"Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows: Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war." --MoveOn Ad
General Petraeus calls for reducing to the troop level in Iraq by June next year by the very same amount of soldiers that he escalated it by, and that's supposed to be candid and credible? Who do they think they're kidding at the White House? Certainly not the American people who voted last November for an end to the occupation as they replaced Bush's republican majority in Congress with Democrats pledged to end the occupation. For Bush to go along with Petraeus and merely follow his recommendation to return the troop level in Iraq back to where it was when American voters made that demand for an exit would be an amazing betrayal of our citizens' demonstrated will.
Petraeus told the joint House committee in his mandated report to Congress, that, “I believe that we will be able to reduce our forces to the pre-surge level ... by next summer without jeopardizing the security gains we have fought so hard to achieve.”
The Petraeus plan to release 30,000 U.S. troops from Bush's unilateral deployment to Iraq by next summer is nothing more than another promise from an administration who has made breaking promises on Iraq as predictable as the appearance of a bin-Laden video before an Iraq deadline, determination, or vote. More despicable, it's a blatant slap in the face to any American who believed Bush and his generals earlier in the year when they insisted their escalation of their occupation was just a temporary 'surge' designed to give the Iraqi regime "breathing space" to carry out their politics.
The increased occupation now appears to be designed to enhance the politics of the beleaguered Bush administration than that of his opportunistic exile puppet, Maliki. As Petraeus outlined his views on security 'gains' he says he's made in Iraq -- in testimony he claimed to have written himself -- the general, nonetheless, admitted that, “Lack of adequate governmental capacity, lingering sectarian mistrust, and various forms of corruption add to Iraq’s challenges.”
In a transparent act of political resuscitation for his commander-in-chief's rejected Iraq mission, Petraeus presented the utter failure of the increased deployment of troops to the center of Iraq's embattled new government in Baghdad to spark any sort of political reconciliation among the Iraqi leaders and politicians which would lead to the stability Bush promised, as a "challenge." How quaint.
With over 3,000 Iraqis killed last month alone, and in the face of the over 800 U.S. troops who have been killed since the beginning of the cynical escalation, the question of our forces' effectiveness in achieving the goals set out by Bush as he defied the will of the majority of Congress and the American people is more than just academic. As Bush himself promised when he announced his betrayal of the will of Americans and escalated, the deployment wasn't supposed to be "open-ended."
"I've made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended." Bush told Americans in a prime-time address from the White House library. "If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people -- and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people." he had said then.
Every report independent of the administration officials who naturally shill for their own part in the fiasco has pointed out the Iraqi government's recalcitrance in moving to resolve any of the political agreements which Bush has promised would generate a reduction of the sectarian violence which has infected every region in Iraq which doesn't have a contingent of American soldiers to defend their defended tract of land with their lives and livelihoods.
US Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who testified at the same time as Petraeus, gave an evaluation of the potential for success of Bush's political promises for the Maliki regime. "A secure, stable, democratic Iraq at peace with its neighbors is, in my view, attainable," Crocker testified. "The trajectory of political, economic, and diplomat developments in Iraq is upward, although the slope of that line is not steep," he claimed.
What Crocker didn't allude to in his optimism was the amount of time and sacrifice of life and limb which would be required to make the political acceptance of the new Iraqi regime by the myriads of warring factions a reality. In fact, the question of how many American soldiers should be sacrificed for the dubious prospect of a "stable Iraq" is not a proper query for the ambassador or the general. That question of the efficacy of our troops fighting and dying to effect any political goal in Iraq is the sole responsibility of those individuals in the White House and Congress who've obstructed the clear will of the majority in their decision to deploy and keep our nation's defenders bogged down in Iraq.
"We are not going to kill our way out of Iraq," Petraeus acknowledged to the congressional committee.
Yet, in effect, that is the very implication of insisting that the survival of the new Iraqi regime is dependent on the presence of our aggravating forces. There is nothing unifying, liberating, or affecting our own national security which can be achieved by continued attacks on the Iraqi population; whether there's the expectation that they're killing Iraqis who identify themselves with the 9-11 attackers Bush has let roam free in the Mountains of Afghanistan; or if the assaults into Iraqi communities are meant to be a defense against the growing Iraqi resistance to their presumptuous prop of the unpopular new authority in Baghdad.
