ARTICLE: “Our Main Man in Baghdad: Petraeus succeeded in Iraq because he looked at the situation from a political standpoint,” by Linda Robinson, Washington Post National Weekly Edition, 22-28 September 2008.
Linda Robinson clearly trailed Petraeus for a long stretch, and unsurprisingly writes a book that is Petraeus-centric.
One nice and straightforward takeaway:
The extra surge brigades certainly helped, but the number of U.S. troops was far less important than the new ways in which they were used. The most important new tactical move still gets scant Beltway attention: Petraeus’s initiative to reach out to the Sunni insurgency and its base. “We cannot kill our way to victory,” he said.
So yes, Mr. McCain, there is a difference between tactics and strategy, and it’s important to understand it.
And no, Neocon camp, the “surge” did not prove that there are military solutions to political problems—just the opposite.
In the end, Robinson argues, “Petraeus’s willingness to grapple with Iraqi politics made all the difference. His replacements’ tasks will be more than ever political, not military.”
Key finish to remember as the presidential campaign argument continues:
No, the Iraqis can’t finish the job on their own now; at the same time, no, we don’t need 100,000 U.S. troops to stay in Iraq and do it for them. It would be heartening if we could understand the real record of Iraq’s turnaround—and talk about its future like grown-ups.
So please, stow the infantile argument about “winning,” “losing,” “surrendering” or any of that bullshit.
| Permalink |
Comments (7)
Good point. I would add that the change in focus of 'protecting the Iraqi people' was a huge change and provided the 'relationship' which yielded the intel in cooperation with the Sunni to rid them of Al Queda.
Posted by dan Hare | October 8, 2008 11:36 AM
I don't believe we have seen as much flag waving and bible thumping in an election since Andy Jackson. It is as though we have gone back in time to torch light parades and folks firing muskets in the air. It is very discouraging especially since the lights have gone out in the White House.
Posted by Ted O'Connor | October 8, 2008 1:30 PM
I still think that at some point both the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts were roach traps to lure, kill and re-educate the surviving extremists.
Rulers in places like Saudi Arabia and Libya had supported in their conflicts in Middle East and Central Asia ... as long as they left home turf alone. There are some signs that this phase is over and that Saudis and other rulers who benefitted from the roach traps are now ready to help the wild crowds transform into a more conventional approach to their struggles.
I don't think it would be realistic to expect extremists from tribal cultures to admit or accept defeat, whatever actually happened on the ridge lines, valleys and buildings. Instead their anger would simmer and return with a later generation.
It is possible though that a long, tough experience might cause them to transform their goals and methods.
Posted by Louis Heberlein | October 8, 2008 2:45 PM
strange, Ted. we must be running in different circles. i've heard almost no Bible thumping...
Posted by Anonymous
|
October 8, 2008 8:00 PM
"So yes, Mr. McCain, there is a difference between tactics and strategy, and it’s important to understand it."
Except the term "surge" refers not only to the added brigades, but to the transition to Petraeus's strategy, that includes reconciliation of those who can be reconciled, as well as protecting the population and other measures. Calling the surge itself a tactic is just not valid.
Posted by Rory Stolzenberg | October 8, 2008 9:25 PM
I believe the point should be, "Leaving Iraq better than we found it!"
Posted by large | October 9, 2008 10:52 AM
I am so relieved! I wondered to what extent the use of surge troops in nation-building as oppposed to standard military operations might be responsible for the successes of the surge.
Question: why neither the current administration, or either of the two candidates, have revealed this in simple terms. Do they think that admitting to pursuing and achieving political rather that military success makes them look wimpy or otherwise lacking the appropriate level of macho aggression (otherwise known as "stomach")? Are they seriously underestimating the judgement of the voting, watching, listening public again? As a member, I am so ready to hear that we are progressing past the chest-thumping posture, and towards promoting the pragmatic view of democracy and connectivity delivered diplomatically, i.e., this works, and it can work for all of you.
Posted by Barbara | October 10, 2008 9:21 AM