Petraeus Wins Another One for the Counterinsurgency
This Battle Was Not in Baghdad
By Mark I Posted in Afghanistan | Gen. David Petraeus | Iraq | Robert Gates | The Joint Chiefs of Staff | troop surge | War — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates emerged from a meeting with Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus and announced that he is inclined to take the general’s view that a pause in the withdrawal of troops from Iraq this summer is warranted. Petraeus has been advocating for the troop drawdown to take a break for a strategic assessment after U.S. force levels in Iraq reach 15 brigades this July.
“I think that the notion of a brief period of consolidation and evaluation probably does make sense. I had been kind of headed in that direction, as well.”
The Secretary’s acceptance of General Petraeus’s recommendation all but ends a debate that had been brewing within the Administration over the troop reductions. Members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had come out against a pause earlier this month over concerns for the long term health of the Army and Marine Corps. Just like he did when the surge was proposed, however, Petraeus looks to have defeated the Chiefs in an internal battle for the president’s ear.
Read on…
Recall that in late 2006, when the Bush Administration was considering its options for changing course in Iraq, the Joint Chiefs made a public stand against the idea of increasing troop levels.
The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate. […]
[T]he Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House review is not public.
The chiefs have taken a firm stand, the sources say, because they believe the strategy review will be the most important decision on Iraq to be made since the March 2003 invasion.
At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq -- including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said.
The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops, the officials said.
That assessment has turned out to be spectacularly wrong. Captured al-Qaeda documents show that the surge has been absolutely deadly for the terrorist group in Iraq. Far from inspiring more al-Qaeda attacks, the surge has resulted in losses from desertion and forced martyrdom exceeding 90%, by al-Qaeda’s own numbers, in some units.
“The Islamic State of Iraq is faced with an extraordinary crisis, especially in al-Anbar.” […]
“The renegades [citizen patrols] and Americans started launching their attacks to destroy us,” the letter reads. “We lost cities, and afterwards villages, and the desert became a dangerous refuge. We got away from people and found ourselves in a wasteland desert.” […]
“Some were killed and some arrested, but the majority betrayed us and joined the awakening.”
Having been wrong about the troop surge, the Chiefs thought that they might go up against Petraeus again, but have found that the Iraq commander is a tough general to defeat, even from within the Pentagon.
Petraeus has been right about the troop surge’s ultimate success, and has carried the strategy forward brilliantly. He, along with U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, has also managed to invade hostile territory on Capitol Hill and win at least the passive support of Democrats. All but the leadership and presidential candidates among the majority party now accept that the troop surge has been a success.
None of this is to say that the Joint Chiefs don’t have legitimate concerns. Those center around the long term sustainability of the force levels in Iraq and Afghanistan and the impact they may have on the future of the armed forces. But the counter argument to this is clear and convincing. The long term health of the U.S. military is likely to be affected more by a loss in Iraq, especially when victory is so tantalizingly close, than it is to be impacted by the additional strain that may result from extended deployments there.
General Petraeus has shown that when it comes to fighting and winning in Iraq, he knows what he is doing. The Joint Chiefs should shelve their concerns about force levels, or at least keep them private, and let Petraeus finish the job in the way in which he sees fit.
« Book Review--War and Decision — Comments (2) | Al Qaeda Opens a New Front — Comments (9) »
Petraeus Wins Another One for the Counterinsurgency 12 Comments (0 topical, 12 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
"Al-Qaeda in Iraq faces an “extraordinary crisis”. Last year's mass defection of ordinary Sunnis from al-Qaeda to the US military “created panic, fear and the unwillingness to fight”. The terrorist group's security structure suffered “total collapse”.
These are the words not of al-Qaeda's enemies but of one of its own leaders in Anbar province — once the group's stronghold. They were set down last summer in a 39-page letter seized during a US raid on an al-Qaeda base near Samarra in November. "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3346386.ece
How are Pelosi, Obama and Hillary going to spin this?
Petraeus has done everything we could expect him to do, and deserves all the credit for the improvement of the security situation on the ground. That said, it really does not matter in the long run because the situation will never stabilize until Iraq has a functioning government. No military force can solve that problem.
Bush & Co went in and got rid of Hussein, ignoring that fact that Hussein's oppression was all that kept in check the animosity among the Sunni, Shiite and Kurd factions. Just as Yugoslavia came apart after Tito's death, Iraq came apart after Hussein's overthrow. Now, with millions of Iraqis turned into refugees, and most of the cities and neighborhoods ethnically cleansed, there is nothing left except the three factions - mutually hostile and mutually unwilling to cooperate in any sort of government. In effect, Iraq was destroyed as a coherent sovereign nation and no general, no matter how good, can put it back together.
