The Next War – Wesley Clark, Washington Post
Testifying before Congress last week, Gen. David H. Petraeus appeared commanding, smart and alive to the challenges that his soldiers face in Iraq. But he also embodied what the Iraq conflict has come to represent: an embattled, able, courageous military at war, struggling to maintain its authority and credibility after 4 1/2 years of a "cakewalk" gone wrong.
Petraeus will not be the last general to find himself explaining how a military intervention has misfired and urging skeptical lawmakers to believe that the mission can still be accomplished. The next war is always looming, and so is the urgent question of whether the U.S. military can adapt in time to win it.
Today, the most likely next conflict will be with Iran, a radical state that America has tried to isolate for almost 30 years and that now threatens to further destabilize the Middle East through its expansionist aims, backing of terrorist proxies such as the Lebanese group Hezbollah and even Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, and far-reaching support for radical Shiite militias in Iraq. As Iran seems to draw closer to acquiring nuclear weapons, almost every U.S. leader -- and would-be president -- has said that it simply won't be permitted to reach that goal.
Think another war can't happen? Think again…
Confederation of Terror - Pramit Pal Chaudhuri, Washington Post
On September 6 the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan marked the first anniversary of its de facto recognition. On that day last year, the Taliban used the name when it signed a ceasefire agreement with the Pakistani government. The ceasefire is in tatters, but the terror trail of the recent plots in Germany and Denmark indicates that the Emirate is doing fine.
The Emirate's writ is spreading among the mountainous areas that make up the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) that run along the Pakistan-Afghan border. Going by trends, the Emirate is more than just a safe haven: It is on a nightmare path of nation-building. Osama bin Laden will be its sultan; Mullah Omar its spiritual leader; heroin and smuggling its economic drivers; and terrorism its primary export. "Al Qaeda is building a mini-state, an enclave, in the FATA," says Rohan Gunaratna, author of Inside al Qaeda…
Operation ‘Return on Success’ – National Review editorial
In a speech to the nation Thursday night, President Bush adopted the recommendations of Gen. David Petraeus for a gradual drawdown of the surge in Iraq.
He clearly and persuasively explained the sources of the progress the surge has made so far, as well as America’s interest in success in Iraq. At bottom, an ally of the United States is fighting for its survival. It needs our aid in defeating Islamic extremists and checking the hegemonic ambitions of its neighbor Iran, a sworn enemy of the United States.
President Bush invoked the scheduled drawdown that Petraeus laid out in his recent congressional testimony — a reduction of 5,700 troops by Christmas, and of five brigades (from 20 to 15) by July — and endorsed the general’s proposal that further reductions not be considered until March. He stipulated that his decisions on troop levels will be conditions-based. “I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy,” he said, calling his guiding principle “return on success.”
Bush tried to reach out near the end of his remarks, saying that this kind of withdrawal “makes it possible, for the first time in years, for people who have been on opposite sides of this difficult debate to come together.” Would that it were so. After the speech, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the president had demonstrated “that he is trying to run out the clock on his failed strategy and leave the hard decisions to the next president.” This is a poisonous charge — Reid asserts that Bush is cynically spending blood and treasure simply to hand off a losing war to his successor. But such is the nature of the opposition Bush is saddled with, and he will never win it over…
The Iraq Stalemate – Los Angeles Times editorial
President Bush and his Iraq team spent the week trying to change the nature of the debate over the war. But they failed to offer any new military or political strategy for extricating the United States from Iraq. And so countless hours of testimony by Gen. David H. Petraeus, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and an Oval Office speech by the president changed no minds. Despite Bush's bromidic calls for bipartisanship, Americans are more bitterly divided than ever, politically and morally stalemated over our responsibility for creating and for resolving what can now only be called a quagmire. For chief among the president's ever-shifting justifications for staying in Iraq is that it is far too dangerous to leave.
Petraeus and Crocker did succeed in boxing in some moderates who want to end the war but are afraid to cut off funding. They did succeed in making us hope against our better judgment that military progress can yet produce stability. And they distracted the public from the underlying problem, which is that the United States has no power to compel an Iraqi cease-fire, let alone the necessary political reconciliation.
