Will the Petraeus Strategy Be the Last?

Article Tools

E-mail Article
Printer Format

It would not be surprising if Petraeus’s rate of withdrawal (30,000 troops by July ’08) accelerates. Two congressmen asserted that Admiral William Fallon, the head of the Central Command and Petraeus’s boss, was urging for a faster withdrawal rate, a view Petraeus did not deny. (Fallon is also the commander who would recommend whether to strike the Iranian facilities exporting explosives into Iraq. While Lieutenant General Odierno, Petraeus’s deputy, has repeatedly charged the Iranians with causing the deaths of Americans, Fallon remains silent, fueling speculation that he does not want to take retaliatory action.)

Third, the surge strategy failed in its primary objective, of changing the political dynamics. The Iraqi leaders failed to reach reconciliation agreements, despite the reduction in violence. No national leader has emerged from the sectarian ranks in Baghdad.

Crocker was tepid in his defense of Prime Minister Maliki, whose truculent, secretive management style has antagonized a range of Iraqi leaders. Crocker and Petraeus repeatedly referred to “frustration” about not moving forward. While there is no sign that the administration is trying to force Maliki out, his leadership is shaky. If he doesn’t manage his alliances better, he may be voted out long before his four-year term expires.

In the absence of an Iraqi central leadership, Petraeus has introduced a “bottom-up” model of achieving stability, pointing out at the hearings that the Anbar tribal revolt against al-Qaeda in Iraq had spread to other provinces. Instead of fighting the Americans, Sunnis were turning to them for aid and advice.

At the hearings, Senator Biden didn’t buy the bottom-up approach. Instead, he urged a return to General Casey’s 2005 strategy of pulling back U.S. troops and quickly transitioning responsibilities to the Iraqi forces. Petraeus repeatedly demurred, saying the timing was premature and risked all the gains achieved.

In sum, we learned from the hearings that Petraeus has established a new model that hinges on local police control, a goal that I advocated several months ago in The Atlantic. This approach has been bringing security to the Sunni areas. To prevent a flare-up of sectarian killings in Baghdad, though, the rogue JAM elements that have burrowed into the social fabric of the majority-Shiite areas must be removed.

The Democrats don’t have the votes to force a rapid withdrawal. That the Iraqi politicians will have reached reconciliation agreements by March, mollifying the Democrats, seems highly unlikely. Yet when Petraeus testifies in March, if progress on the military front has continued and he recommends further withdrawals, the Democrats will be hard pressed to urge an even faster pullout. It seems likely that the presidential debate about Iraq will then focus on past mistakes, not on an immediate drawdown.

The intent of the hearings was to drive a wedge between the military and the administration. ”We trust the military to tell the truth, but not the administration,” was the message of the Democratic leadership. Apparently not understanding that, some questioners proceeded to challenge the veracity and independence of the witnesses. Many of the “questions” during the hearings were rants, with the questioners coming across as self-absorbed whiners who diminished their political cause. 

President Bush was also opportunistic. In his television address on September 13, he  advanced his policies as if they’d been designed by General Petraeus. While President Bush has the virtue of wanting to prevail, spare us from politicians of both parties who seek partisan advantage by wrapping themselves in the flag.

Insisting that a professional soldier—and a professional diplomat—testify, and then attacking the policies they did not create but were duty bound to carry out, sets a terrible precedent. This hearing, with its querulous, self-pitying tone, was a bad idea badly executed. It should not be repeated in March. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is the proper official to defend administration policy.

Our military should be kept separate from political debate.

Pages: <prev 1 2

Bing West, a Marine officer in Vietnam and a former assistant secretary of defense, recently returned from his 13th visit to Iraq.

Article Tools

E-mail Article
Printer Format

Discuss this article in Post & Riposte.

Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter.

From Atlantic Unbound

September 11, 2007

Debating Iraq

A collection.

Also By

Bing West

January 30, 2008

A Report From Iraq

Ambushed in Mosul, Bing West visits the last urban redoubt of al Qaeda in Iraq and sees a calmer battlefield—but political troubles ahead.

September 5, 2007

The First Test of the Surge

We are about to find out what happens in Iraq after the U.S. troops leave.

January/February 2007

Streetwise

Whether we ultimately stay or go, we need to fix Iraq's policing problems. An expert explains how.


Name

Address 1

Address 2

City

State Zip

Email

Atlantic Voices

End Of An Error Read more

25 July 2008 6:02 P.M.

The Mashup Read more

25 July 2008 4:21 P.M.

Brief Hiatus Read more

25 July 2008 09:39 A.M.

White men can't dance Read more

25 July 2008 2:27 P.M.

A Respite And A Migration Read more

25 July 2008 09:13 A.M.

The report with two weeks to go Read more

25 July 2008 09:06 A.M.

Daniel Benjamin on Terrorism Complacency Read more

24 July 2008 4:48 P.M.

Obama in Berlin Read more

25 July 2008 02:00 A.M.