General Petraeus stands tall
As expected, some microscopic entities blathered in a language that can only be described as “pipsqueakian.” Across the table from them, standing tall in the saddle, was General David Petraeus.
The reason why this man is the very best is because he is in an industry where being the best and brightest actually matters. Dimbulbs can become Senators because the fate of human survival is not in their hands. Making speeches about things is not the same as actually doing them. If General David Petraeus gets his job wrong, the world could collapse. That is why that people had better listen when he speaks. They do not have to agree, but they had better listen closely.
There are three industries that are meritocracies. They are sports, sales, and the military. A person’s color, religion, or private beliefs do not matter. At the end of the day, these three industries ask one simple question. Did you get the job done?
Below are the entire remarks of General Petraeus’s testimony before the Senate.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/gen_petraeus_testimony_to_the.html
For those that want to try and cherry pick the General’s comments, manipulate away at your own dishonest peril. I will take the man literally. Below are some of his comments.
“Since Ambassador Crocker and I appeared before you seven months ago there has been significant but uneven security progress in Iraq.”
Anti-war surrender children will focus on the word “uneven.” The words to focus on are “significant progress.”
“Since September, levels of violence and civilian deaths have been reduced substantially, Al Qaeda-Iraq and a number of other extremist elements have been dealt serious blows, the capabilities of Iraqi security force elements have grown, and there has been noteworthy involvement of local Iraqis in local security.”
What part of this do those that want America to lose not understand?
Before a bunch of left wing crybabies claim that I am attacking their patriotism, they should be forced to answer whether they want to win in Iraq. When they try to argue that we are losing, direct the question back. It is not whether we are winning in this question, but if they had a choice, would they want victory? If they fail to answer, then their patriotism should not be questioned. They are simply repulsive, and yes, unpatriotic. People can disagree about the war, but wanting to lose is not acceptable.
“Nonetheless, the situation in certain areas is still unsatisfactory and innumerable challenges remain.”
How the antiwar children can translate this into defeat is mind boggling. There are always problems in war.
No war is done perfect. Yet overall, significant progress is exactly that.
“Still, security in Iraq is better than it was when Ambassador Crocker and I reported to you last September, and it is significantly better than it was 15 months ago…”
That is what happens when the military is allowed to do its job.
“Al Qaeda’s senior leaders, who still view Iraq as the central front in their global strategy, send funding, direction and foreign fighters to Iraq.”
The left carps that Al Queda was not there when Saddam ruled. So instead the right took down Saddam and is defeating Al Queda. Fabulous, ridding both evils in the same decade. Only leftists could object to this from their comfortable Seattle and Boston homes, no doubt with the air conditioning cranked up.
“These challenges and recent weeks’ violence notwithstanding, Iraq’s ethno-sectarian competitions in many areas is now taking place more through debate and less through violence.”
Apparently Barack Obama’s meaningless platitude about “Yes, we can,” only applies to getting him elected. “Yes, we can” is supposed to be about improving the world. To give real meaning to another slogan, this is “change we can believe in.”
“No matter which data is used, civilian deaths due to violence have been reduced significantly, though more work clearly needs to be done.”
There was a time when democrats actually believed in rolling up sleeves and actually doing things for society that were positive and productive. They actually supported sending a man to the moon, the Peace Corps, and interventionism in the form of a muscular foreign policy. “More work needs to be done” does not mean that nothing has been done right. A lot has been done right.
“Moreover, as we have helped improve security and focused on enemy networks, we have seen a decrease in the effectiveness of such attacks. The number of deaths due to ethno-sectarian violence, in particular, has remained relatively low, illustrating the enemy’s inability to date to reignite the cycle of ethno-sectarian violence. The emergence of Iraqi volunteers to help secure their local communities has been an important development.”
What part of reductions in deaths is bad news? At the risk of overkill, there are plenty of cities in America that cannot get their own failed areas in order. They can blame a diversion of resources to Iraq, but these places were failures long before many of us alive today were born. Intentions are worthless. This is a results oriented world, and General Petraeus has delivered.
“Sons of Iraq have also have contributed to the discovery of improvised explosive devices and weapons and explosive caches. As this next chart shows, in fact we have already found more caches in 2008 than we found in all of 2006. Given the importance of the Sons of Iraq, we’re working closely with the Iraqi government to transition them into the Iraqi security forces or other forms of employment. And over 21,000 have already been accepted into the police or army or other government jobs.”
This is what political progress is all about. First the left claimed we were losing militarily. Then they complained that Iraq was making no political progress. Now Iraq is making political progress. Apparently until Iraqi politicians are boring their citizens to death with their version of C-Span, progress will be dismissed.
“And the tenacious pursuit of AQI, together with AQI’s loss of local support in many areas, has substantially reduced its capabilities, numbers, and freedom of movement.”
