|
|||||
|
|||||
Listening to Petraeus – John McCain and Joseph Lieberman, Wall Street Journal
Today, Gen. David Petraeus--commander of our forces in Iraq--returns to Washington to report on the war in Iraq and the new counterinsurgency strategy he has been implementing there. We hope that opponents of the war in Congress will listen carefully to the evidence that the U.S. military is at last making real and significant progress in its offensive against al Qaeda in Iraq.
Consider how the situation has changed. A year ago, al Qaeda in Iraq controlled large swaths of the country's territory. Today it is being driven out of its former strongholds in Anbar and Diyala provinces by the surge in U.S. forces and those of our Iraqi allies. A year ago, sectarian violence was spiraling out of control in Iraq, fanned by al Qaeda. Today civilian murders in Baghdad are down over 50%.
As facts on the ground in Iraq have improved, some critics of the war have changed their stance. As Democratic Congress man Brian Baird, who voted against the invasion of Iraq, recently wrote after returning from Baghdad: "[T]he people, strategies, and facts on the ground have changed for the better, and those changes justify changing our position on what should be done."
Unfortunately, many more antiwar advocates continue to press for withdrawal. Confronted by undeniable evidence of gains against al Qaeda in Iraq, they acknowledge progress but have seized on the performance of the Iraqi government to justify stripping Gen. Petraeus of troops and derailing his strategy…
The Public Looks Beyond Iraq – Michael Barone, Real Clear Politics
This week, the American public will surely be focused on Iraq, as Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker present their reports to Congress. Petraeus and Crocker will undoubtedly speak of the striking military success of the surge strategy, while Democrats will try to focus on the failure of Iraqi politicians to reach agreement on major issues.
But Iraq is not the only challenge America will face in the coming years. Islamist terrorists will continue to try to attack the United States and undermine if not destroy our free society. And Americans, for all the media's concentration on Iraq, seem aware of this -- and will be keeping it in mind as they decide on how to vote next year.
That's the message you get from an interesting poll conducted in mid-August by Public Opinion Strategies, a widely respected Republican firm, for the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Unlike most polls, it doesn't include specific questions on Iraq, but rather focuses on the wider struggle…
Redefining Goals: Less Talk of Victory Now – David Sanger, New York Times
… On Monday afternoon, when Gen. David H. Petraeus begins testifying about the latest plan for extracting troops — a slow process that could begin as early as December — no one will be talking about achieving victory, just stability. Nor will there be orchestrated cheers. Part of the strategy this time is to keep Mr. Bush well in the background until later in the week, when he is expected to address the country with a revised plan, picking a course that the White House hopes will end the unusually public disagreements among the president’s military advisers about how much more effort and blood to invest in the war.
There is no doubt that Mr. Bush still staunchly believes that the Iraq project can be salvaged; visiting Anbar Province last Monday, he used the word “success” a half-dozen times. But the kind of “victory” he described in November 2005, when Representative John P. Murtha initiated the first Democratic calls to get out of Iraq, is no longer discussed as the goal…
Back From Iraq, Still Facing Fire – New York Times
Today and tomorrow, the United States ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, and the top American general there, David Petraeus, will appear before Congress to offer a progress report on the war. The Op-Ed page asked six experts on the Iraq conflict to come up with three questions they would pose to the two men…
A U.S. General’s Disquiet – Roger Cohen, New York Times (subscription required)
… Like the U.S. armed forces as a whole, Chiarelli has learned and adapted through two Iraq tours. Now he has gathered his thoughts in a forthcoming article for Military Review that makes devastating reading. The picture he paints is of a military and nation still at some remove from reality.
“Much of our government and interagency seem to be in a state of denial about the requirements needed to adapt to modern warfare,” Chiarelli says, adding that even today some believe “that all we have to do to win our modern wars is kill and capture enough of the enemy.”
Nonsense, Chiarelli argues in a piece written with Maj. Stephen Smith. Shadowy modern wars are less about overwhelming force than mastering instantaneous communication to win hearts and minds, adapting rapidly, flattening ponderous military hierarchies, understanding nation-building, and bringing to bear U.S. abilities in fields as diverse as engineering and agronomy.
“If we are unable to do a better job than our enemies of influencing the world’s perception, then even the most brilliant campaign plan will be unlikely to succeed,” he writes. Unreadiness for the real-time reactions of an interconnected globe has often allowed a video-camera-wielding enemy “to run circles around us, especially in the information environment.” …
Reclaiming the High Ground – David Limbaugh, Washington Times
Given our success with the counterinsurgency operations and the stakes involved in the outcome of the war in Iraq, President Bush and other Republicans have a window to restate their case for the importance of Iraq in the War on Terror. They should seize the opportunity before war opponents have another chance to discourage the war effort.
