What Petraeus really means...

Via reasononline:

Be Angry—but Patient

President Bush's "surge" isn't solving Iraq's political problem. But what's the Democrats' hurry to end it?

Jonathan Rauch | September 10, 2007

Pity Gen. David Petraeus, the military commander in Iraq. Before Memorial Day, his September progress report from Baghdad was expected to be a turning point in the Iraq war. By Labor Day, it looked like most of the other turning points in this strange war: one where nothing turned.

Partisans worked through the summer to show that nothing as trivial as the field commander's assessment would influence their views. In July, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean announced, "We do not need to wait until September" to know that President Bush's "surge" strategy had failed. In August, Bush's allies shot back that the strategy was plainly succeeding.

People who knew better than to listen to partisans paid more attention to a raft of August progress reports: a partially declassified National Intelligence Estimate; a leaked draft report [PDF] from the Government Accountability Office; early accounts of a congressionally commissioned study of Iraqi security forces; and reports from members of Congress and think-tank experts who traveled to Iraq.

The assessments disagreed on some details, such as how much Iraq's security forces are improving, if at all. Taken together, however, they painted a coherent picture, which Petraeus's report seemed unlikely to change.

• Tactically, which is to say militarily, the troop surge is making headway. Partly thanks to Sunni tribes joining with U.S. forces against Al Qaeda, and partly because the Pentagon is devoting more resources to a better plan of attack, security has improved in Iraq's contested central regions. But:

• Iraq is still a dangerous and volatile place, far from stable. Sectarian militias, foreign terrorists, and domestic insurgents remain potent; violence remains unacceptably high. And:

• Strategically, which is to say politically, the surge is working much less well. As the National Intelligence Estimate summarized, "Broadly accepted political compromises required for sustained security, long-term political progress, and economic development are unlikely to emerge unless there is a fundamental shift in the factors driving Iraqi political and security developments."

• Absent a political settlement, Iraq's government and security forces are too incompetent, sectarian, and corrupt to stabilize the country without continued large-scale U.S. intervention.

• The troop surge is not sustainable much beyond next spring unless combat tours are extended, which would strain the Army to or near the breaking point. Pre-surge forces could be maintained a while longer but not indefinitely.

In sum: The surge has temporarily stabilized what had become a downward spiral and, by doing so, has bought some time. But not much time, and the Iraqis have done little with it.

Petraeus yesterday recommended pulling out about 30,000 troops by next summer and 1000-2000 Marines this month.

Read more.

theteach

Petraeus on the surge

Via BBC:

US surge plan in Iraq 'working'

The military objectives of the US troop surge in Iraq "are largely being met", the top US military commander in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, has said.

He told a Congressional panel that although improvements were "uneven", violence had declined significantly since the surge began in February.

In his testimony before the joint hearing by the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees, Gen Petraeus said:

• "security incidents", including sectarian violence, had declined since the start of the surge
• he envisioned the withdrawal of some 30,000 US troops by the middle of 2008, beginning with 2,000 marines this September
• he expected a decision on further troop cuts next March

• the situation in Iraq remained "difficult"

__________________________________________________________________________________
An Iraqi poll reported by the BBC suggests about 70% of Iraqis believe security has deteriorated in the area covered by the US military "surge" of the past six months.

theteach
_________________________________________________________________________________

UPDATE September 11, 2007

Via BBC:

The two leading US figures in Iraq are facing criticism at a hearing in Congress from Democratic presidential candidates opposed to the war.

Senators Joe Biden and Barack Obama told military commander David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker the troop build-up had failed to achieve peace.

Gen Petraeus and Mr Crocker have been testifying for a second day.

Both repeated their contention that the military "surge" in Iraq was working, and warned against a rapid withdrawal.

White House officials said President Bush would this week announce plans to reduce US troops in Iraq by about 30,000 by next summer - in line with the recommendations of Gen Petraeus and Mr Crocker.

The BBC's Justin Webb, in Washington, says the president's move is an attempt to seize the initiative and to give the impression - whether true or not - that he is driving events.

Voice of America denies Petraeus's statements

Voice of America is the only news source stating that General Petraeus has NOT made any definitive statements regarding troop withdrawals from Iraq.

A senior U.S. military officer is disputing reports in two major U.S. newspapers, which said Friday that the U.S. commander in Iraq may be willing to send several thousands of his troops home by January. VOA's Al Pessin reports from the Pentagon.

However, the VOA report says

During a brief visit to Iraq on Monday, President Bush said General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker told him if current trends continue it will be possible to reduce the U.S. troop level in Iraq, but he did not say when that might happen.

The Petraeus and Crocker reports are just two of several assessments being made public this week and next week.

A retired General James Jones who heads up a commission of retired military and police officers favors a change in the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq as soon as possible, away from daily combat to a support role.

"The force footprint should be adjusted, in our view, to represent an expeditionary capability, and to combat the permanent force image of today's presence," he said. Pressed by a senator, General Jones said that change could include consolidations, realignments and reductions.

Also this week, the Congress' Government Accountability Office issued a highly critical report, questioning military claims of reduced violence in Iraq following the surge of U.S. forces earlier this year.

_________________________________________________________________

While I would like to believe that The New York Times and The Washington Post are right in reporting that Petraeus has indeed said he'd like to reduce troops by a brigade (4,000 troops) by January, I realize I'll have to take a wait and see attitude. :(

Big Offensive Against Iraq

From New York Times:

G.I. Open Big Offensive Against Iraq

By THOM SHANKER and MICHAEL R. GORDON

Published: June 17, 2007

With the influx of tens of thousands of additional combat troops into Iraq now complete, American forces have begun a wide offensive against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia on the outskirts of Baghdad, the top American commander in Iraq said Saturday.

The commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, in a news conference in Baghdad along with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, said the operation was intended to take the fight to Al Qaeda’s hide-outs in order to cut down the group’s devastating campaign of car bombings.

The comments by General Petraeus were a signal that the United States military had yet again entered a new phase in Iraq, four months after the start of the so-called troop surge and a security plan focused on dampening sectarian violence within Baghdad. They reflected an acknowledgment that more has to be done beyond the city’s bounds to halt a relentless wave of insurgent attacks that have undercut attempts at political reconciliation.

The offensive also comes at a time in the war when there are increasing American casualties and rising domestic pressure to show results or begin troop withdrawals, and just three months before a formal assessment of the military buildup President Bush ordered.

Robert M. Gates said that we are beginning to see some dividends. Gen. Petraeus isn't so sure: the results of the Baghdad security push has been mixed so far.

Tens of thousands of additional combat troops in Iraq, my god, when will it end?

theteach