Petraeus’ Gung-Ho Preview
Like any theatrical piece, “The David Petraeus Show†is having out-of-town tryouts before opening in Washington two weeks from now.
Today, the General gave an upbeat performance. He told the Australian in an interview at his Baghdad headquarters there has been a 75 per cent reduction in religious and ethnic killings since last year, a doubling in the seizure of insurgents’ weapons caches between January and August, a rise in the number of al-Qaeda “kills and captures” and a fall in the number of coalition deaths from roadside bombings.
The Surge, he claimed, has turned U.S. forces into pursuers instead of defenders. “And that is a much better place to be than to be doing a deliberate attack into their defenses, like we had to do in Ramadi,” he said. “Ramadi was like Stalingrad.”
More ominous was the impression that the General was toeing the Bush-Cheney line about Iran….
You can read more on my blog
opinions powered by SendLove.to
16 Responses to “Petraeus’ Gung-Ho Preview”
So Petraeus thinks the surge is working and that U.s. forces are increasingly in a position to drive (if not yet shape) the battle instead of playing defense, and this is a bad thing because… ?
The Iran,! Iran! chanting is beginning to echo ominously the Iraq war rallying .rhetoric,
We’re stuck in a terrible nightmare, and we can’t wake up!
Simon – We’ve had 4 years of Generals saying we’re turning the corner, things are getting better. Why should we believe Patreaus? Frankly, I want him to justify with details every assertion he makes. Names, places, dates. For example, he claims sectarian deaths are down 75% burt both the AP and McClatchy dispute that number by a wide margin. So if Patreaus is correct he should be able to give us the names of every iraqi who died in sectarian violence, their date of death etc. When he speaks of new soccer fields he should provide addresses. When he speaks of new water treatment facilities, medical clinics we need addresses. For every school he claims is refurbished, we need addresses. EVERY statement he makes should be double checked.
Aleady it sounds like Patreaus is spinning every number so that it looks good. He sure does not seem to be giving “objective” views on the situation. Everything that is reported is “rosy” in his view. When Patreaus was confirmed he promised metrics – not BS generalities. It should be interesting to see if Patreaus keeps his promise.
Anbar is the key….all the pro-war crowd have to do to rebuff any criticism is point at Anbar where, if the likes of Michael Yon is to be believed, the situation has gone from the brink of defeat to victory, where your average Anbarite now loves America and her noble soldier-saints. As obnoxious as this worship of American imperialism is, I’ll admit it would be a good thing for Iraq if this could be sustained and extended. However there is a possibility that the situation in Anbar is far less stable than is generally acknowledged. And if America attacks Iran, all bets are off (I wonder what Petraeus thinks about attacking Iran? Does he fear such an attack, or secretly hope for it?)
Petraeus, of course, wants his mission to succeed- he’s not going to give the most objective presentation of the facts on the ground. The bigger question is will the Iraqis be able to capitalize on what he’s done? And what about other areas in Iraq where violence has increased? We lack the numbers in our military to pursue his strategy throughout the entire country.
The question is where those numbers are coming from. I’d love to know the basis for that figure of 75%. Do they have reasonably solid numbers for civilian deaths?
Kevin Drum has made a chart showing that the deaths of US servicemen has gone up.
Some important context needs to be added to Drum’s “analysis” of war deaths and US casualties in general.
First, it should be noted that Petreaus specifically talked about a reduction in deaths from IED’s, not an overall reduction in deaths.
Secondly, as I and others have pointed out before, the number of US troops in Iraq has fluctuated from about 110k to almost 170k and logically one would expect more casualties when there are more troops in the country.
Third, what Kevin Drum and many others do not seem to understand is how operations have changed in Iraq over time and the effect of those strategies on casualty numbers. For example, for most of 2006 the US had both fewer troops in Iraq, but more importantly the US strategy at that time was one of disengagement. By disengagement, I mean that the vast majority of forces were on large, defended bases and sortied from them on patrols. The thinking at the time was to reduce the US “footprint,” and allow the Iraqi’s to run their own affairs. It was believed that the presence of US troops among the population was the generator of violence, so the idea was to pull back, disengage from the population and thereby reduce the violence. Of course we know that policy utterly failed and provided important space for AQI and other groups to flame and foment civil strife, ethnic cleansing, etc. in Iraq culminating in the Samarra bombing. However, the policy did reduce US casualties because our troops were simply not as exposed and vulnerable.