Let's agree to disagree right now on whether we should have attacked Iraq in the first place. Let Democrats savor the prospect of using that issue for the 2008 elections — if things turn back around for them and against our progress in Iraq.
But we're in Iraq now, and whether we win or lose matters — believe it or not — and when we begin to withdraw our troops matters because it will affect whether we win. But we shouldn't allow the answer to either question to be affected by disputes over the justification for our initial attack…
How to View the Report on the Surge – Brian Katulis, Washington Post
A new White House Iraq report and Congressional testimony from U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and General David Petraeus will intensify the country's Iraq debate. These latest reports will arrive after a string of pessimistic accounts from past weeks -- including last month's grim National Intelligence Estimate and a Government Accountability Office report, as well as a negative assessment of Iraq's security forces from retired General James Jones.
The more focused debate in the United States is in part due to efforts by members of the 110th Congress to call for a course change and push for independent assessments of Iraq policy. Since 2005, Congressional leaders from Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) to Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) have supported beginning a phased redeployment from Iraq. It took Congressional action to get an independent assessment and recommendations in 2006 from the Iraq Study Group. Last May's amendment to the supplemental funding bill requiring reports on 18 key measurements was another positive development. By focusing attention on outcomes, Congress is fulfilling its oversight responsibilities.
To a large extent, we know what the forthcoming administration report will say -- President Bush and other top officials have tipped their hand. The report will try to shift the terms for evaluating the surge -- featuring increased stability in certain neighborhoods of Iraq, while downplaying high levels of overall violence and political deadlock among Iraq's leaders. We also have a good idea of what ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus will say: Give the surge more time…
The Bottom-Up Partition – Jackson Diehl, Washington Post
The benchmark-centered reports on Iraq agree: The "surge" has failed to achieve its most fundamental objective, which is to catalyze a political reconciliation among Iraqis. Buried in the data, however, is plenty of evidence that Iraq is slowly moving toward a new political order. It's just not the one the Bush administration has in mind, and it's not happening on the timetable Congress wants.
Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will probably concede today that the Shiite-led government hasn't delivered key legislation, such as a national oil law, and has done little to reconcile with minority Sunnis. But those benchmarks suppose a relatively centralized Iraq -- with a dominant national oil company, for example -- governed by a "unity" government in which Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds share power. They also assume that a decisive breakthrough toward this outcome will take place this year.
What's really happening is that Iraqis are slowly moving toward the solution their politicians first outlined in their constitution two years ago despite stiff American resistance. This is a loose confederation of at least three self-governing regions, each with its own government, courts and security forces; and a weak federal government whose main function will be redistributing oil revenue so that each region gets a share based roughly on its proportion of the population…
Slandering General Petraeus – Washington Times editorial
To no one's surprise, the character assassins haven't waited for Gen. David Petraeus to deliver his report on the Iraqi troop "surge" before starting the campaign to trash his honor and reputation. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claimed Gen. Petraeus made statements "over the years that have not proved to be factual," and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin suggested Gen. Petraeus had "manipulated" statistics. The Democrats' ideological soulmates at MoveOn.org have an advertisement scheduled to run in today's New York Times titled: "General Petraeus or Gen. Betray Us?" The MoveOn.org announcement in particular is worth keeping in mind the next time you hear lectures from the Democrats and the far left about how the Bush administration is "questioning our patriotism."
While we're on the question of using questionable statistics to prove a political point, the military is responding with factual information calling into question statistical data put together by the Government Accountability Office (and turned into a political prop last week by Sen. John Kerry at Foreign Relations Committee hearings) purporting to show that changed tactics in Iraq are having little effect. Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations asked an American officer in Baghdad about whether the levels of violence have really been going down. The officer's response (included in "Correcting the GAO," published Sept. 4 at www.commentarymagazine.com) is must reading for anyone interested in having a serious, thoughtful discussion about the quality of the statistics Gen. Petraeus will present to Congress this week. It describes how rigorously the data compiled by Multi-National Forces-Iraq (MNF-I) is analyzed, and how the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency, after poring over the information, decided to use it in last month's National Intelligence Estimate. (In many Baghdad bombings, the first reports of casualties are too low, so the military adjusts the figures upward.)…
MoveOn.org Calls Petraeus a Traitor - Pete Hegseth, Weekly Standard
Tomorrow--as General David Petraeus provides his Iraq assessment to Congress--the antiwar group MoveOn.org is running a full-page advertisement in the New York Times under the headline: "General Petraeus or General Betray us? Cooking the books for the White House."
