The Human Shield: Our Politicians Hide Behind The General While Iraq Burns
Now that Gen. David Petraeus has been heard, heckled, challenged and dissected, it's worth asking why he was the guy out on political Front Street at all.
Sure, Petraeus carries the Iraq command, as well as four stars on his shoulder and a heavy rack of medals on his chest.
He's also smart, cool and prepared, with the authority of the guy who wrote the Army's counterinsurgency doctrine.
But President Bush still outranks him. Like it or not, Petraeus is merely the latest fall guy to whom the White House has handed off its Iraq mess.
The actual authors of this disaster -- the ones who should be facing the music and framing the response -- are content to let the general take the heat. (Where have we heard this story before?) When President Bush steps forward this evening to speak to the nation, it will not be to lay out the hard, bad news and then admit the uncertainties, and constraints, as Petraeus just did.
It will be to present the Petraeus small view -- of Baghdad and Anbar province -- as if it were the administration's large view of How to Win a War. It will be to take the fragments of American military successes that one would expect from such a competent team on the ground, and to extrapolate them into a false vision and a strategy that somehow can omit the critical components of Iraqi dissolution and al-Qaida's resurgence elsewhere.
Yet no matter how happily the White House hides behind Petraeus' decent but incomplete exposition of American options, its limitations are showing.
Petraeus valiantly tries to make pie out of others' mincemeat, but the putrid nature of that mincemeat doesn't change.
His charts convey a portion of the Iraq reality but they don't capture it all. His presentation glossed over how much of southern Iraq has fallen into the vise of Iranian-linked militias and warlords. U.S. Army attempts to quantify violence don't even attempt to measure such Shiite-on-Shiite violence, the latest retail outlet for Iraqi suffering.
The sad truth is that, now that America finally has a decent team on the ground, it has arrived too late to do much good. Suffocating recent gains are the past mistakes, military manpower strains and Iraq's own implosion not just into ethnic fiefs, but also into vast networks of organized crime gangs and mini-protectorates of Iran, with al-Qaida bomb-throwers still streaming in from some Arab nations.
Even worse, Petraeus just talked himself blue with specifics at a time when politicians aren't interested in the details.
America's own debate on Iraq is a caricature of itself. Republicans rushed to slap Petraeus on the back, thinking he'd offered them another year's worth of political cover. Democrats scrambled to pick apart his testimony while acting as if they thought he was a swell guy.
Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was shocked -- SHOCKED! -- at the idea that some U.S. troops might have to stay in Iraq a very long time to keep it from becoming Tehran west or al-Qaida south -- as if this were a stunning new notion the White House had dreamed up to afflict her, instead of a possibility the president simply has been reluctant to spell out.
Sadly, no one in the White House is spelling out or dreaming up anything much these days.
It would be far better if they were.
The U.S. military may be doing its job, but the Iraqi leadership has no clothes, apart from those hanging in its hidden, sectarian wardrobe.
It would require a real shakeup in U.S. policy and approach, and a far more assertive Oval Office, to alter Iraqi perceptions enough to hope to force even modest political change in Baghdad. Failing that -- and we are failing that -- the race to control Iraq's oil wealth is in full stride, and Iraq will continue to fracture along sectarian lines, without the political honesty and stamina in Washington to do much of anything about it.
Sullivan is The Plain Dealer's foreign-affairs columnist and an associate editor of the editorial pages. To reach Elizabeth Sullivan bsullivan@plaind.com
© 2007 The Cleveland Plain Dealer
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
5 Comments so far
Show AllAll the talk is about how ending the illegal occupation will result in more chaos (as if there could be more,) yet few if any consider the other possibility:
That, once we're gone, the Iraqis will, in fact, get their shit together, kick tiny little al Qaeda's ass, and go "Venezuela" - you know, split the pie, spread the wealth, give corporate America the finger and rebuild their country in their own vision. Will they stop killing each other? Sure, just like the Crips and Bloods have stopped killing each other, and just like the Mafia has stopped killing each other, and just like Americans only die from gunshots 30,000/year and auto collisions 40,000/year.
If they're smart, they'll figure it out (and they are smart.) Meanwhile, we got us some chaos going on in the homeland that needs attention...
It would be good of Mr. Fallon to invite Petraeus to lunch at the 'safe and secure' messhall that Petraeus and Ham provided for our troops at Mosul.
Well said Mr. Fallon, I hope you stick to your guns and to your convictions.
"It would require a real shakeup in U.S. policy and approach, and a far more assertive Oval Office, to alter Iraqi perceptions enough to hope to force even modest political change in Baghdad."
So, it's the Iraqis' fault they are being liquidated in a Holocaust; it is they who must "alter ... perceptions" and affect "political change."
"Sadly, no one in the White House is spelling out or dreaming up anything much these days.
"It would be far better if they were."
They very much ARE "dreaming" about expanding their war of terror to Iran!! Just what the HEll are you writing about Sullivan!?
For an opinion of Petraeus by his boss:
U.S.-IRAQ:
Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the Surge
Gareth Porter*
WASHINGTON, Sep 12 (IPS) - In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.
Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.
That extraordinarily contentious start of Fallon's mission to Baghdad led to more meetings marked by acute tension between the two commanders. Fallon went on develop his own alternative to Petraeus's recommendation for continued high levels of U.S. troops in Iraq during the summer.
For the rest:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235
GOP; spin not spine.