It is the height of arrogance that neither Bush or his generals have addressed the conclusion of 16 of their intelligence agencies that the occupation itself has been fueling the resistant violence in Iraq and is actually generating even more individuals, in that country, and in the region, who are driven to violent expressions of self-determination and sovereignty which our occupying forces disregard as mere obstacles to their consolidation of power.
Moreover, they have yet to adequately address their own role in arming and training the numerous elements who have splintered off from the Iraqi government police and military forces to form their own deadly militias bent on staking out their own center of power and influence, apart from the rule imposed by the U.S. assisted government behind the weight and sacrifice of our military forces. Amid the justification for continuing in Iraq because of some proliferation of weapons or combatants from Iraq's neighbors, there has be virtually no accounting from the military or the administration for the thousands of weapons they were reported to have "lost" as they ordinance was spirited away into the Iraqi communities.
The destructive U.S. military force in Iraq, which Bush has escalated into a perpetuity enabled by the destabilizing effect of our very presence, is the most pernicious and dangerous influence threatening 'stability' for the new regime. All of Bush's illusions of intimidating the Iraqis into acceptance and support of his enabled regime depend on an endless supply of American humanity in Iraq. As one congressman pointed out to the general as he was testifying, seven more U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq today, even as the general and ambassador were claiming progress. "How many more will be sacrificed in Iraq," the congressman asked, "before we admit it's time to leave?"
Petraeus responded that he thought his mission in Iraq was a "hugely important endeavor."
A while back, Bush scolded Congress for "substituting their judgment for that of the military" on Iraq. As "hugely important" as Petraeus may feel his escalated Iraq occupation is, he has not been elected to any position in which it would be proper for him, in his military role, to dictate to Americans what role our military should play in Iraq's development or defense.
Even as Petraeus is offering his mere suggestion given in response to questions from Congress, he's advantaging himself of the presumption from his republican supporters and defenders that he's in the best position to make such a judgment. Even if we assume he's made that judgment on his own -- made, as he claims, without White House interference -- it's a slippery slope from Congress acting solely on that opinion, to having the generals decide who and where our soldiers fight and die, altogether.
Bush and his generals are substituting their own judgment for the American peoples' in Iraq. That amazing abdication of responsibility for the direction and scope of our military involvement in Iraq was also an invitation for his handpicked generals to create their own rationale for remaining in Iraq and 'moving forward', instead of adhering to some clear direction from those charged with carrying out the will of the American people.
It is not the right of 'generals in the field' to make the determination about whether our nation's defenders should continue to fight and die as mere mercenaries of some foreign government. That right to commit forces is still the job of Congress, despite the Executive's own responsibility for managing them in their deployment. Yet, Bush has conjured his own convenient ploy to hide behind the military as they find a 'way forward' in Iraq, and dig our troops even deeper into the muck surrounding Iraq's civil war.
Generals will always find a 'way forward' on the battlefield, but it should be the determination of our civilian leadership - which carries their mandate directly from the American people - just who our forces will be tasked with laying down their lives to defend or fight against; not the military. That ultimate question of whether to continue to defend the Maliki regime is for our legislators to decide, not for generals 'in the field' to determine as they press on.
And, the question is certainly not Bush's to decide alone. Despite the imperious role he's assumed since 9-11 as our nation's 'protector' as he elevates the Iraqi al-Qaeda to a level of concern he's neglected to apply to the fugitives in Afghanistan, Bush and his generals are still subject to the judgment of Congress and the American people who have become increasingly opposed to continuing with the occupation in Iraq. On the anniversary of the attacks on our nation in September 2001, that essential judgment from the American people is being actively ignored by the administration's 'stay the course' strategy.
The general and his commander are betraying the demonstrated will of the American people that they bring an end to their occupation. They have, in fact, betrayed us in their coordinated refusal to allow our troops to stand down from their dubious Iraq mission. They have aligned against our collective will with the help of their republican obstructionists in Congress. General Petraeus and his commander have betrayed us.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
