Just like everyone, I was anxious to hear what General Patreaus would report to the nation on September 11, 2007. Unfortunately, by that scheduling timetable, someone decided once again to make a subtle gesture to try to link 9/11 to Iraq when no rationally-thinking humans left in this world can make any such connection. To quote George Tenant from page 341 of his book "Let me say it again: CIA found absolutely no linkage between Saddam and 9/11." That has been communicated TO the President, BY the President and still some choose to believe this (apparently because it comforts them).
This argument is over. There is no connection. All supposed connection theories and allegations have been proven false. To those out there who persist in this idiotic theory, it's time to move on. Just stop it.
There are a few topics of discussion from the Petreaus Report I want to discuss. First, many were unnerved by how a four-star general could be put in this position in the first place. It was very unusual to see an officer in that position. Second, the testimony showed once again just how divided this nation has become. The results has been to embolden both sides in an increasingly ugly national debate. Finally, the substance of the testimony preached more of the same and did little to give us hope for better results in the future.
GRILLING A GENERAL
It was unfortunate to watch such a highly-decorated military officer get grilled like that, but that was the bus under which General David Patreaus was thrown. Since January, the President has been telling critics of his "surge" policy to "wait until Gen. Patreaus gives us his update on the progress of the war." If he said that once, he said it 10,000 times.
And he said it again, and again, and again... and... you get it. Every critique of the strategy and the war in general were met with "wait for Gen. Patreaus, then we can talk." The "deal" brokered between Congress and the President to allow funding for the war before the surge was announced depended upon this report.
Some have criticized critics of the war for grilling the general. I believe that criticism is misplaced. General Patreaus was thrust into that position. When the President will not engage in dialogue and the reason given is the coming report that took on celebrity status, there was no other choice. Critics were to either pander to and defer to the General or do their duty by quizzing the only one who would answer questions.
Many have speculated and rumors have even surfaced that the military as a whole is unhappy with the way this was allowed to play out. I would be very surprised if the military EVER again consents to one of its own being used by the President as a shield as Gen. Patreaus was this month.
It was embarrassing and should never happen again. But I cannot blame Congressmen and Congresswomen for grilling the only one who will answer for what is going on. They have a very important job to do.
SURGE IN BELIEF
Both sides feel they were validated by the testimony. Those deferential to all things military or supporters of the war heard the phrase "making progress" and will use that to justify more patience. Those against the war or critical of the surge heard how slow and difficult that minor progress has been and will use that to strengthen an argument for withdrawal.
The bottom line is that Democrats don't have the votes to override a veto and cannot do anything to stop this war unless they get those votes. Frustrated Republicans have been switching sides regularly, but not in the numbers necessary for a veto-override.
The President continues to be defiant and to simply dismiss his critics and prosecute this war as he wishes despite the majority of Americans' beliefs on the subject. Critics continue to be apoplectic about the "original sin" of invasion in the first place.
I also can't get past the original sin. The more I hear what a mess this situation is the more I want to scream that we shouldn't be in this mess in the first place. As the article cited a few posts down in a comment on Executive Privilege, there is a lot of anger on both sides.
The challenge is to rise above that for a solution. But, strategies can't continue to be jammed down every one's throat by one side. That continues to happen with the now open-ended status of the war in Iraq. The 5,700 promised to come home before Christmas were scheduled to come home anyway based on time served there already. In other words, there was no concession.
I'm open to solution talk, but I don't think there are any good options. I do say this, though: If we are only a cork in the bottle stopping catastrophe (I'm not even sure we're even that considering the crisis there anyway), then that isn't worth the lives of our soldiers. If that Civil War will have to burst out of its bottle at some point whether 1 year or 20 years from now, just let it happen and get us out sooner than later.
The argument that bad things will happen if we leave is losing its strength rapidly. It looks like bad things could happen WHENEVER we leave. Heck, it looks like bad things are already happening.
My hope is that the next President will be able to unite this country again. Since it is now clear this will go on into the next Presidency, I only hope a unifying candidate emerges.
MORE OF THE SAME
No matter the circumstances behind the testimony, however, it was what it was expected to be. The substance of the much-anticipated testimony could be summed up as "more of the same."
What did Patreaus and Crocker really say? That can only be determined when we know exactly what the purpose of the surge was. To paraphrase W Bush, the purpose was to provide enough physical security to give "breathing room" to the political process in Iraq.
So, what did they say? Simple. They said that has not happened. No one testified that political progress has flourished or even progressed. The "government" in the capital of Iraq still does not control the nation, still does not pass necessary laws, still does not have the support or allegiance of much of the provinces (including Anbar, which remains against Al-Qaida AND the government in Baghdad), and still cannot provide its own security.
When you boil it all down, the testimony acknowledged failure of its stated purpose. It could only report "progress." If you listen to speeches from the 60s and 70s our military made nothing but progress right up until the last helicopter left Saigon and the name was changed to Ho Chi Mihn City.
I don't buy it.
Most telling for me was when John Warner, a conservative hawk, asked if this plan, as presented by Gen. Patreaus, would make America safer. General Patreaus just said "it will help us achieve our objective in Iraq." Warner responded "does THAT make America safer?" Patreaus said "I don't know" and explained that he is focused on Iraq. Although it is the job of politicians usually to deal with those kinds of questions, I cannot imagine Eisenhower saying after D-Day anything other than "absolutely, our actions here today made our country safer." Why? Because that situation had clarity.
That illustrates why this is a very different and unique situation. That is why this country is divided. Because there is no way to equate those two things (Iraq and safety). There is entirely too much grey in this war. No answer that could ever be provided in this fact situation could ever unite this country behind a given strategy. There is too much grey. Does it make us safer? Debatable. Does it have anything to do with 9/11? This was grey, but is now clear. Did it rid a country of WMD? No. What exactly did we accomplish? Not clear. Grey.
Grey is the byproduct of a war without solid moral grounds.
As a result, we should never expect anything but more of the same until someone disconnected from the "original sin" of invasion takes office. It just stinks that so much bad must happen while we wait.
NOTE: Still working on getting those pictures of Jacob transferred (at this point I'm trying to fill a disc). I expect to be able to get that done this week. I may even be able to post a short home movie of Jacob. Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The most chilling part was where the General, referencing the recent assassinations of key sectarian and political figures in Southern Iraq, seemed to simply shrug his shoulders and said "Iraqi solutions for Iraqi problems."
Really? Assassination are the new solution for "Iraqi problems?"
Post a Comment