Sending a General with the Wrong Premise to Iraq

I heard General Petraeus make this statement on national television the other night. He said, “ I believe security in Iraq must ultimately come from the Iraqis”. Yeh, right. And how long have Iraqi factions been fighting and killing? The ideology of the Iraqis does not embrace living peacefully with those who are not “ true believers” And nothing short of taking over that hodge podge government , instilling martial law and handing them a constitution based on complete separation of church and state will ever produce a country with any semblance of civilized behavior. The general’s belief is merely an off shoot of Presidents Bush’s dogmatic decree that the Iraqi government must come to the right decision how to govern on its own. The fact that Iraq has had thousands of years to develop this and has failed, seems to elude Mr. Bush.

I wonder what is being taught in our military colleges that gives a general the idea that a conquered country should ( after being militarily defeated) then be reasoned with to accept a peaceful status and hold elections and then all will live happily ever after. Aren’t commanders taught what we did after World War Two in Germany and Japan. We did not just say, “ Now the war is over ,you people hold elections and elect whoever you want and form any kind of a tyrannical government you want as long as the voters agree and then we will send you all the money you need to fix things up and in the mean time we’ll hang around and fill in for your police force and army if you need us.”

There are many American soldiers whose lives are being endangered by this approach to the Iraq war needlessly. Our President talks of victory but does not say what he means by that word nor tell us how we will know when we have attained it. Meanwhile the typical Washington response is a medley of foolery that translates into a desire for withdrawal without any consideration what a humiliation America will experience. The many levels of discontent and degrees of withdrawal all skirt the fundamental issue ( which is typical of the evasion of today’s politicians ). If one could corner our president for a real heart to heart discussion, the result would be something like this.

Dale: Mr. President what do you mean by “victory” in Iraq?

President Bush: The Iraqi people will have a sovereign nation at peace with its neighbors.

Dale: Will this new Iraq protect individual rights of its citizens by separating church and state so one religious sect will not be at war with another sect?

President Bush: Islam is a peaceful religion and I see no need to insist on this at this juncture.

Dale: But Mr. Bush, the Sunnis hate the Shiites. The Shiites are killing the Sunnis. And both of these factions are killing Americans. Where is the peacefulness in that?

President Bush: You don’t understand. This is very complicated and it will take a long time ,a lot of hard work and a lot of American sacrifices. We are in it for the long haul and in the far future we will see the nations of Iran and North Korea realize that our approach has been compassionate and the right thing to do.

Dale: Mr. President Iran has boasted of nuclear capability and North Korea is producing nuclear explosives. Iran has vowed to eradicate Israel and has been infiltrating Iraq. Seeing a lot of purple thumbs didn’t change these countries’ agenda. What makes you think they’re seeing us work hard for many years will give them some kind of insight that will cause them to reject the ideology they are building schools to promote?

President Bush: See my previous answer.

Dale : One last question, Mr. President. You have changed the Secretary of State, The Secretary of Defense and now the commanding general. If all of these believed as you do and could not get the job done, what makes you think new personnel can compensate for a flawed definition of victory?

President Bush. See my previous answer.

It has been said,” a problem well defined is half solved”. The problem we are facing in Iraq is a mistaken notion that we do not have to impose our expectations, but if we put our faith in the Iraqi people we will accomplish what we cannot define. General Petraeus will not attain victory in Iraq nor could Douglas MacArthur with the premise being promoted , sustained and left unchallenged. And we the citizens are supplying our ground troops with the finest we can offer while our politicians seek generals with faulty ideas in sync with our commander in chief and we wonder why we cannot get control of a two bit barbarian culture. We cannot get control because we are not seeking control nor putting generals in charge that know the difference between battle and prattle. All the strategy and tactics in the world are no match for a tenacious warrior hell bent on crushing the enemy into submission before we are faced with considering surrender ourselves. We should not be debating this war but fighting and winning it. By the way, a political “war room” is not the same thing as a battlefield. And we should expect a commander in chief ( now and in the future ) to know the difference. A Commander in Chief that is more concerned with agreement from his underlings than winning a war is not doing his job. President Bush should have demanded the general that would produce military results. He chose a lackey that is mesmerized with a notion of an Iraqi conversion that only years of time and loss of American lives can accomplish. This experiment in “compassionate” warfare is over. Hillary says she is “In it to Win”. Why aren’t we in Iraq to win?