Generals
From the New York Times: "Comments by Gen. David Petraeus raise the prospect that no U.S. forces will leave Iraq after the last of 30,000 "surge" personnel return home in July, meaning a new president will take office with as many as 140,000 soldiers still in Iraq. An average of about 130,000 soldiers have been there for most of the war."
Can historians recall any field commander ever asking that his force be reduced in number? It's not General Petraeus but the commander-in-chief, President Bush, who owns responsibility for the allocation of troops to different theatres in the war on terror.
That decision is more difficult than in some conflicts because Americans do not face a single enemy either in Iraq or Afghanistan, and must be prepared for engaging with many other potential enemies in still other locations. But in the great struggle of World War II the United States fought multiple opponents around the world, and in the hotter years of the long Cold War similarly the military was engaged in many theatres at the same time.
So it's not unusual -- indeed it's common -- for a global superpower to face critical decisions about force allocation. The disturbing part, from a strategic standpoint, of the current situation is the absence of a clear and comprehensible reason to maintain such a disproportionate commitment to Iraq, as opposed to Afghanistan, as well as the many other bases and reserve locations that must be supported.
The November election will be, among many other things, a referendum on whether the United States should stay on indefinitely as a large and very costly provider of support to the current Iraqi government. But even now, and without regard to the outcome of that referendum, it's hard to see why the President and the Defense Secretary are so adamant about not pulling even ten percent or twenty percent of the troops out of Iraq, sending some to reserve bases and others to Afghanistan. What's driving their thinking? It seems clear that if the Pentagon were polled on this topic, the overwhelming consensus would be to effect a limited reduction in the Iraqi commitment immediately. Indeed, Petraeus's boss quit over this topic. So why is the White House following the local commander's lead, given that any local general would always want more rather than fewer troops?
Comments (3)
It does recall General McClellan during the Civil War, albeit without an Abraham Lincoln to prod him along, and then fire him. What's clear is that the Whitehouse has chosen a military leader who agrees with the administration and now uses his good name to justify their policy.
I listened to an NPR discussion yesterday that looked at the issues of the president receiving advise exclusively from one general, who has his own agenda in prosecuting the war. What was missing from the discussion was the president's willfulness to NOT engage other generals on the topic; in fact the history of the Bush administration is scattered with military leaders who did not tow the party line.
Petraeus is an excuse, a reason, a motivation, and a convenient scapegoat for Bush's current Iraq policy. I do not comprehend the goals or reasons that the Bush Admin wants to stay in Iraq forever (Doug Fief's interview on 60-minute provoided zero insight), but all inidcations is that this is their aim. It's convenient to them that Petraeus is a willing participant.
April 9, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You imply what I believe is a fundamental problem with the Main Stream Media and the Congress. I say this because Petraeus is, as the article describes, the puppet of George Bush, our President, and Bush, not Petreaus, should be the one being asked the questions. It is very clever of Bush to put our Ambassador and the Commander of the Military in Iraq in front of Congress and the American people to deflect the blame and hard questions. Maybe you could write about how Congress and the Media seem to be exceptionally stupid because they're playing this game. They didn’t even think of asking the other Commanders to speak about how the military is over-extended and how Iraq saps their strength. If Petraeus said we're losing in Iraq, if he said we need to bring the troops home, do you think he would have his job for more than a few weeks? Bush would fire him and appoint someone else. So let's not be bamboozled by the game that's being played out here. A good question, that wasn't asked of the Ambassador, is: "Who ordered the agreement between the U.S. and Iraq created without being concerned about whether Congress would pass on it?" The answer is obvious, it was Mr. Bush. No Ambassador or General could create that by themselves. Maybe we could have columns from you that illuminate the games being played, including how McCain hasn't got a clue. Lord knows, there are plenty of games and bamboozlement going on. I don't know who said it, but it's a great quote: The only thing that gives me any understanding of infinity is the extent of human stupidity.
April 9, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Retiring Republican Senator (and fellow Vietnam Veteran) Chuck Hagel captured the essence of the Dick Cheney Shogunate Regency's latest desert-debacle dog-and-pony show when he asked General David Petraeus: "What are you talking about?"
In too many words, charts, and graphs that reminded me of the notorious "Five O'Clock Follies" -- those surreal Saigon military briefings of four-decades ago -- the Petraeus military uniform essentially responded: "The tipping point will soon turn the corner and begin connecting the dots on the ink-stained, flypaper dominoes in the tunnel at the end of the light." Or, sequences of word-like noises to that same mind-numbing effect.
More revealing of the sinking situation in Iraq-Nam-Istan than anything General Postpone-Us had to say, I saw myself thirty-seven years ago on CNN yesterday. Actually, I saw an Iraqi interpreter doing the same job as I did in Vietnam in 1971: namely, trying to assist two alien people in talking past each other in different languages, with neither one openly admitting to the impossible demands that each placed on the other. An Iraqi soldier on the television did not seem anxious to get himself killed fighting his own people in the interests of obscure American foreign policy aims of no concern to him. On the other hand, the American Army officer "advising" the Iraqi soldier showed nothing but contempt for the "sovereign" Iraqi soldier who wouldn't "take the lead" when commanded to do so by his foreign, American occupier. No interpreter can "translate" such conflicted cross-purposes truthfully without having both alien interlocutors draw a gun and shoot him.
As in Southeast Asia thirty-seven years ago, the Iraqi (Vietnamese) conscript soldier has no way to earn a living in an economy that the Americans have destroyed, and so must take whatever handouts the Americans will offer in return for fighting his own countrymen and dying in his own country so that Americans won't have to do that -- all so that the American politicians who started and continue the disaster don't have to resign in disgrace and/or commit suicide to take responsibility for their own galactic bungling. Even for native English speakers, understanding this simple truth should not require "interpretation."
Talk about déja-vu all over again. The poet T. S. Elliot had it right when he said that this little make-believe world will end "not with a bang, but a whimper."
April 9, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink