
You are quite correct in noting that some of the goals you spoke of will require a long time committment. I believe that Petraeous has spoken similarly and you'll find that the counter-insurgency manual doesn't offer a quick fix either; which is why he is operating under the with the idea that Sept is a report date (for him). Obviously, any decisions to abandon Iraq would be political.
As an active Army guy myself, my understanding is that it is my job to fight where I'm told to and not make political judgements and Petraeuos is req'd the same. I have also been trained to observe orders unless they are illegal, indecent, or immoral and I don't see me going to Iraq and serving as an order that I would refuse.
Hey, me and a whole lot of other guys don't like riding around waiting for IEDs to "find" us but then again, our job is not like being a politicol talking head or what ever.
Your posts are interesting reading, thanks.
David wrote on June 23, 2007 2:54 PM:slight correction to my last post;
Hey, me and a whole lot of other guys don't like riding around waiting for IEDs to "find" us but danger comes with the territory (i.e. being in the Army/Marines) ... our job is not like being a political talking head, pollster, or what ever. I'd rather fight over there than here. Or, would you rather see us patrolling the streets here. like we did after 911?
David wrote on June 23, 2007 3:00 PM:re: SeeDee
"I suppose David would try to tell us that Rumdfeld (Who was finally, reluctantly, let go by 'W') is/was not in-competent, too."
I'm not a Pentagon weenie so I won't pass judgement on Rumsfeld.
However, Petraeuos has had an outstanding record of success since he first set foot in Iraq, years ago. Check the record sometime.
I've read the counterinsurgency manual. In some ways you can see where Petraeuos recognized the need to do things differently in Iraq than has been the case. The manual is somewhat revolutionary or evolutionary depending on your point of view. In my opinion, it is too bad that Petraeuos wasn't put in charge a couple years ago.
He's not going to be a miracle worker but if anyone can make a good difference, he's the man.
Gandhi wrote on June 23, 2007 8:26 PM:In September the tools will tell us to wait till January. In January we'll be told that it's too early: give it some more time.
In the middle of 2008 it's going to be too hot for an assessment and then (at the order of the neocons) the tools will drag their feet until 2009.
Leaving their mess for the next president, that's all the bastards can do. This way the fake patriots hope to be able to blame him for the neocons' miserable failures.
Morgan wrote on June 24, 2007 2:07 PM:Right on Gandhi - remember the General told the Senate Hearing comm. regarding the surge that he would report back to Congress and the American people in 60 days, he didn't, then 90 days, he didn't, then during the summer, he isn't, now Sept.???
The fact is General Petraeus, Bush/Cheney and the republicans in congress deceived the American public who pay the price in blood and treasure. The "surge" was intended all along to be an escalation, something the American public would not have gone along with.
I call that just plain old "lying" - how refreshing it would if our government our military, respected citizens enough to speak the truth. As proven in Vietnam (We were a military family during that time) - the truth will come out but in the meantime the toll paid by those involved will be heartbreaking. Will the public allow this to happen again?
Samsara wrote on June 24, 2007 10:48 PM:No David, Thank you.