To their credit, Petraeus and Crocker avoided offering promises, or even benchmarks for progress, which have so often disappointed in the past. They were wise enough to recognize the emptiness of each event that the war's supporters have heralded as a turning point -- the capture of Saddam Hussein nearly four years ago, the two national elections, the drafting of a constitution, the killing of Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Zarqawi last year, the formation of a government and parliament, and most recently, the "surge." By contrast, Bush's new rhetoric about a "return on success" and defending an"ally" that has requested U.S. help was twisted and misleading in the extreme…
Men at Work, Children at Play - Frederick Kagan, Weekly Standard
This week, America heard about Iraq from two serious men, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. They understand Iraq in all its complexity. They have an astonishing mastery of the details of what's going on in almost every part of the country and an amazing grasp of virtually every aspect of a complex war, a multilayered society, and a new and fluid polity. They have clearly thought about the policy options before us with a seriousness appropriate to individuals who, every day, exercise considerable authority and bear great responsibilities. Last week, they were able, despite the comparative shallowness and guile of their questioners, to explain the choices we face with clarity and honesty at a critical moment in our nation's history.
The congressional critics provided quite a contrast with Petraeus and Crocker. If the general and the ambassador were men at work, the congressmen and senators were--with a few notable exceptions--children at play. They spoke almost entirely in generalizations--often months, sometimes years, out of date. They used selective quotations and cherry-picked facts to play "gotcha." They offered no meaningful proposals of their own. Petraeus and Crocker live and breathe Iraq, dealing with life-and-death problems seven days a week. Congress bloviates Tuesday through Thursday. That's one of the reasons to listen to the general and the ambassador rather than the congressional pontificators...
Defeat at Any Price - David Gelernter, Weekly Standard
To prepare for General David Petraeus's long-awaited testimony on Iraq to Congress last week, the liberal pressure group MoveOn.org wrote itself into the history books with an anti-Petraeus ad so repulsive it ranked with Lyndon Johnson's infamous 1964 TV spot in the campaign against Barry Goldwater: A little girl picking flowers dissolved into a mushroom cloud, and then the screen went black. (Evidently by voting for Goldwater, you expressed your support for nuclear holocaust.) But gleeful Republicans who are certain that MoveOn has finally tipped its hand and shown America what the left is all about should remember that Johnson won that election, in a landslide. Because MoveOn headlined its ugly ad with an ugly rhyme ("General Betray Us"), it will stick in the public mind. But it is just possible that the public will invite MoveOn to take their ad and ShoveIt.
Democrats at the hearings themselves found it impossible to look this capable, thoughtful, distinguished man in the face and endorse the MoveOn ad. But don't get them wrong: Leading Dems had dumped on Petraeus often in the past, and were dumping furiously in preparation for the hearings. Petraeus is guilty of "carefully manipulating the statistics," Senator Dick Durbin announced; in fact the general has "made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be factual" (in strict contradistinction to Majority Leader Harry Reid), said Majority Leader Harry Reid. Barbara Boxer and Joe Biden plunged their knives in also...
Bush Still Refuses to Admit He Was Wrong - Joe Galloway, McClatchy Newspapers
Well, now we’ve heard from General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker and President George W. Bush, and it appears that the Surge has succeeded — succeeded in guaranteeing that the Iraq War will drag on for the last 16 months of the Bush presidency at a cost of another 1,600 American dead and $13 billion a month.
Extending the war, kicking that can down the road, was President Bush’s only strategic objective last January when he came up with the idea of escalating the number of American troops in Iraq from 130,000 to today’s 170,000. Put simply, the Decider wants to hand off the decision to pull the plug on his unwinnable war to someone else, anyone else.
Four and a half years after this president ordered the invasion of Iraq in a gross act of arrogance and ignorance based on faulty, bogus and politically twisted intelligence — and after repeatedly changing the rationales and objectives of the war as each has failed in turn — we’re going to continue this war because George W. Bush is incapable of admitting that he was wrong, wrong, wrong.