Killing the bad guys does work, despite the temptation to switch to a strategy of scented candles and incense. After all, we need to let our inner light shine through to their hearts until they become nice. Or we can do what we are doing…killing the bad guys.
“After weighing these factors, I recommended to my chain of command that we continue the drawdown in the surge to the combat forces and that upon the withdrawal of the last surge brigade combat team in July, we undertake a 45-day period of consolidation and evaluation. At the end of that period, we will commence a process of assessment to examine the conditions on the ground and over time determine when we can make recommendations for further reductions. This process will be continuous, with recommendations for further reductions made as conditions permit. This approach does not allow establishment of a set withdrawal timetable, however it does provide the flexibility those of us on the ground need to preserve the still-fragile security gains our troopers have fought so far and sacrifice so much to achieve.”
Or we can have the left announce to the world that we will withdraw on January 20th, 2009. That way the terrorists can go hang out, play video games, and relax, and then come back from their vacations rested and ready to start killing again on January 21st, 2009. Announcing to the enemy when you plan to quit is not a smart strategy.
“It clearly is in our national interests to help Iraq prevent the resurgence of Al Qaeda in the heart of the Arab world, to help Iraq resist Iranian encroachment on its sovereignty, to avoid renewed ethno-sectarian violence that could spill over Iraq’s borders and make the existing refugee crisis even worse, and to enable Iraq to expand its role in the regional and global economies.”
Senator John McCain wants to win this war at all costs. His opponents would rather take polls and ask focus groups what they should think and feel and say. That is not leadership. John McCain is a military hero, which is one reason he understands this situation better than most people. It is why he has backed General Petraeus from the beginning. It was politically risky, but it was right.
“In closing, I want to comment briefly on those serving our nation in Iraq. We have asked a great deal of them and of their families, and they have made enormous sacrifices. My keen personal awareness of the strain on them and on the force as a whole has been an important factor in my recommendations.”
The words “my keen personal awareness” are key. He is there. The Senators grilling him may have many things, but being keen and having awareness are not two of them.
“Nothing means more to those in harm’s way than the knowledge that their country appreciates their sacrifices and those of their families. Indeed, all Americans should take great pride in the men and women serving our nation in Iraq and in the courage, determination, resilience and initiative they demonstrate each and every day. It remains the greatest of honors to soldier with them.”
General Petraeus is not asking others to put boots on the gorund. He is doing his job, and simply wants us to not hamstring him. The Senators do not even have to do anything positive. They just have to avoid making things worse.
His graciousness not withstanding, the demagoguic party of ostriches will be treated ruthlessly by history if they sabotage a man who has already proven that he can make the world a better place.
Keep standing tall General Petraeus. Many Americans believe in you, and just want you to continue to get the job done right. Your men are backing you. They trust you.
Take your time sir. You’ve earned it.
eric
April 9th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Eric, GEN Petraeus was a star man at West Point, two classes ahead of me, albeit I am a little older…his nickname was “Peaches”, and he was brilliant. Today, is both brilliant and experienced. He grasped the big picture immediately and empowered his subordinates to make things happen. First, he started treating the Iraqi populace as citizens rather than as inconvenient bystanders. In other words, rather than blasting out windshields of vehicles who didn’t get out of the way of convoys fast enough, or firing 240 machine guns or M2 50 cals at insurgents who were running away in a crowd, he established Rules of Engagement that reduced collateral damage and didn’t offend the Iraqis. He also allowed his cordon/search teams to actually have tea with the locals when they went in to check homes for weapons, bomb-making materials, illegals, et al. They started developing relationships with not only the people, but also with sheiks, tribal leaders, and other religious leaders.
He also recognized the basic premises of terrorist actions - that when people’s basic needs (Maslow’s Hierarchy) aren’t met, they aren’t concerned so much about nationalism, self-actualization, or even social acceptance - they want to eat, have a place to sleep, and things to wear…and they want to be secure. To be simplistic, GEN Petraeus’ surge cleaned out neighborhoods to initiate security, then he hired locals to maintain the security - which gave them jobs for food, shelter, and clothing…and it gave them honor to their families. What we, as the fat Americans with air conditioning, cell phones, cars, homes, flush toilets, and computers with fast internet access don’t understand is that it is more honorable for an Iraqi to get paid to provide for his family by implanting an IED or ratting out a projected raid than it is to do nothing and watch his family starve. It will take time - lots of time - before a sense of nationalism is developed. We still have to work on the lower tiers, but tremendous progress has been made.
Look at what some may call an ill-fated offensive by Maliki in Basra. Yes, it created many casualties, and it wasn’t well-planned because the US Army wasn’t initially included in the operation…but this offensive speaks volumes - that the Iraqi government is willing to fight against gangs and unauthorized militias to gain control of its country.
