by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright September 9, 2007
All Rights Reserved.

cheduled to give his long-awaited “progress” report on Iraq, Commander David Petreus will tell Congress that the surge—a 30,000-man troop-buildup that began in Feb. '07—is working to restore Baghdad's security. Reducing violence is supposed to pave the way to political reconciliation among Iraq's warring factions. Petraeus characterizes U.S. gains as fragile, urging a continuation of the current policy. In one of the White House's biggest non-sequiturs, President George W. Bush has insisted that all decisions about Iraq will come from the generals in charge, not from Washington politicians, abdicating his role in setting national priorities, including when U.S. forces must enter and stay in battle. No one really believes that Petraeus, or any other general, sets U.S. war policy. Handing Petraeus the authority abdicates presidential decision-making, letting the military call the shots.

      Congress must not be seduced by the wrong questions: Namely, whether the nine-month-old troop surge is working. A GAO report already indicated that the Iraq government failed to meet 13-of-18 key benchmarks needed for continued military funding, including the “biggies” of reconciling warring political factions and agreeing to an acceptable oil-sharing deal. “The reality is that, although there has been some mild-progress on the security front, there is, in fact, no real security in Baghdad or Anbar province where I was dealing with the most serious problem, sectarian violence,” said Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), taking exception to Petraeus' assessment that “progress” is being made. Progress alone is not enough to justify the whopping price tag and tragic loss of U.S. lives going forward. Biden wants concrete proof of progress resolving Iraq's warring factions.

      Democrats in Congress must not get too cynical, funding the war to torpedo the GOP's chances heading into the '08 elections. Of all the issues facing the GOP, the electorate knows that the Iraq War remains the top priority. Funding the war to harm Republicans would represent an unforgivable use of the U.S. military. No branch of the U.S. military should be placed in harm's way unless there's a compelling national security reason. It's not enough to justify continued involvement because of speculation about an eventual bloodbath. Few experts believe that a lower U.S. profile in Iraq would result in anarchy. Petraeus and Iraq ambassador Ryan Crocker plan to tell Congress that they agree with the current 170,000-troop-level used to achieve Baghdad security and long-term-stability. Progress alone can't determine whether the ends justify the means, including the price-tag.

      Petraeus and Crocker face tough questions in Congress appearing more partisan than offering a sober assessment. Without a political solution, no amount of U.S. troops can substitute for consensus among Iraq's warring factions. Most Republican candidates support Bush's last-ditch troop surge to buy the White House more time while they ride out the last 18 months of the administration. Bush seeks another $50 billion to prosecute the troop surge, offering no guarantees about the outcome. “I really respect him, and I think he's dead wrong,” said Biden, concerned that the current strategy costs too much money and U.S. lives. Democrats in the House and Senate tried, but failed, to get concrete deadlines on troop withdrawals before the last supplemental funding bill, leaving the current plan without an exit strategy. Bush opposes any Congressional effort to set timelines.

      Bush wants Petraeus to set White House policy by insisting that he relies on his generals, not the Congress, to set war strategy. No general can decide the spending or manpower priorities, including whether to run budget deficits or to commit U.S. troops into harm's way. If Petraeus levels with Congress, he'll admit the outcome is far from certain staying the course. Instead of doing the White House bidding, Petraeus should admit the current sacrifices and costs involved in maintaining the troop surge. No president wants to admit failure. But Petraeus cannot simply rubber-stamp the White House policy where it endangers U.S. forces. Petraeus' first commitment should be to protect his troops, not the White House credibility heading into a brutal election year. There's no silver-lining talking about “progress,” when important deal-breaking benchmarks aren't being met.

      Questions about the loyalty of the Iraq military and security services raise more doubts about the U.S. troop surge. No matter how much U.S. money and troops are sacrificed, the Iraqis must decide for themselves whether they want a U.S. presence. By most accounts, even the shaky government of U.S.-backed Nouri al-Maliki wants closer ties with Tehran over the U.S. government. Al-Maliki's close ties with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad undermine attempts to reconcile with Iraq's Sunni minority, formerly in power under Saddam. “We're going to look behind the generalizations that Gen. Petraeus or anybody give us and prove the very hard facts to see exactly what the situation is,” said increasingly maverick Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.), whose fiercely independent streak has given the White House fits. No general—no matter how well-intentioned—should set White House policy.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.