Which brings me to the “surge.” The surge actually has two components – first is the temporary increase in troops that have been in place since June which will draw down next spring. The additional troops were/are needed because to “retake” what was lost during the failed disengagement strategy of the previous year. The second, and more important, aspect of the “surge” is the fundamental change in overall strategy. The surge is more than just an increase in troops and I’m continually amazed that people still hold the perception that somehow it is more of the same.
This new strategy is actually the opposite of the disengagement strategy of 2005-06 – instead of ensconcing our forces on large bases, they are divided up, spread out and living in small groups among the population. Where before the goal was to disengage from the population, the strategy now is to engage and protect the population. Instead of patrolling out of large bases in well-armed convoys, troops are doing patrols, mostly on foot, in their local area. This new method has both benefits and risks – one of the risks is that troops are more exposed and therefore vulnerable to attack. One of the benefits is better intelligence – intelligence which has allowed us to mitigate some of the kinds of civilian attacks that characterized 2005-06 and interdict or roll-up many of the cells responsible for those attacks.
This new strategy, I believe, is a sound one, but I personally think it comes too late – I fear there is too much bloodlust among the various groups and vendettas that must be paid. Perhaps in the long run the application of the surge strategy might ultimately succeed in keeping Iraq a unified, relatively peaceful state, but I have my doubts. Gertrude Bell’s Hashemite monarchs could not control all of Iraq, and neither could the Baathists that followed them – even the most brutal, Saddam Hussein. Of course, there is little domestic political support for such a long-term commitment. I think both Iraq and US interests would be better served through a soft partition along the lines of another “state” created from Ottoman cloth – Yugoslavia.
Is the trade-off, more US military casualties in exchange for fewer Iraqi civilian casualties, actually occurring?
To be honest, I don’t really know at this point. However, I would suggest that the goal is not replace civilian casualties with coalition casualties. Initially there will be more coalition casualties as the areas they operate in are cleared of insurgent elements, but the idea is that a continued presence will “pacify” (for lack of a better term) those areas and make them largely peaceful. I think we’ll have some solid evidence if this strategy is providing meaningful benefits by the end of the year – of course the “surge” can only do so much and must be matched with success in non-military areas.
Which brings me to another point about Petraeus. It seems that some are already accusing him of carrying Bush’s water, but it’s important to consider Petraeus’ purview, which is limited, for the most part, to the military arena. Petreaus may succeed in what he controls, but the entire effort can still fail if it is not matched by success elsewhere. If the Bush Administration cynically conflates progress Petraeus makes with progress of the entire effort, then ISTM that it’s unfair to criticize Petraeus for that.
“First, it should be noted that Petreaus specifically talked about a reduction in deaths from IED’s, not an overall reduction in deaths.”
Entropy – Why would Patreaus even talk about deaths from just one source, IED’s. It seems to me that his intention was to glom onto one statistic that was better and use it to paint a rosy picture. From press reports from all the Congressional trips during August, they all met with Patreaus and he had nothing but great things to say about the surge. His objective with Congress seems to enlist their support for the surge, not to give an objective military analysis. I think the surge is working in some respects, but Patreaus sure seems like he’s turned into a cheerleader instead of a sober military leader.
I’m sure almost everyone understands that it’s the ongoing cynicism of the Bush Administration that makes people suspicious of the forthcoming Petraeus report.
Perhaps because IED’s have historically – by a wide margin – been the biggest source of US casualties? Perhaps to show that the new strategy is interdicting cells that build and plant them?
Personally, I would be careful ascribing what Petraeus’ intention is with these statements. It assumes, first of all, that you know precisely what Petraeus has told these Congressional representatives in private. It also neglects what the General calls “challenges” which are areas that have not shown progress.
Personally, I will wait until the official report in a couple of weeks to determine if General P. is carrying Bush’s water or not.
Agreed – it is wise to be skeptical, but skepticism is different than accusations of advocacy. Sadly, I think in our current politicized environment, partisans will interpret his report to their own preconceived ends no matter what it actually says or concludes.
Entropy – I agree we all should wait for the report but I just wish he would cool his PR campaign until his report. However, when he does deliver his “metrics” and statistics every number and fact should be double and triple checked.
I agree we all should wait for the report but I just wish he would cool his PR campaign until his report.
I believe the correct term is actually “script” rather than “report” (given that the “report” is being written for him by White House staffers, and Petreaus will merely be expected to read it, parrot-fashion, to Congress).
Look, the media wants to interview Petreaus and so he does interviews. If he was silent then people would make accusations about that. I understand that some people don’t like his answers, but think it’s unfair to extrapolate from there that he’s some kind of yes man.
Petreaus will not only report, but he’ll testify before Congress. If, as Heinz suggests, he will follow a script then it will be obvious under questioning.