2008 Woodie Awards
General Petraeus, or ...
Jake Parent
Issue date: 4/28/08 Section: Opinion
During two days that saw violence rip across Iraq, General David Petraeus, along with ambassador Ryan Crocker, gave testimony before Congress assessing the status of the U.S. occupation there and giving recommendations for further courses of action.
As the hearings went on, it became clear these two men had no better an idea about the future of Iraq than the last time they sat in those chairs in September 2007.
Then, as now, they defended the failure of Iraqi security forces to meet any of the significant benchmarks that had been set for them as they attempt to make the transition from occupied country to sovereign nation.
During those hearings, Petraeus' main focus was to get members of Congress and their constituents to have faith in his plan.
While he was ready to admit the going was tough, his tone was one of stern optimism. Congress and a war-weary nation decided to give him a chance to go out and prove their skepticism unfounded.
Unfortunately for Petraeus and the entire country, nothing was offered during his two days of testimony to show any sign of long-term improvement in Iraq.
Yes, there has been a drop in violence, but it is temporary at best. Very little has been done to secure peace, and the multiple tribal and secular militias have used the lull in violence to fortify their defenses and rearm themselves in what increasingly appears to be preparation for an even bigger fight.
It is time for us to leave.
We have achieved the goal of removing Saddam Hussein from power and now there is no reason for us to remain involved in this civil war.
If we continue to allow policy writers to change the standard of what is defined as victory, giving them a blank check to wage open war, we fail to support the dignity of our troops.
These men and women, many of whom have served multiple tours, and some of whom have given their lives in support of the Bush Administration's war, deserve better. They deserve concision from their commanders in the objectives they are asked to achieve.
Petraeus himself has said "military victory is not possible," and so the Iraqis must be free to develop whatever government they see fit, but this will only happen if and when we allow them to do it - by discontinuing our pursuit of what we see as a fit form of democracy.
Top leaders and politicians would have you believe our presence in Iraq is what is stopping civil war there.
In reality, one could just as easily argue that we are simply hogging the pie of influence and power, and forcing those with a vested long-term interest in getting their group a voice to fight each other for the remaining scraps.
As the hearings went on, it became clear these two men had no better an idea about the future of Iraq than the last time they sat in those chairs in September 2007.
Then, as now, they defended the failure of Iraqi security forces to meet any of the significant benchmarks that had been set for them as they attempt to make the transition from occupied country to sovereign nation.
During those hearings, Petraeus' main focus was to get members of Congress and their constituents to have faith in his plan.
While he was ready to admit the going was tough, his tone was one of stern optimism. Congress and a war-weary nation decided to give him a chance to go out and prove their skepticism unfounded.
Unfortunately for Petraeus and the entire country, nothing was offered during his two days of testimony to show any sign of long-term improvement in Iraq.
Yes, there has been a drop in violence, but it is temporary at best. Very little has been done to secure peace, and the multiple tribal and secular militias have used the lull in violence to fortify their defenses and rearm themselves in what increasingly appears to be preparation for an even bigger fight.
It is time for us to leave.
We have achieved the goal of removing Saddam Hussein from power and now there is no reason for us to remain involved in this civil war.
If we continue to allow policy writers to change the standard of what is defined as victory, giving them a blank check to wage open war, we fail to support the dignity of our troops.
These men and women, many of whom have served multiple tours, and some of whom have given their lives in support of the Bush Administration's war, deserve better. They deserve concision from their commanders in the objectives they are asked to achieve.
Petraeus himself has said "military victory is not possible," and so the Iraqis must be free to develop whatever government they see fit, but this will only happen if and when we allow them to do it - by discontinuing our pursuit of what we see as a fit form of democracy.
Top leaders and politicians would have you believe our presence in Iraq is what is stopping civil war there.
In reality, one could just as easily argue that we are simply hogging the pie of influence and power, and forcing those with a vested long-term interest in getting their group a voice to fight each other for the remaining scraps.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
Patty Holman
posted 4/29/08 @ 5:04 PM PST
This writer has put into words what so many of us want to say. By continuing to keep our young men and women in Iraq, we continue to force feed Iraq, Bush's wanting ways. (Continued…)
Costell
posted 4/30/08 @ 1:06 PM PST
I belive it is time for us to leave as well. Troops are dying everyday over there, for what? Nobody can answer that question for me. I am a soldier who just got back from my second tour. (Continued…)
Post a Comment