The Critical Question for General Petraeus
Last autumn in Congressional hearings on Iraq, Senator John Warner cut to the heart of the issue of America’s war in Iraq in an elegant line of questioning to General David Petraeus, USA, the commander of multinational forces in Iraq.
SEN. WARNER: . . . Are you able to say at this time, if we continue what you have laid before the Congress here as a strategy, do you feel that that is making America safer?
GEN. PETRAEUS: Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq.
SEN. WARNER: Does that make America safer?
GEN. PETRAEUS: Sir, I don’t know actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind. What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multinational Force Iraq.
I have not stepped back to look at—and you’ve heard with other committees, in fact, you know, what is the impact on—I’ve certainly taken into account the impact on the military. The strain on our ground forces in particular has very much been a factor in my recommendations. But I have tried to focus on doing what I think a commander is supposed to do, which is to determine the best recommendations to achieve the objectives of the policy from which his mission is derived. And that is what I have sought to do, sir.
SEN. WARNER: Well, once the president makes his statement, I hope you do consider it very carefully, as I know you will.
I thank the chair.
In fairness, General Petraeus, did come back to this question later in his testimony and sought to amend his remarks in more affirmative terms. As ABC news reported, however, Senator Warner, the respected Republican elder-statesman from Virginia, recognized the original exchange as a singular moment in the testimony. It “was an extraordinary moment,” Warner said. “Sometimes those moments are best, as they say, a photograph or a picture can tell a thousand words. Each person that watches that has to decide for themselves what was crossing that very fine man’s mind.”
The question we all should be asking is the question Senator Warner asked. Does the continued American presence in Iraq make America safer?
ASP Senior Fellow Bernard Finel has been tracking global terrorist incidents for our “Are We Winning?” project—an effort to develop and track measures of progress in the “war on terror.” Two weeks ago, he released a six month update and today we are releasing a Memo to Interested Parties re: Iraq and Global Terrorism Trends that draws attention to the steady increase in terrorist incidents in 2007, despite the decline in violence in Iraq.
In other words, the data suggests that Iraq is not the central front in the war on terror, but rather a diversion from the real challenge—global terrorism—that continues to grow while we pour thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars into Iraq.
When General Petraeus returns to Washington next week, I hope someone repeats Senator Warner’s question from last autumn. Although I’’m sure General Petraeus will have a better response prepared, it is the only question that matters.
3 Comments
Comments are closed.
An excellent point. Many thanks Jim!
I agree, Jim, that “Is America safer?” is the critical question. I just disagree that General Petraeus is the person to direct that question to. He’s a General charged with restoring stability to Iraq, primarily by using American forces to provide security and counters to insurgent and terrorist activity while Iraq’s government and the foreign contractors strengthen the physical and political infrastructure, services, and their economy. Whether this mission results in a safer America is what the politicians, their advisors, and the commander-in-chief – all who had a role in getting into this quagmire – need to answer. So follow that thread and how it can be asked to the Gen. “Does a stable Iraq lead to a safer America?” breaks down into several other questions that have to be answered. Will America leaving Iraq lead be perceived as an abandonment by Iraqis and other powers in the Mideast. Will Iran become the new influencial power without America’s precesence/support? Is it satisfactory to have lost so many Americans, Iraqis, and others, to have spent the countless billions, to result in an Iraq dependent and allied with Iran for support. Iraq, from the beginning preparation of our invasion to the present, has NEVER had anything to do with terrorism. Al Queda was not active in Iraq until America invaded. Our presence there was not to fight Al Queda. Jim, you certainly are more informed than I am. Iraq was supposed to make America safer from the threat of WMDs in Iraq, which was a lie. But yet the result is that we are just as safe from WMD’s in Iraq as we were before(since there weren’t any). So, Terrorism & Al Queda were then put to center stage as a reason to justify our invasion and presence. So let’s ask a question to determine if America is safer – Is Iraq suppose to be about fighting terrorism? If it is, then I would agrue ‘No, America is not safer’ only because terrorism wasn’t a viable threat in Iraq either (compared to Syria, Iran, etc.). I’m rambling – I could go on and on following the different threads and variables, but can you follow my critical, insane thoughts?
Great minds, Nostradamus, please see today’s post.