The Petraeus Report - Part 2

On September 10th and 11th, General David Petraeus gave his assessment of the security situation in Iraq and also provided his own recommendations to the White House and the U.S. Military. According to some Democrats, Petraeus was solely a Bush mouthpiece, just saying what the Bush Administration wanted him to say, and he and his report to Congress on Iraq have been criticized. Why? The answer is most likely due to politics, but in all fairness, it is true there are no hard facts in this report, aside from his testimony to compare what he said to what is happening. No official documents or sworn testimony have been given. He is, however, the commander of the Multi-National Force - Iraq, which is the four-star post that oversees the U.S. forces in the country. In giving his report, Petraeus painted a picture of the situation in Iraq that was positive, yet expressed warning that the fight must continue, and we must not falter in our mission to stabilize Iraq. However, he did not whitewash the situation in Iraq. He was able to give an honest report on what is occurring in Iraq and does not allege that the job will be easy, or short. He should call on Congress to not second-guess the professionals on this issue.

In the positive picture, we have the example of the Anbar Province. The Anbar Province had the highest amount of resistance to U.S. forces, and it was a stronghold of the insurgency in Iraq for a long time. After a low point of U.S. support in March 2006, when the city of Ramadi had fallen under insurgent control, the U.S. sent 3,500 additional troops to the area to re-establish control of the region. “Today, it [the Anbar Province] is a model of what happens when local leaders and citizens decide to oppose Al Qaeda and reject its Taliban-like ideology,” said Petraeus about the recent developments in Anbar. For example, in October 2006 there were 1,350 attacks in the Anbar Province, while in August 2007 there were only just over 200 attacks. The Anbar Province locals and tribes have cast off the beliefs of Al Qaeda and turned against them, showing the true power of what can happen when the people on the ground and in the cities believe in the future of their country.

In addition to the Anbar Province, Petraeus also pointed to the much touted troop “surge” as accomplishing the goals of stabilizing and securing Iraq for its people. According to Petraeus, “Civilian deaths of all categories, less natural causes, have also declined considerably, by over 45% Iraq-wide since the height of sectarian violence in December.” In addition to civilian deaths going down, there have been over 4,400 weapons caches discovered from January 2007 to September 2007, almost 1,700 more than the troops discovered in all of last year. Petraeus proposes that these discoveries have led to the reduction in the number of overall improvised explosive device attacks in recent months, which declined by about one-third since June.

Things are not all peachy clean in Iraq, however. He concedes the fact that Al Qaeda and its affiliates in Iraq remain dangerous, a point that must always be taken seriously. In addition to that, he warns about the involvement of Iran in supporting the militias of extremists, the actions by Syria that help to fuel violence, and the advanced explosive devices that kill our troops that come from Iran.

In addition to the positive outlook for Iraq due to the surge and increasing stability in Iraq, Petraeus also gave numerous insights, which oddly were termed “recommendations.” Some of these recommendations were as follows: political progress will take place only after sufficient security exists; that long term U.S. ground force viability will benefit from reductions in troops as the surge fulfills its goals; that the war must continue to be fought on all fronts and in all theaters, even including the Internet; and that Iraqi leaders want to assume greater sovereignty in Iraq, but also desire that coalition forces remain in Iraq, and even go so far as to wanting long-term security agreements with the U.S. and other nations.

Finishing his testimony to Congress on Iraq, Petraeus had this to say, “I do not believe it is reasonable to have an adequate appreciation for the pace of further reductions and mission adjustments beyond the summer of 2008 until about mid-March of next year. We will, no later than that time, consider factors similar to those on which I based the current recommendations, having by then, of course, a better feel for the security situation, the improvements in the capabilities of our Iraqi counterparts, and the enemy situation.” Here is where he essentially told his opponents in Congress to back off, and let the U.S. Military do their job, and to not armchair-quarterback the war in Iraq, especially as they sit back in their comfortable offices and have sleep-over parties on the taxpayer’s dime. What should happen is that the United States should keep the troops in Iraq until at least the job has been completed, and preferably longer for the sake of regional stability. As Petraeus has said, the surge has been working, and progress is being made in Iraq, albeit slowly. This war, however, never was going to be an easy one, and the enemy has the advantage on the U.S. because they are not fighting a traditional war. Rather, they are a group of terrorists that fight under no flag, yet receive support and weapons from rogue states such as Iraq and Syria, are able to hide behind women and children, and duck into mosques or civilian buildings whenever it suits them to protect themselves from American fire. The U.S. has the capability to win the war, and it is being won, as Petraeus has made clear, however, the U.S. must have the resolve to finish the job it has undertaken.