Petraeus Report: The Fallout

I don’t have much to say about the aftermath of Gen. Petraeus’ report to Congress. I’ve struggled with trying to find some meaning in the series of testimony and political posturing in Congress, but I see no change in course. As for the President, again no change.

In an earlier post, I made some predictions on what the General would say and the questions Congress might ask. Except for the promise to bring home a brigade in 2007, my predictions were mostly on target. I’m no Nostradamus and I didn’t really look into the future. As for Petraeus, I predicted that he would expound on the successes of the Surge and avoid the failures in bringing security to the greater parts of Iraq and in the Iraqi government’s failure to move on a national settlement. That is truth and I believe the General is truthful.

Congress, however, is spectacularly unchanged after the very straight-forward and honest testimony of Gen. Petraeus. All in all, I would describe the past week of Iraq War briefings, Congressional comment, and a Presidential speech as a huge non-event. Nothing has changed. The public is still against the war. Congress is doing nothing. The President is “staying the course.” And our troops will continue to try to make things right in Iraq while Washington, D.C., fiddles.

Both parties are watching the polls as they prepare their cases for the coming elections. Let’s look at some of the recent polls and see if we can see how Congress will try to move.

Gallup’s Sep 7-8 poll:

• 63% think the Surge is either making no difference or making things worse in Iraq
• 60% favor some kind of withdrawal timetable; 30% oppose a timetable
• 54% think the war was a mistake
• 62% believe we cannot win the war

PollingReport.com:

• ABC poll, Sep 4-7
• Single most important issue in Nov 2008 – 35% said Iraq (unchanged in last month)
• CBS poll, Sep 4-8
• "Regardless of how you usually vote, do you think the Republican Party or the Democratic Party is more likely to make the right decisions about the war in Iraq?"
• Democrats 42%, Republicans 32%

There are many more polls but the results are remarkably consistent – most oppose the war and most want a withdrawal timetable. Most of those polled thought the President would not change his war policy regardless of what Petraeus might say. Most thought the Democrats would do a better job on the war, but here’s a neat item (from PollingReport.com on CBS/NYT poll in July):

• "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Republicans in Congress are handling the situation with Iraq?" – 65% disapprove, but
• "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Democrats in Congress are handling the situation with Iraq?" – 59% disapprove.

It’s all in how you ask the questions. Here’s my reading. Most Americans are tired of the war and want out but are frustrated by an unbending President and an incapable Congress. With most Americans unhappy with both Republicans and Democrats, I would not even try to predict how November 2008 will go at this early date.

In other polls Americans believe that our Congress is too partisan. The opening, posturing statements, before Gen. Petraeus spoke, telegraphed that inflexibility of both the Republican and Democratic positions. The continued posturing statements have only reiterated their dedication to party politics. Statesmanship and party politics are mutually exclusive in this Congress.

Gen. Petraeus’ testimony, while honest and straight-forward, was lackluster and unconvincing. He did not present a clearly defined mission, was not overly confident of success in Iraq as a whole, or even of success of his current operations. Since the Administration have never effectively explained the limited goals of the Surge, I can’t blame Petraeus for not defining those goals or successes in the limited time he was given. Without a clear definition of the Surge goals, the successes within the areas of current operations were lost in an attempt to talk about success in the whole of Iraq.

Sen. Warner asked Petraeus if our work in Iraq had made America safer. The General, after some hesitation, could not say if we were safer. In a sense, the question was unfair since neither Petraeus nor his troops are making war on al Qaeda, except for AQI whose connections with the greater al Qaeda are tenuous. Our President has repeatedly told us that the Iraq War is to make America safer and that we need to fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here. In fact, the “war on terrorism” became low priority (no priority is probably more accurate) when the planning for the Iraq invasion began. The Iraq War has never been about al Qaeda, except as one of the many justifications for the President’s actions.

Bush also ignored Gen. Petraeus’ testimony. One might note that “promised” troop reductions were the result of the General’s testimony but Bush made those statements without actually referring to Petraeus’ testimony. Why? Because Bush had done his deciderings long before the General’s testimony or even his verbal report to the President.

One might well ask me if I have a solution, since I am so down on both the White House and Congress. Well, I’ve rewritten the ending to this post three times and I have to admit that I have no better answers. We are simply bogged down in the wrong war. Bush has misled America (some might say he lied) so many times that not even many Republicans now trust him.

We know that the JCS is worried that our total defense posture is in trouble because all resources are tied down in the Iraq quagmire. Now comes Adm. Fallon, Petraeus’ commanding officer at CENTCOM who sees other pressing needs for troops in Afghanistan (remember the war on terror?), the Horn of Africa, and elsewhere.

At this time I would vote for a more rapid withdrawal of forces but I can’t define what level should remain in Iraq. I don’t see how a small U.S. presence could accomplish training or perform any useful function as Iraq heads toward a division of the state. Whether the division is accomplished by civil war or a more orderly division remains to be seen. Although Iran might be a near term winner, I don’t see them winning much in the long term. There are too many issues between Iran and Iraq. Iran remains Persian while Iraq is Arabic, a factor that is important in the Middle East but seems lost to Western thinkers. Memories of the brutal and long Iran/Iraq War are still fresh. The Iranian Islamic revolution is not popular with the majority of Muslims outside of Iran. And, Iran is in the midst of economic problems and doesn’t need the burden of a demolished Iraq.

But to give up in Iraq also means that again we have removed any meaning to the sacrifices of our troops and their families. The Powell Doctrine has fallen into disrepute as placing too many limits on the use of American troops. But the Powell Doctrine also reminds us that we should not engage in foreign adventures unless the majority of Americans are in full support, and for the entire time required. American was behind this adventure when we were told it was part of the war on terror. As that fallacy became clear, the majority of Americans no longer supported this war.

I began this post by saying I don’t have much to say about Gen. Petraeus’ testimony. As a slight correction, I don’t think I have much useful to say. It is time I moved on to other subjects.