Bush Betrayed Us; Has Petraeus?

Gen. Petraeus is one of the few in the military establishment who really seems to get the idea that might is not always right. Like retired Gen. Wesley Clark I really do think that Petraeus understands the military adage by Karl von Clausewitz that war is an extension of politics. (I interpret this to mean that war should not be an end in and of itself but used in conjunction with diplomacy and employed only when diplomacy and peaceful forms of politics fail.) I think that Petraeus is a very capable person and has a very clear idea of the political role he is playing but he is only as good as the policy he is required to implement. I get the feeling that he sincerely believes he can improve the situation in Iraq but on the whole his assessment of the threat of al Qaeda in Iraq doesn't really add up. There continues to be obvious political motivation for our military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq that cannot be overlooked.

Judging from Petraeus’ testimony in Congress, he believes as the Bush Administration has stated that his primary goal is leading the fight against al Qaeda in Iraq [AQI]. However according to a U.S. intelligence report that came out in July 2007: "al Qaeda in Iraq is responsible for 15 percent of the attacks in the country, often the most deadly. Sunni insurgents are blamed for 70 percent of attacks, and Shiite militias 15 percent. Shiite attacks, however, have sharply increased and are now probably higher than 15 percent." Other government sources have indicated that AQI is responsible for 8 percent or less of the the violent attacks in the county.

It seems unreasonable that we are expending so much effort in an attempt to contain what amounts to a fraction of the problem which is mostly Shia and Sunni sectarian violence and infighting -- not AQI terrorism. And it lends credence to the argument that AQI is not the huge threat to the security of the U.S. homeland" as has been claimed by Bush ("We are fighting them in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here”). And currently, as Petraeus himself has outlined in the hearings, many of the Sunni factions in Iraq dislike AQI and are fighting against them effectively. Why do they need us? It's obvious that AQI is only an excuse for our continued presence in Iraq.

As I wrote in my post of September 9, Petraeus has said that he felt that Fallujah was an example of U.S. success, this despite it being largely destroyed in our attempts to get "al Qaeda" out of the city. And in fact only when local Sunni militias decided to rout al Qaeda from the city in late 2006 was there any real success in fighting AQI there. And in today's hearing Petraeus cited the successful tactics of local Sunnis in continuing to secure the city including using gated communities secured by concrete barriers and armed guards. While Fallujah may be more peaceful that it was in past months it still sounds like a city under siege.

Petraeus seemed to be using Fallujah as an example of what could be done elsewhere. Unfortunately, this type of success is very temporary and in no way takes the place of real stability.

During yesterday's hearing Ambassador Crocker outlined his program to try to reach out to the radical elements of both Sunni and Shia who he thought might be open to reconciliation. And Petraeus added that "you reconcile with your enemies not your friends." It all sounds great in a hearing room, but as one senator said he wished Petraeus had been in charge after the war ended in 2003 but that now in 2007 it might be too late for these diplomatic efforts to be effective.

It is too late especially when the State Department and even the Department of Defense seem to be continuing their hands off approach in regards to Iraq at least in public. It would be another blunder in a series of horrendous blunders to actually expect these two men to clean up Iraq on their own without more public support from Secretaries Rice and Gates.

Is the Bush Administration purposefully trying to minimize it's involvement with the decisions made on the ground in Iraq? Or is it a result of a lame duck government that is in chaos? Both. There is chaos in the government: Rumsfled, Gonzales , Rove, Libby, and other lesser figures have been forced to resign and there have been reports of infighting between the Cheney and the non-Cheney factions in the Bush Administration that have hampered decision-making within the administration. And as outlined in several books (Hubris, Emerald City, etc.) the Iraq War was bungled in part because Washington sent to Iraq people like J. Paul Bremer who were given "a free hand" in doing whatever they felt was necessary to run Iraq without having to answer to the State Department or DOD.

On the other hand, despite the chaos in the White House and the continued appearance of ambivalence regarding what Petraeus and Crocker actually do in Iraq, I get the sense that the White House now has an over-arching political purpose in Iraq that was missing in the past. While Petraeus and Crocker are more honest than past bosses in Iraq they are still toeing the Bush party line. They would not have been put in charge if their loyalty was in question. As a result I do not believe that they have introduced any real change in how the Iraq War is being fought. Are they being set up as scapegoats? I don't think so.

The feeling I get from the past couple days of hearings is that the military and diplomatic information is not the real story. The real story is purely political. This was discussed to some extent last night on Keith Olbermann. Olbermann also speculated reluctantly that some Senate Democrats might be prolonging the war so that it would still be a viable issue for the 2008 elections. That is a horrible possibility. But similarly on the Republican side I think what is going on is that Petraeus has been employed to portray the war in the most positive light possible to allow the U.S., as many have been speculating for months, to slowly leave Iraq and claim success in the process. He's planning on a troop reduction that will be completed just in time for the Democratic and Republican Conventions in late summer 2008. This good news might allow the Republicans to claim that they are in the process of leaving Iraq and minimize to an extent the Democrats ability to use the war as an election issue.

Also on Olbermann last night, John Dean stated that the Democrats are not able to play political hard ball as well as the Republicans and that is one reason why they are having difficulty in getting their way, especially in the Senate. I think that is probably true. Playing hard ball like the Republicans usually involves lying, obfuscating, misrepresenting reality, throwing friends under the bus and worst of all sacrificing innocent lives for their political agenda. One reason why many of us are Democrats is because we don't want to play that kind of hard ball.