Pe-Trae-Us Rhymes With?

General David Pe-trae=us has, by suggesting he can accomplish mission impossible, winning the so-called war in Iraq, which in truth and fact is not a war, but rather an armed occupation. At times what is going on in Iraq has been confused with the war on terror which itself is a misnomer. Petraeus, a four star general who has been tasked with rebuilding Iraq's security forces and running this latest surge, wrote Counterinsurgency 101, the army handbook on fighting insurgencies. Given the fact that we are in the middle of a civil war in Iraq, as well as a strong insurgency, his own handbook would suggest our chances of succeeding are slim to none. Gen. Petraeus is said to have a superior intellect and a knack for politics, all of which will be needed to succeed. Unfortunately, it appears to be a case of too little too late. It is therefore unlikely, his ego and track record notwithstanding, that he will succeed in Iraq, where others have failed.

According to journalist Kristian Williams, who recently wrote a feature article on Gen. Petraeus, "Mounting a successful counterinsurgency is a dangerous balancing act. Any sign of weakness benefits the insurgents, who will exploit the atmosphere of uncertainty and insecurity in their effort to discredit the government. But if the military is overbearing and oppressive, the insurgents can use public resentment and sincere grievances to gain support and justify violence. It is not enough to win battles if the government loses the backing of the population in the process." The real war in Iraq was won with the dissolution of the Iraqi army and the capture of Saddam. What has proven far more difficult is the occupation, which has cost our soldiers' lives and horrific injuries, not to mention the civilian casualties.

In the Petraeus handbook there are dos and don'ts, most of what has occurred in Iraq has been in the don't column. From the outset the generals requested a troop level sufficient to accomplish their mission, which wasn't always clear. Under former Secretary of Offense Donald Rumsfeld, the requests for more troops were repeatedly denied. In Mosul where Petraeus had distinguished himself in 2003, with his hearts-and-minds approach, Rumsfeld thwarted his good work in 2004. Petraeus used the 101st Airborne to establish and overwhelming presence in the city. This was supported by foot patrols. Local elections were held and reconstruction money was liberally dispensed. Under Petraeus, Mosul became one of the few pacified areas in Iraq. Unfortunately, Mr. Rumsfeld, in typical fashion couldn't leave well enough alone. He replaced the Airborne with a much lighter Stryker force. The stryker Brigade halted the foot patrols and the local government efforts. Shortly thereafter Mosul was in chaos. As Williams puts it, the question facing Petraeus now is whether that process can be reversed three years later, on a much larger scale. Williams notes, "It is as important to meet the population's needs as to hunt down the enemy. We are not winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people who rightfully see us as an occupying force. The ultimate aims of the counterinsurgency program, as outlined in the Petraeus handbook are political winning legitimacy for the government and undermining the claims of rebels. A counterinsurgency program could best be described as armed social work, according to Williams and it may be too late for social work.

The list of generals who have criticized the war effort thus far, reads like a who's who of the armed forces. Most have waited until they were safely retired to comment. Those who have had the courage to speak their minds while still in have been forced into retirement. Major Gen. Paul Eaton was the first to speak out. He rightfully blamed Rumsfeld for complicating the U.S. mission. Marine Lt. Gen Gregory Newbold charged Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith with a casualness and swagger that is the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions or bur the results. Brig. Gen. James Marks said, "Clearly the presence of more combat forces on the ground would have been needed." Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who likes the others, spoke from practical experience in Iraq said, Rumsfeld did not seek nor did he accept the counsel of field commanders. Maj. Gen. John Riggs and Maj Gen.Charles J. Swannack, former field commander of the 82nd Airborne, supported his statement. Retired Marine General Zinni said Rumsfeld should be held responsible for a series of blunder, starting with throwing away 10 years worth of planning, plans that had taken into account what we would face in an occupation of Iraq. The war to date has been so mismanaged it's amazing that we haven't had a coup, with the generals temporarily taking over the government until such time as the people can find a competent leader. If Gen. Petraeus were to be honest, which he might well be forced to do by September, he would have told the President, who apparently lives in a bubble, the war isn't winnable.

This is not to suggest that it wasn't winnable at one time, but the strategy was flawed. The ratio of troops to population that Petraeus suggests in his handbook is not being met, even with the surge. As we are witnessing daily, we may secure one area, only to see another explode. We do not have enough troops to effectively police all of Iraq. Petraeus is entertaining a fool to suggest that he can succeed where others have failed. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting a different result. At the risk of being redundant, the war aspect of the Iraq debacle has been won. Our troops have done all that was requested of them. There is no reason for them to remain. There are upstanding American citizens like Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy on the no fly list, it is seriously doubtful that a rag-tag bunch of terrorist hell-bent on following us here to blow themselves up, could escape scrutiny. Chaos exists in Iraq now, how bad does bad have to get before the President acknowledges it? Petraeus, has become his latest acolyte, saying what the leader wants to hear, instead of what he needs to hear, in so doing, he betrays the men and women in uniform who are being asked to carry out a fools mission.

Copyright 2007. All rights are reserved.