Let's be clear: MoveOn.org is suggesting that General Petraeus has 'betrayed' his country. This is disgusting. To attack as a traitor an American general commanding forces in war because his 'on the ground' experience does not align with MoveOn.org's political objectives is utterly shameful. It shows contempt for America's military leadership, as well as for the troops who have confidence in him, as our fellow soldiers in Iraq certainly do.
General Petraeus has served this country for over 35 years with honor, distinction, and integrity. And this is not just about General Petraeus. After all, if General Petraeus is "cooking the books," then the entire military chain of command in Baghdad, and all the staff, military and civilian, who have been working with General Petraeus are complicit, since Petraeus did not write his report in isolation. They are all, apparently, 'betray[ing] us.'
MoveOn.org has been working closely with the Democratic congressional leadership --as an article in today's Sunday New York Times Magazine makes clear. And consider this comment by a Democratic senator from Friday's Politico: "'No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV,' noted one Democratic senator, who spoke on the condition on anonymity. ‘The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us.’ …
A ‘Sunni Awakening’ – and a Recurring Nightmare – Martin Fletcher, London Times
… It is small wonder that in such an arid, bleak environment any green shoot causes excitement, and in the past few months there has been rare cause for hope. General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, will doubtless highlight it today when he gives Congress his verdict on George Bush’s troop surge strategy. Sunnis in much of western and central Iraq, including Baghdad, have turned on the foreign-led al-Qaeda jihadists who arrived in their communities promising to eject the infidel Americans. What they actually did was impose a rule of terror, whipping or executing any who opposed their extremism.
The tribal leaders of Anbar province led the way, encouraging thousands of their followers to join the hated Iraqi police and make common cause with the equally reviled US military. Anbar, once the heart of the infamous Sunni Triangle, is now one of the safer provinces in Iraq – so safe that Mr Bush visited it last week. The US military is now trying to replicate the success of Anbar in other Sunni areas by recruiting thousands of Sunni males into groups of “concerned citizens” determined to take back their neighbourhoods.
US generals claim to have al-Qaeda on the run, to have deprived it of the strongholds where it planned its car bomb spectaculars, to have achieved “tactical momentum”. Al-Qaeda attacks have certainly fallen off in recent months, and appear increasingly to be aimed at soft and remote targets such as the unfortunate Yazidi sect who live near the Syrian border: truck bombs killed 500 on August 14.
This “Sunni awakening” is an astonishing development, but as far as bragging rights go it has its limits. For a start, it began months before the “surge”, though the deployment of an additional 30,000 US troops probably emboldened more ordinary Sunnis to tackle the extremists in their midst…
Flight into Danger – London Times leader
Eight years ago Nawaz Sharif was removed from power in Pakistan after denying landing rights to an airliner, circling over Karachi, carrying the army general who has ruled the country ever since. Last night Mr Sharif left London to return to Pakistan for the first time since 2000, ignoring pleas from Saudi Arabia and Lebanon to uphold a deal they claim to have brokered for him to stay in exile for ten years. Mr Sharif explained his decision to go with characteristic hubris: “My country needs me.” It does not. His record as a leader, tarnished by scandal and ineptitude, hardly qualifies him as a national saviour. What Pakistan needs is a respite from violence on its streets and the orderly transition to democracy that President Musharraf has long-since promised. Whether Mr Sharif has a role in bringing this about is secondary - and doubtful.
Few would argue that much has changed in Pakistan in Mr Sharif’s absence, and in particular in the past year. General Musharraf has presided over respectable economic growth, restrained the Army’s more draconian impulses and taken steps towards lowering tension with India in Kashmir. But he has made no significant moves towards returning his country to democracy, disenfranchising the moderate middle class on which its future depends. At the same time his erratic approach to dealing with religious extremism- withdrawing troops from Waziristan last year, then using them to take control of the Red Mosque in Islamabad in July - has succeeded only in unifying the voices of radical Islam against him and deepening his own isolation.
This is a crisis of General Musharraf’s making. Yet his plan to end it is not plausible…
Rwanda’s Advice for Budding Democracies: Dialogue Clubs - Jeffrey Lewis and Karin Miller-Lewis, Christian Science Monitor
As the world considers how to help Iraq and other war-torn nations rebuild themselves, we'd do well to observe efforts under way in Rwanda.
Like other countries shattered by extreme violence, Rwanda faced tremendous obstacles to stability after the 1994 genocide killed almost 1 million Rwandans. And there were no traditions of democracy to build on.
Yet this July, we saw the democracy-building work of "dialogue clubs." In the five districts where dialogue clubs have been active since 2003, they have promoted reconciliation, made possible new means of economic cooperation and development, and fostered new engagement by parliamentarians with their constituencies.
They're part of Rwandans' efforts to strengthen civil society, which they recognize as crucial for national unity, democratic values, and enduring political institutions.
