In order to counter the idea that no progress is being made in Iraq, the Bush White House sent General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker to Congress in September 2007, to report on the state of affairs under the American military occupation. Petraeus and Crocker were supposed to be making an argument in favor of maintaining the occupation. During all of their many hours of testimony, however, Petraeus and Crocker failed to identify any long term strategy through which victory in Iraq, even as redefined by the Bush White House, could be achieved. Their arguments were instead based upon the hope that, with time, the military occupation might somehow turn around. As the editorial board of the Philadelphia Inquirer comments, hope is not a strategy.
To continue the military occupation on hope alone, without a strategy through which hope can be achieved, is a betrayal of both the American soldiers hanging on in Iraq and the Iraqi people they are supposed to be protecting.
(Source: Philadelphia Inquirer, September 16, 2007)
And, of course, they claim they’ll be able to start withdrawing next summer. Does anybody doubt the time was chosen to give the Republican Presidential candidate a boost?
Even if the “victory” was achieved, and all the fighting stopped right now, what makes anyone think that a successful withdrawal that preserves stability could be accomplished by next summer?
“Start withdrawing” means that you bring two soldiers home, and promise more… later.
First of all, I hope everyone realizes the only citation was to an editorial, which is not a valid academic source. A link to his testimony would have been much more appropriate. The editorial itself pretty much attacked Bush, not Petraeus or a strategy in Iraq.
Second, in regard to the passage, notice the following two sentences, with emphasis added with **:
“Petraeus and Crocker were supposed to be making an **argument in favor of maintaining the occupation**.”
“During all of their many hours of testimony, however, Petraeus and Crocker **failed to identify any long term strategy through which victory in Iraq**, even as redefined by the Bush White House, could be achieved. Their arguments were instead based upon the hope that, with time, the military occupation might somehow turn around.”
Notice that they were supposed to be making an argument to maintain the occupation, yet it’s not that they failed at that, they failed at showing a long term strategy. You can give an argument to maintain the occupation, such as “By getting local tribal leaders to help us, we currently are starting to turn back the insurgency. We must maintain the occupation at current force levels for a few more months to capitalize on our successes” without giving a long term strategy.
Now, I can’t really give an example of a long term military strategy, because I’m not a high ranking officer in the military. I didn’t graduate from West Point. I have no earthly idea what a good strategy would be. I’m sure the Generals do, but it’s probably a bad idea to publicly state a strategy (such as we’re going to take care of this province, then this province, then this province”.
The thing that I don’t understand, is what would an acceptable “strategy” to win be? I mean, really, the military says it’s getting better and the current plan needs more time (military plans against insurgencies often do take TIME to actually work, and don’t suddenly cause change overnight), but what is it that would not be a “betrayal of both the American soldiers hanging on in Iraq and the Iraqi people they are supposed to be protecting”?
The editorial is right, hope is not a strategy. But that’s not Petraeus’s strategy. He sees the plan working. I’m sure many people think he’s lying, but who else is qualified to evaluate that or has the information? Who else is qualified to come up with a new plan? Our politicans sure as hell aren’t qualified or have the power to come up with a new “strategy”, the best they can do is make uninformed judgements and vote to cut funding for the war.
I’ve yet to hear someone say “THIS is a better strategy for fixing the problems in Iraq.” Instead, people insist that the war is failing and should end so that the troops can come home, and then anything that contradicts that conclusion is treated as a lie or a failing plan.