I, too, have a keen personal awareness of the situation there, and as I observe our schools , politicians, and media, I also have a keen personal awareness that their skewed agenda puts our freedom at risk. As some mentioned in earlier posts, I am thankful we have a representative government, and I am especially thankful we have civilian oversight of our Army. I’m also thankful that we have strengthened our National Guard to be prepared to protect citizens from all enemies, foreign and domestic (read between the lines, there!). More importantly, I’m thankful I can send this message out without fearing for my life - and it’s a combination of a republic’s representative governance, generals such as Petraeus, and strong-minded civilians who allow this luxury.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
First of all, guys, really, this whole Petraeus worship is a little gay. He’s a general. He has a job. It’s good that he does it.
Careful what you wish for, Eagle. From a lot of what I’ve read, it sounds like Iran is just as pleased with the Basra matter. There seems to be a serious disconnect between P&C’s (Petraeus’ and Crocker’s) answers and reality. Al Qaeda is barely relevent in Iraq, and the Iranians are backing Maliki and not Sadr by any reasonable estimate from any point of view. Petraeus is a little more careful, but Crocker, well, let’s just say his name matches his answers. There’s a lot of hot air about Al Qaeda and Iran floating around these hearings, not many substantial connections.
And the finance end of this is just terrible. No answers, no way out, nothing. Just red ink. I wish they’d grill P&C more on that.
JMJ
April 9th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Jersey, There are a great number of generals in the US Army, and elsewhere. GEN Petraeus is at the tip of the spear, and it’s not gay to vocally support someone who is making a difference. I have no idea what your point is about Basra, and I beg to differ with your opinion about red ink. You pose an interesting point about Al Qaeda..
Your lead in, “From a lot of what I read…”, speaks volumes. GEN Petraeus is there. I’ve been there and am going back next month. Granted, neither his nor my presence make us right, but it gives us first hand knowledge - not media driven propoganda. If you remember, after the Twin Towers fell, Arabs all over the country were celebrating and dancing in the streets. The Persian Iranis were holding candlelight vigils. Maybe the senior leadership in Iran is pleased with the Basra matter, but the local populace just wants peace - they are still recovering from a ten year war with Iraq. Is the senior leadership pleased that Maliki initiated an offensive that put Sadr to ground, or are they plased that Maliki had the balls to take the offensive, or are they pleased about something else?
Your point about Al Qaeda being irrelevant in Iraq is outstanding. Since the surge began, Al Qaeda was getting its butt kicked so badly, they had to vacate the area. They initially went to ground, but many were ratted out by the Sons of Iraq and others who are tired of the fighting. So, today, Al Qaeda in Iraq is Iraq is ready to operate independently, they will be relevant again - immediately.
The red ink is another interesting concept. Everyone talks about how much this war is costing us. Our economy was based on a wartime scenario - from the Revolutionary War forward. No resources are being spent for this war that would be otherwise spent. Our Constitution doesn’t call for spending money on education, mental illness, Social Security, Global Warming, or Saving the Whales. However, it does authorize spending for war. And, this spending is putting money into manufacturing, personnel, and materiel - providing for salaries, profits, jobs, which lead to TAXES - both individual and corporate - back to the government, AND spending that supports other businesses.
I see plenty of answers in Iraq and very few in the “other war”.
April 9th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
JMJ;
“There seems to be a serious disconnect between P&C’s (Petraeus’ and Crocker’s) answers and reality. ‘
OMG!!!!!!!!!
Will you give us all a large freaking break and sh**can the reality speaches already!
I will bet my life and the life of quite a few other people that Crocker and Petreaus have a much better grasp on the reality of the situation over there than you will ever have in ten life times.
April 9th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
I must have gone brain dead, or my fingers deleted a whole sentence! The comment, “So, today, Al Qaeda in Iraq is Iraq is ready to operate independently, they will be relevant again - immediately”… is supposed to read,
So today, Al Qeeda in Iraq is irrelevent, but if we vacate the country before Iraq is ready to operate independently, they will be relevent again - immediately.
April 9th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Eric: Got your message and he said yes to the interview (my mother asked while playing bridge with/against his wife, Dottie).
April 9th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Congratulations Eric! (I have no idea for what I’m congratulating you)
Eagle, I hear you loud and clear. Yes, Petraeus seems quite competent. That’s great. But as I’ve said before, there’s more to war than just generals.
Crocker was more telling in all these hearings. And remember, what “I’ve read” came from people over there just as much as anything you’ve read.
Crocker was throwing all sorts of rhetorical nonsense around these hearings. Petraeus, if anything, simply says “I don’t know” when he doesn’t. For that alone and among many things I like him. Crocker is another matter entirely. And you conservatives potrayed these hearings as rabid liberals playing politics with a decorated general, completely ignoring Crocker. Why? I know why. Crocker does not bring good news. Our military, as usual, has been just fine - our statesmenship, on the other hand, has been a failure.