There are a number of reasons why many right wing types (led by Limbaugh, Coultr, Dobson, etc) oppose John McCain - most of which in my view are complete nonsense and not "conservative' in any real sense. The best reason to oppose McCain is that his policy in Iraq will be "George Bush: The Sequel" and will enmesh the US military in a hopeless, endless, fruitless struggle to achieve by military means what no military force can achieve - a politically stable iraqi government.
I can't believe you signed up for this piece of tripe.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I guess some people just aren't smart enough for democracy. We should just walk away and let the pieces fall where they may. What's the worst that can happen?
Yep, we should just leave them to be ruled by the kind of thugs who target civilians using mentally handicapped women as cruise missiles. It's not as though we'll ever need other countries to take us at our word again, right?
After all, there's no danger in letting the same people who engineered 9/11 (using the resources of Afghanistan) take control of the third largest oil reserves in the world, right? I mean, just because they're ruthless murderers doesn't mean we can't trust them with a vast revenue stream. Iran hasn't proven to be much of a problem, has it?
___________________________-
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)
Democracy is not always the solution. Just look at Palestine. Democracy is useless if the populace willingly elects terrorists into power. I'm not making an analogy to Iraq at all, just questioning the idea that Democracy will work everywhere (which seems to be implicit in your first paragraph).
***********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_
If we don't stay in Iraq long enough to leave behind a stable democracy, what do we leave behind instead? Whatever the answer is, I guarantee you it won't be good for the free people of the world.
_________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)
...is that Obama and Clinton (if they ever get up the nerve to deliver on what they promised over 12 months ago) will sacrifice the Iraqi people for political expediency.
Many "left wing types", disappointed that Petraeus has been able to improve security after they long-ago surrendered, are now spinning a desperate fairy tale about how Iraq's government should magically coalesce after about six months of improved security.
It will take time - just ask Harry and Nancy. They've had longer to work on their agenda than the Iraqis have and they've failed to meet *any* of their sorry benchmarks.
--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox
...to the warmed-over defeatism spewing from Minerva's Mouth.
--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox
troubles me.
Petraeus, a theater commander, is focused on winning in his theater. The long-term health of our military, while it concerns him, is not his primary worry. It is the primary concern of the Chiefs. We hold them responsible for fielding a military that can win wherever we need it, whenever we need it.
Let me be clear: I support Petraeus' position. But, I've thought through the very likely result of an extended Iraqi surge---a badly-strained, if not partially broken, force---and accepted it. It's a risk I think our nation needs to be willing to run, in order to win in Iraq.
Have the rest of us thought it through? Have we determined what international security risks we're willing to run, so that we can maintain force levels in Iraq? Are we, for example, ready to tell Taiwan that it can't expect US ground forces to reinforce it in the next 3-5 years, while we rebuild our Army and Marine Corps, if China menaces it?
I wonder if the White House has told the JCS that it is willing to risk the short-to-medium term health of our ground forces, in order to win in Iraq. I suspect that, when the JCS asks the White House, and Congress, and pundits, if they're willing to run that risk, a lot of people fall mute, start shifting uncomfortably in their seats and stare at their shoes.
My 0.02, on behalf of the Chiefs, who can't ignore reality, and its consequences.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
One of my kids has had multiple deployments, and other family members as well. Assignments are being changed daily, Naval personnel are being sent to combat duty from carriers and other sea vessels.
This is a situation we have never been in my lifetime. Thank you William Jefferson Clinton.
Too much blame has been placed on Rumsfeld. McCain isn't being truthful on this either.
The JCS are right and so is Petraeus.
Kate
“It is the American vice, the democratic disease which expresses its tyranny by reducing everything unique to the level of the herd.” Henry Miller
You're absolutely right about the long term damage to the military if we walk away before the job is done for the second time in a generation.
I have a son who's a year away from military age, and who's planning to apply for an ROTC scholarship. We're very proud of his decision, but I'd be lying if I didn't say I'm scared spitless that he's going to come home in a body bag. I suspect my wife is having nightmares over it, but she won't admit it.
I realize there are a lot of parents trying to keep thier kids out of the military. The only reason I'm not one of them is because I can't figure out how, if it's not our family's job to help defend freedom, why is anyone else's?
Fortunately, there appear to be a lot of parents who still agree with me on this, but that can change pretty quickly. If the politicians of this country are allowed to turn ANOTHER military victory into a senseless defeat, you can expect enlistments to drop to zero overnight. I realize that the folks on the left think that only idiots sign up for the military, but it doesn't take a lot of sophistication to understand the difference between noble sacrifice and sacrificial slaughter.
______________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)
It became clear that the Powell Doctrine faction within the Pentagon was advancing.
Then there was the obvious attempt to withdraw by "promoting" Petraeus out of Iraq.
When the promotion failed and Petraeus remained, Gates faced the prospect of arguing against Petraeus in front of Bush. My guess is he didn't like his odds and announced that he always favored the Petraeus approach.
I hope McCain puts some adult supervision in the Defense Department. If Rudy isn't VP, I think he'd make a fine Sec/Def.