Leaving aside all the happy talk we heard this week about how much better the security picture is in Baghdad, the fact is that the escalation or surge has failed utterly. The stated purpose of this exercise was to buy breathing room for the faltering government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki and the paralyzed Iraqi parliament to make progress toward national reconciliation...
Bush Passes the Buck – Boston Globe editorial
In his speech to the nation Thursday night, President Bush said America's engagement in Iraq will extend "beyond my presidency." Whatever the value of his candor, Bush was warning Republicans and Democrats alike that the calamities he has wrought in Iraq will have to be overcome by his successor.
In the national interest, presidential candidates of both parties should ask Bush not to slough off his responsibility for cutting US losses in Iraq. Bush's refusal to face up to Iraqi realities now will make the next commander in chief's task of ending the war much harder.
Bush's prescription for the next 16 months was more of the same. He asserted that perpetuating current tactics in Iraq would help "contain Iran." What he failed to mention was that his policies have broken the containment of Iran - and, in Iraq, brought to power Shi'ite factions under the tutelage of Tehran.
By the same token, Bush's postinvasion policy called for purging nearly all Sunni Arabs who had belonged to the Ba'ath Party from military, security, and civil service positions. This opened the way for the Sunni insurgency, the implantation of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and the current sectarian civil war.
Difficult as it may be for Bush to acknowledge these strategic mistakes, recognizing the results of past actions is the first step toward policy changes that might limit or undo the damage already done to Iraq, the surrounding region, and US interests…
Real Leadership – London Times leader
Hearings on Capitol Hill are a uniquely American way of playing floodlights across the political scene. The closer such events are to an election, the more likely they are to illuminate grotesque prejudices, rather than serve as a catalyst for informed debate on difficult policy decisions.
This week’s candid and measured two-day testimony on Iraq by General David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, Ambassador to Baghdad, brought out the best, and the worst, in the US political system. It displayed openness and accountability on the one hand, and on the other presented the spectacle of an unseemly political scramble to come up with soundbites aimed more at grabbing media attention than at highlighting the salient issues presented by the two men’s sober first-hand assessments of Iraq’s situation and prospects.
What could and should have been an opportunity for congressional leaders to reflect on their positions on Iraq was irresponsibly turned by too many of them into an occasion for boasting that they were not to be swayed. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the leading Democratic contenders in the US presidential race, maintained their shrill demands for a change of course in Iraq, seemingly oblivious to the fact that America has already changed course and that this testimony was all about what the new Iraq strategy has, and has not, achieved to date.
To effect that shift, with its emphasis on improving security for Iraq’s population and thus creating space for national reconciliation, was precisely why General Petraeus was sent there for a third tour of duty. Circumstances in Iraq are still difficult, and neither General Petraeus nor Mr Crocker pretended otherwise, but militarily and at least at the local political level they are better than they were - and certainly better than they would be were the US precipitately to head for the exit…
The Surgin' General - Fred Barnes, Weekly Standard
When congressional leaders met with President Bush last week at the White House, the Republicans were upbeat, the Democrats far less buoyant. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a more imposing figure than her Senate colleague, Majority Leader Harry Reid, took the lead in criticizing President Bush's Iraq policy. But to the surprise of Bush and his aides, the Democrats weren't primarily interested in discussing Iraq. They wanted to talk about the budget.
At that point, General David Petraeus had testified on Capitol Hill for one day. And Democrats already exuded an air of defeat. Their assumption had been that opposition to the Iraq war would swell over the August congressional recess, causing wishy-washy Republicans to join them in thwarting Bush's war plans. It hadn't. If anything, opinion polls indicated antiwar fever was easing slightly.
Petraeus capitalized on that. He opened his testimony by knocking down a Democratic canard. He would not be giving a "Bush report" or a "Bush-Petraeus report," as Democrats had alleged. His testimony hadn't been drafted at the White House or the Pentagon. It was his and his alone. In fact, Petraeus didn't hear from Bush last week until he'd finished two days on Capitol Hill and a day of Q&A with the press. And the president called merely to commiserate.
The effect of Petraeus's performance was to slow the clock in Washington, as Peter Wehner, fresh from six years at the Bush White House, pointed out...
Ready, Willing, and Able - Thomas Donnelly, Weekly Standard
In the wake of last week's Iraq-related developments in Washington, the strongest quasi-respectable argument available to Democrats who want to oppose President Bush and General Petraeus while sounding responsible is the claim that a troop drawdown larger than the one they propose is needed to "rebalance risk"--that is, that the surge in Iraq has made us more vulnerable elsewhere in the world.
This has long been a concern to more moderate Democrats, and Rep. Ike Skelton, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee (and father of an Army officer), reiterated the position in his prepared statement at the Petraeus-Crocker hearings. He asked whether "Iraq is the war worth the risk of breaking our Army and being unable to deal with other risks to our nation. . . . With so many troops in Iraq, I think our response to an unexpected threat would come at a devastating cost."
This argument is a version of the concerns voiced by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Army chief, Gen. George Casey--a point not missed by Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, who wrote that "Democrats are now hoping concerned generals will support their case [for withdrawal], even if most Republicans won't." Indeed, the goal of driving a wedge between the military and the Bush administration has been a consistent strategy of the antiwar party. As Dionne puts it, "If withdrawing troops from Iraq is dangerous, failing to withdraw them may, in the long run, be even more dangerous." Fighting now compromises future readiness...
Madness Beyond the Water’s Edge – William Hawkins, Washington Times
… America's enemies know the opportunities presented by the liberal ideologues V.I. Lenin called "useful idiots." Both Hugo Chavez, a Castro-style authoritarian Marxist, and Osama bin Laden, an even older school despot of the Islamic variety, have cited prominent left-wing intellectual Noam Chomsky for insights into reaching those in America whose activism would help them defeat the U.S.
Mr. Chomsky sees the world as one of class conflict rather than international rivalry. Since he believes Washington only represents capitalists and corporations, there is no national interest worth defending. This dovetails with the classical liberal view that individuals should only think of themselves and feel no allegiance to the society in which they live. Osama advanced this argument in his videotape released just before the sixth anniversary of the September 11 attacks. The patriotic unity felt by Americans in all walks of life when the Pentagon and World Trade Center were attacked by al Qaeda had to be torn asunder as quickly as possible to conform with liberal-left ideology. Thus, groups like Moveon.org cranked up their partisan hate speech.
The Nightmare is Here – Bob Herbert, New York Times (subscription required)
We’ve heard from General Petraeus, from Ambassador Crocker, and on Thursday night from President Bush. What we haven’t heard this week is anything about the tragic reality on the ground for the ordinary citizens of Iraq, which is in the throes of a catastrophic humanitarian crisis.
President Bush may not be aware of this. In his televised address to the nation he warned that a pullout of U.S. forces from Iraq could cause a “humanitarian nightmare.” A trusted aide should take the president aside and quietly inform him that this nightmare arrived a good while ago…
Iraq and U.S. Politics: The Dem’s Big Mistake – Rich Lowry, New York Post
Sen. Hillary Clinton incontestably spoke the truth about the Iraq War this past February at the annual meeting of the Democratic National Committee when she said, "I understand the frustration and outrage, [but] you have to have 60 votes to cap troops, to limit funding, to do anything."
She heard a smattering of boos for enunciating a simple fact of life in the Senate. The left of the Democratic Party didn't want to hear it, and it forced the Democratic leadership of Congress and the Democratic presidential candidates - eventually including Clinton herself - to act in contravention of this reality, to the party's serious detriment.
There is a limit to how much Democrats can hurt themselves on the war. No matter what they do, the war is still unpopular and a net drag on Republicans. Nonetheless, Democrats have helped drive the approval levels of Congress down to historic lows and suffered an enormous opportunity cost…
John Doe in Post 9/11 Era – Michelle Malkin, Washington Times
"If only." Those are the verbal crutches America must discard in a post-September 11, 2001, world.
If only the State Department hadn't been so sloppy in issuing visas to the September 11 hijackers. If only police and state troopers had been able to check the immigration status of the hijackers who were pulled over for speeding before the attacks. If only universities had been more diligent in monitoring the hijackers' whereabouts. If only the feds had listened to alert agents' recommendations to profile young Arab students in our flight schools. If only someone, anyone, had said something when they saw the suspicious behavior of the jihadists on dry runs.
We have borne the bloody costs of coulda-woulda-shoulda. Nearly 3,000 dead. The World Trade Center in ruins. The Pentagon on fire. The fields at Shanksville, Pa., scarred. Six years later, we can no longer afford hindsight heavy breathing. Memory must guide action. And action must be taken without apology…
Held in My Homeland - Haleh Esfandiari, Washington Post
… On May 8, I was arrested by agents of Iran's intelligence ministry on suspicion of working to destabilize the Islamic Republic. For the next 105 days, this cell in Ward 209 of Tehran's Evin Prison would be my "home." …
I had flown to Tehran last December to visit my 93-year-old mother. But in January the authorities prevented me from leaving. I underwent many weeks of intensive interrogation by intelligence ministry officials, centering on my activities as director of the Middle East program at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington. When my questioning abruptly stopped for six weeks, I thought I had answered all the queries satisfactorily. But then I was summoned to the ministry and taken into custody.
Twenty-four hours later, I was brought before a revolutionary court magistrate. He was polite but businesslike as he drafted an arrest warrant accusing me of endangering Iranian national security. The charge seemed ludicrous. I, a 67-year-old grandmother, was being accused of threatening the security of the most populous and powerful country in the Middle East because I had organized conferences in Washington on Iran and other states of the region. But the implications were frightening…
It’s D-Day, But Victory is Still in the Balance – Tom Stoppard, London Times
It’s coming up to crunch time for Darfur. On Friday at a high-level meeting at the UN there will be nothing else on the agenda. Tomorrow, as heads of state and government prepare to converge on New York for the General Assembly, campaigners will be demonstrating in London and in more than 30 capital cities.
Are you bored yet?
This story has been running for three or four years and you might be thinking that another wrangle (or “high-level meeting”) in that multilingual high-rise on the East River doesn’t sound like new news.
You might be thinking that it’s over three years since the UN Security Council imposed an arms embargo on the militias doing the pillaging, raping, torturing and killing; three years since the Secretary-General set up a commission of inquiry to determine whether the Sudanese forces and their allied militias were carrying out genocide (answer: no, only pillaging, raping, torturing and killing); two years since the UN signed up to the “responsibility to protect” civilians caught up in mass atrocities; 16 months since the African Union came up with the Darfur Peace Agreement, and almost a year since the inception (on paper) of a hybrid UN/African Union force that was – finally – going to put a stop to the bizarre and horrendous spectacle of a population terrorised by savagery arriving on camels and in bomber planes; and that, meanwhile, the story on the ground has got nowhere except worse…
A Russian ‘Election’ – Washington Post editorial
Vladimir Putin’s Russian "democracy" put on a remarkable show this week. On Wednesday, Mr. Putin accepted the abrupt resignation of the prime minister and announced the nomination of an obscure bureaucrat and personal pal, Viktor Zubkov, whom most Russians had never heard of. Yesterday, the parliament duly voted Mr. Zubkov into office by a count of 381 to 47 after a discussion of less than two hours. As an Associated Press reporter described it, "Lawmakers praised Zubkov, posed easy questions and gladly accepted his responses in rote exchanges" reminiscent "of Soviet-era Communist Party meetings."
Outside the chamber, Russian and Western Kremlinologists feverishly debated the meaning of the event, which comes six months before Mr. Putin's term-limited mandate as president expires. Was Mr. Putin preparing to install Mr. Zubkov as a puppet successor? Ensuring continuity in government while he decides on another nominee? Laying the groundwork to remain in power himself? All agreed that only the great ruler himself knew the answer to their questions…
-----