Micky, I know enough about P&C to have a reasonable opinion. If you don’t like it, then show me where I’m wrong.
JMJ
April 9th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Jersey, We may not be on the same page all the time, but at least we’re in the same book. I don’t do as much reading as I’d like - most of my arguments come from first hand experience and sharing information with subordinate, superiors, and peers. Again, these experiences don’t make me “more right” than anyone else morally, but they do make me more right politically!! Having said that, I’ve been careful of making “you liberal” comments, so I won’t take blame for being one of the “conservatives [who] portrayed these hearings as rabid liberals playing politics…”. Unfortunately, I have not been able to observe the hearings because I’ve been in training. I was able to read Petraeus’ testimony a couple hours ago, and I watched excerpts when at chow - Mr. Crocker does not seem comfortable in front of the camera, and I will give you a resounding “amen” to your observation that “our statesmenship, on the other hand, has been a failure.” I have been using different terminology - our Information Operations campaign has been terrible - both here and in Iraq - but a horse by another name…
April 9th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Eagle, don’t worry about Petraeus. He’s fine. Think about Crocker. Follow the Crocker.
I know you guys love generals, and so do I, but give it a rest. They don’t get to be generals for nothing, ya’ know. Should we expect less? I’m glad for the generals we have. Very glad. America has truly perfected war. Now, beyond war, please???
JMJ
April 9th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Eagle,
First of all and most important thank you for your service to the nation. Having people like you on the “pointy end of the spear” is what keeps us all free. Your comments are right on target and were said far better than I could.
Jersey,
For the record lets be honest and tell the truth about the hearings. As I said during the last post, the hearings (like all congressional hearings) were certainly a case of both sides playing politics and not really a fact finding event.
As far as the cost of the war, much of that cost is poured directly into the US economy and far more effectively than through entitlement programs. For example money spent on ordinance goes to a US manufacturer who employs people making that ordinance. A much more effective use of the money than bailing out mortgage companies. I am not saying that is a good reason to go to war, I am just saying the economic argument is overblown. The argument should be over the validity of the mission. If it is a valid mission the cost is irrelevant. If it is not a valid mission than any cost is too high.
April 10th, 2008 at 6:33 am
Jersey.
The reality of the situation on Iraq is the issue here, not your opinion of Crocker and Petreaus.
And I seriously doubt that you are as knowledgable of the realities in Iraq as they are.
Where you are wrong is in thinking that your personal opinion on these men somehow makes you and expert on situations in Iraq that you are not knowledgable of.
Just because you view the war in a certain manner does not gie you the platform to deem it reality for all of us. Especially for Crocker and Petreaus whos reality of the situation is a lot more concrete and substantial than yours.
So for you to say that their answers do not connect is only saying saying that they do not connect in accordance with your thinking.
It all ils down to the fact that you really said nothing
April 10th, 2008 at 6:54 am
Parrothead - Thanks! In the early 70’s I was proud to be a Soldier, but other than support from my family and other Soldiers, it was a thankless profession. Today, I am humbled by the outpouring of support we get from the public - whether they agree with the GWOT or not. The aforementioned is a subject for another time, but please accept my thanks and the thanks of the many Soldiers who thrive on public support for our mission.
April 10th, 2008 at 7:48 am
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 04/10/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
April 10th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Parrothead,
“As far as the cost of the war, much of that cost is poured directly into the US economy and far more effectively than through entitlement programs.”
This is not true. While it is interesting to see conservatives point to the Keynesian benefits of war, it is apparent that conservatives do not understand Keynesian theory in the fist place, which is perhaps why they have railed against it in all matters but war.
In most all respected cost/benefit analyses of wars, only WWII was “profitable” for America, and most of that had to do with financing European and Japanese reconstruction and the GI Bill. Please, read about this subject and get back to me if you can find info to the contrary. Lord knows I’ve tried, as I used to subscribe to your theory as well, but was disabused by researching the subject.
Micky, Crocker is a liar. I don’t believe a word that oozes from his lizardy lips.
JMJ
April 10th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
I think Peaches is adorable! I am gay for him.
-kg
April 12th, 2008 at 9:28 am
JMJ;
“Micky, Crocker is a liar. I don’t believe a word that oozes from his lizardy lips.’
That is beside the fact that you dont know the reality of the situation half as much as they do.
And unless you can actually back up your claim that he is a liar it is no more valid than your claim of a disconnect between the situation on Iraq and what Petraeus and Crocker testified.
You use a lot of words Jersey. But when its all put into context the only thing you are saying is that you think you know more about Iraq than Crocker or Petreaus.
Jeez, you’ve never even been to Iraq and you have the audacity to try and act as if you have any clue as to what the realities are.
Get over yourself and true meaningful debates and conversations will bloom buddy.