Dialogue clubs have been organized by the Institute of Research and Dialogue for Peace (IRDP), a Rwandan nongovernmental organization, with the help of the international NGO Interpeace. The clubs meet several times a month to discuss how to create a future for communities torn apart by the genocide, which was orchestrated by the extremist Hutu power against the minority Tutsi population. Peace was restored, but survivors and perpetrators of mass killings, rape, and thievery continued to live side by side…
Terror Alert Fatigue? – Mark Steyn, Washington Times
… Six years on, most Americans are now pretty certain what they'll wake up to in the morning: There will be a thwarted terrorist plot somewhere or other - last week, it was Germany. Occasionally, one will succeed somewhere or other, on the far horizon - in Bali, Istanbul, Madrid, London. But not many folks expect to switch on the TV this Tuesday morning, as they did that Tuesday morning, and see smoke billowing from Atlanta or Phoenix or Seattle.
During the Irish Republican Army's 30-year campaign, the British grew accustomed (perhaps too easily so) to waking up to the news either of some prominent person's assassination or that a couple of grandmas and some schoolkids had been blown apart in a shopping center. It was a terrorist war in which terrorism was almost routine. But in the six years since President Bush declared America was in a "war on terror," there has been in America no terrorism.
In theory, the administration ought to derive a political benefit from this: The president has "kept America safe." But, in practice, the placidity of the domestic front diminishes the chosen rationale of the conflict: If a "war on terror" has no terror, who says there's a war at all? That's the argument of the left - that it's all a racket cooked up by the Bushitlerburton fascists to impose on America a permanent national-security state in which, for dark sinister reasons of his own, Dick Cheney is free to monitor your out-of-state phone calls all day long…
The Liberty / Security Debate – Los Angeles Times editorial
This nation is overdue for a serious conversation about how to balance liberty and security -- a conversation that must include not only the Bush administration and a heretofore compliant Congress but the public as well. Citizens shouldn't have to guess about how much privacy they are sacrificing in the war on terrorism.
Congress will deal with this dilemma on several fronts in the coming months. It must enact permanent legislation to replace this summer's temporary "fix" in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It will take a new look at USA Patriot Act provisions -- declared unconstitutional last week by a federal judge -- that allow the FBI to obtain telephone and business records with "national security letters" that don't require a judge's approval and swear some recipients to secrecy. Finally, Senate confirmation hearings for a new attorney general will require the nominee to say whether he or she shares Alberto R. Gonzales' expansive view of presidential power.
Overarching these issues is the administration's attempt to rule off-limits a discussion of what it actually has been doing and why…
Lagging on Homeland Security – New York Times editorial
In response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the federal government began the most sweeping bureaucratic overhaul in half a century. The result was the creation in 2003 of the Department of Homeland Security — a behemoth designed to consolidate 22 separate agencies and 220,000 employees into a battle-ready shield against terrorists and natural disasters.
Two years ago, Hurricane Katrina glaringly and shamefully demonstrated the unreadiness of that shield. Now a new assessment by nonpartisan Congressional investigators says that the department has failed thus far to meet even half the performance goals it set for itself when it was created. The only area of significant improvement found was in maritime security, according to analysts from the Government Accountability Office.
To be fair, experts say the difficult task of consolidating and reshaping the many rival bureaucracies will likely require two to three more years, and there has been moderate progress in some target areas…
Is Military Justice Broken? – Gary Solis, Los Angeles Times
American soldiers and Marines in Iraq are convicted of the homicides of noncombatants but sentenced to no confinement; no officer is held accountable for abuses at Abu Ghraib prison. These are just two disturbing military legal headlines.
Why are court-martial convictions seemingly hard to come by? The homicides of 24 Haditha civilians, including women and children, for example, resulted in court-martial charges against eight Marines, including four officers. Almost two years later, however, charges have been dropped against -- so far -- two of the four alleged shooters and one of the four officers.
Is the military justice system broken? Has the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the military's criminal code, failed? Does the United States pay lip service to the law of war while disregarding it in fact?
First, remember that war crime charges involve very few of the many thousands of heroic U.S. war fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan, and also that being charged does not necessarily mean one is guilty. The Uniform Code of Military Justice has proved itself in peace and combat, including in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, undeniably, there are problems in prosecuting war crimes.
Although the code works well, the law of war -- the part of international law that regulates armed hostilities -- does not. The wonder is that it works at all. Some war crimes go unreported. That was particularly true in the early stages of the Iraq conflict. After the Abu Ghraib scandal, greater attention is now given to enforcing the law of war, which partly explains the greater number of media accounts of criminality. Our military is not riddled with criminals. Rather, commanders are paying closer attention to possible war crimes and, as required by military law, they are investigating and reporting them…
-----