MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: <i>Newsweek</i>: "Petraeus is Engaged in a Giant 'Do-Over.'"

« Wilberforce Be With You: The Christian Right Claims Amazing Grace | Blog Index | Few Weeks of Anonymity Doom Presidential Campaign, Vilsack Goes Back to Lifetime of Anonymity »

Newsweek: "Petraeus is Engaged in a Giant 'Do-Over.'"

Scary, essential new reporting from Michael Hirsh of Newsweek:

Gen. David Petraeus’s new "surge" plan is committing U.S. troops, day by day, to a much deeper and longer-term role in policing Iraq than since the earliest days of the U.S. occupation. How long must we stay under the Petraeus plan? Perhaps 10 years. At least five. In any case, long after George W. Bush has returned to Crawford, Texas, for good.

The previous general in Iraq, George Casey, was focusing on training Iraqi forces before he left his post, in a move designed to prep the country for an American departure. Under Casey's plan, reports Hirsh, "By 2008, the remaining 60,000 or so U.S. troops were supposed to be hunkering down in four giant 'superbases,' where they would be relatively safe." But under Petraeus's plan, the Army is setting up hundreds of "mini-forts" all over the country, right in the middle of some of the worst fighting. The idea that the Iraqis can take responsibility for their own security -- always a fallacy -- has been discarded. American servicemen and women are walking beats. The most dangerous beats in the world. "We're putting down roots," one former Army captain tells Hirsh.

This is the last thing Democrats -- who are trying to decide which way, not if, they are going end the war, both in Congress and if they were to take the White House in 2008 -- want to hear. Could the disconnect between what candidates are saying on the trail and what is happening on the ground in Iraq be any greater?

But ignore that for a second. It's like the 2006 elections never happened. In their rhetoric, members of the Administration acknowledge that politically, they can't get away with another long-term go at achieving stability in Iraq: the people have spoken, and they won't have it. For example, when Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was asked at a congressional hearing how long the surge was expected to last, he said, "I think for most of us, in our minds, we're thinking of it as a matter of months, not 18 months or two years."

But the fact of the matter is that Petraeus has gone ahead and implemented a long-term strategy that is useless if we cut it off in one year or even two. It doesn't pay dividends that quickly. Don't get me wrong: I see the value in what Petraeus is doing. It's the proper way to fight an insurgency. But really, it's the proper way to prevent an insurgency, and the well-intentioned Petraeus and his genius-club of advisors are at least two years late to the scene. (An aside: "Civil Affairs" teams are a little-known part of the military. They are commissioned to do what Petraeus has the whole Army doing, and if they had been used from the beginning of this war, we could have avoided this whole mess. For more, consider "Waging Peace" by veteran reporter Rob Schultheis. It's an excellent read and is totally relevant to discussions how wars like this one should be fought.)

In the end, I suspect this will prove the Powell Doctrine right yet again -- Bush's war in Iraq is one long, painful lesson on how right Powell was when he said that foreign wars should only be fought if we have a clearly defined objective and exit strategy, the support of the international community, and broad support amongst the American people. Before, we didn't have clearly defined objectives or an exit strategy. Now that we do, there is no support amongst the American people for what Petraeus is doing, and with Congress looking to redraw the 2002 war authorization in order to more narrowly define what American troops can be used for in Iraq... it looks like even this worthy new plan from a worthy new general is just another path that ends in failure.

Comments

this is the text of a comment attached to the newsweek article.

"Excellent article. I live in Iraq, been here for 18 months. We need to remember that WW2 (Europe) ended May 8,1945. Today, 67 years after the fact, we have 70,000 troops in Germany (central Europe). The USA needs to plan on staying in Iraq fo 40-50 years. We need a stable democracy in the midst of the Arab world. We need to have military bases, established and a mobile 'strike force' capability, to be able to police the region, and keep the oil flowing."

if this person is for real, why do people like this, who say things like this, not get more of the credit for the crappy situation over there? i mean, this is an honest sentiment. a common strategic feeling, it seems like. but, what about the west-mideast relationship now do these new-okinawa advocates not get?

compare these two statements:

(a) "we need to give iraq to the iraqis like we promised."
(b) "we need to keep control of iraq for 50 years."

which of those two is more likely to improve the strategic position of anti-western right wing jerks, just for having been spoken? and yet, no. blame is laid at the feet of the naive, while the cynical are hired and sent to the region, to better present our most self-involved case directly to the people who hate it.

i know it's not that simple. from my unknowledgeable position, it looks like if the cheney meant petraeus to succeed, we'd be talking about a draft. mum, still, on that subject, so, petraeus's choice looks like a delaying tactic. or worse, an effort to establish firm control of iraqi territories in preparation for an iran-related counter-attack inside iraq, after our bombs fall.

can't really know this stuff.

and these oil guys are still avoiding the main question, you know? "good for you, you got the hydroCARBONs flowing. whatcha gonna do, BURN 'em?"

Posted by: hibiscus on 02/24/07 at 9:11 PM

when Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was asked at a congressional hearing how long the surge was expected to last, he said, "I think for most of us, in our minds, we're thinking of it as a matter of months, not 18 months or two years."

Sounds like what Rumsfeld had to say about the war, back in '03 was it?

Posted by: DaveD on 02/26/07 at 5:08 AM

I think that after we (the U.S.) get our troop strength up to 200,000 or more that is when the delusional president and his neo-con vice president will start a war with Iran. It will start with an aerial strike on all of the major governmental infrastructures in Iran and then possibly an invasion using some of the troops that are in Iraq and possibly Afghanistan. That will be a very bloody war, the Iranian civilian population WILL NOT tolerate a foreign military force invading THERE country. Plus we will loose the support of the moderate Iranian population that at present bear no ill will towards us, but that will change with a strike and or invasion of there country.
If that does happen I think that will be the beginning of the end for the United States as we know it. America is still among the best countries of the world even though its been corrupted by this administration for the past 6 years.
I hope that I am wrong about my predictions but it is hard to rule out anything with the likes of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and there neo-con cohorts that they have installed through out the United States government.

Posted by: Anthony J. Rizzi on 05/28/07 at 7:35 AM

A Democratic Congress has voted to fully fund the war in Iraq, (sellout of the party base) as demanded by President Bush, and without any timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal.
Remarkable. If the Republican rout of 2006 said anything, it was that America had lost faith in the Bush-Rumsfeld conduct of the war and wanted Democrats to lead the country out.
Why did the Democrats capitulate?
Because they lack the courage of their convictions. Because they fear the consequences if they put their antiwar beliefs into practice. Because they are afraid if they defund the war and force President Bush to withdraw U.S. troops, the calamity he predicts will come to pass and they will be held accountable for losing Iraq and the strategic disaster that might well ensue.
Democrats are an intimidated party. The reasons are historical. That is why congressional Democrats are surely saying privately of the angry antiwar left what has often been said by the Beltway Republican elite of the right: "Don't worry about them. They have nowhere else to go.
And that is why the antiwar left was thrown under the bus.

Posted by: Pat B. on 05/28/07 at 4:22 PM