LTG Petraeus: 'Mission in Iraq is Honorable'
Tuesday, January 23, 2007 at 06:31PM Lieutenant General David Petraeus, currently commanding general of the Combined Arms Center (CAC) at Ft. Leavenworth, KS, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on his nomination to replace GEN George Casey as commander of Operation Iraqi Freedom Multi-National Forces. Some of LTG Petraeus’ statements are being tossed around as senstational headlines, such as “The situation in Iraq is dire” and “The way ahead will be very hard”, but other comments from the general are being downplayed. Sadly, “Hard is not hopeless” and “The mission (in Iraq) is honorable” aren’t making the news cycles.
LTG Petraeus’ opening statements; Watch the entire 4 hour hearing.
GEN. PETRAEUS: The situation in Iraq has deteriorated significantly since the bombing this past February of the Al-Askari mosque in Samarra, the third-holiest Shi’a Islamic shrine.
In this environment, Iraq’s new government, its fourth in three and a half years, has found it difficult to gain traction. Though disappointing, this should not be a surprise. We should recall that after the liberation of Iraq in 2003, every governmental institution in the country collapsed. A society already traumatized by decades of Saddam’s brutal rule was thrown into complete turmoil, and the effects are still evident throughout the country and in Iraqi society.
Iraq and its new government have been challenged by insurgents, international terrorists, sectarian militias, regional meddling, violent criminals, governmental dysfunction and corruption.
This will, of course, require that our unit commanders and their Iraqi counterparts develop a detailed appreciation of the areas in which they will operate, recognizing that they may face a combination of Sunni insurgents, international terrorists, sectarian militias and violent criminals.
So should the United States, after the collapse of “every governmental institution in the country”, abandon Iraq? LTG Petraeus, top commanders and the current administration say “no”. The primary maleficents in Iraq are not the majority of the population itself, but rather Sunni insurgents rejecting the new government, “international terrorists”, militias and violent criminals, including the 100,000 thugs Saddam freed from prisons on the eve of the American invasion.
Petraeus went on to endorse the troop surge in Iraq calling it “certainly necessary” for the security of Baghdad. During questioning, he stated that a few days earlier in speaking with Generals Abizaid and Casey, the support from the military’s top brass is unanimous and concrete. He said, “The way ahead is designed to be a comprehensive approach.”
The general then went on to describe the patience and time needed for a stable Iraq, which is in America’s national interest:
It will take time for the additional forces to flow to Iraq, time for them to gain an understanding of the areas in which they will operate, time to plan with and get to know their Iraqi partners, time to set conditions for the successful conduct of security operations, and of course time to conduct those operations and they to build on what they achieve.
None of this will be rapid. In fact, the way ahead will be neither quick nor easy, and there undoubtedly will be tough days. We face a determined, adaptable, barbaric enemy. He will try to wait us out. In fact, any such endeavor is a test of wills, and there are no guarantees.
Time is a matter of fact, and the primary reason why the U.S. cannot leave Iraq immediately as Democrats are calling for. Petraeus, Abizaid, Casey and Iraqi leaders echo the inevitable disaster of mass bloodshed.
In reply to a question from Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, about an upcoming vote to thwart the president’s troop surge, Petraeus said:
“No matter how well-intentioned, a resolution being opposed to this new strategy is a vote of no confidence in you. No matter how well-intentioned, the enemy will see it as a weakened resolve.”
Other points overlooked from Petraeus:
- that those who have served our nation since 9/11 comprise the new “Greatest Generation”
- troops serving in theater, Iraq or Afghanistan, are exceeding retention quotas..why? they believe in the mission
- Petraeus said he cannot do his job in Iraq without additional troops
- to tell our troops that “we” support them but not their mission is damaging to their morale
- most Iraqis are good people who’ve been traumatized by decades under a vile, ruthless dictator
From a strictly military standpoint, the top brass in the military believe that we cannot leave Iraq now, current soldiers are our greatest generation, we need more troops in Baghdad to secure the city and that Iraqis are basically good people. It’s true the United States has given Iraqis a great gift by ridding their country of Saddam Hussein and his heirs, but we also have a great obligation to not add to the traumatization of their nation. After gutting the government from top to bottom, or as Petraeus said, “every governmental institution in the country collapsed”, the U.S. owes Iraq our support. Bill Clinton penned in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, “I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.” Amen.
On September 11, 2001, thirteen square city blocks were destroyed in New York City by al-Qaeda terrorists. In March 2003, U.S. forces entered Iraq and brought down an egomaniacle dictatorial regime. As of today, the spot where the World Trade Centers collapsed is still being cleared. How long is too long to rebuild an entire county called Iraq?
OTHERS BLOGGING: Captains Quarters
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/878930
Petraeus 
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (10)
Of course, all the liberal rags will splash LTG Petraeus' statements... Oh wait, LaTimes has it front page already.
Mr. Petraeus' statements are a little less than clear about the Al-Askari mosque statement and other stuff. It actually was Al Qaeda that did that, and that is who we are supposed to be fighting. Statements like “challenged by insurgents” are also made up history by this dude. Al Qaeda operates in Iraq and the War on Terrorism is a fight against them. However, the Democratic Gang doesn’t believe this is so.
I agree, if we pull out now we will be telling the insurgents and terrorists that they've broken us. Can you imagine how that would fuel their rabid fervor? They would be heartened in their efforts to attack us and it would probably mean we'd be seeing a lot more bold movement on their part.
Cal, I tend to believe Petraeus. He literally wrote the book on the counterinsurgency doctrine for the United States Military. I think I have a link for it if you're interested.
The GWOT includes more than just al-Qaeda, but other players like Sunni insurgents, Iranian backed Shia militias, etc.
Democrats always try to monopolize Army generals' comments by taking them out of context or using old material. I actually saw a Democratic senator, I believe it was Levin, near the beginning of Petraeus' questioning, contradict Petraeus' experience because it wasn't what he wanted to hear. It went something like:
Levin: GEN Casey said the opposite.
Petraeus: I talked to GEN Casey a few days ago and he agreed (that the oppposite of what Levin said was true)...
Levin: Well, he's probably changed his mind since then..
These Democrats think they know what generals believe and promote without actually knowing what they believe or promote. He also asked Petraeus if a quote in the Washington Post was true and Petraeus ridiculed it saying, "Actually, I didn't say that, it was a source close to GEN Petraeus that said it." The paper misquoted an anonymous source as if it were Petraeus speaking.
It's in the transcript. If I have time I'll just pull it.
Amy I know you understand clearly his statements’, but not the general public – which was my point.
Mr. Petraeus' statements are a little less than clear...
"Iraq and its new government have been challenged by insurgents, international terrorists, sectarian militias, regional meddling, violent criminals, governmental dysfunction and corruption. " - Petraeus
Something I heard Bush say the other day, as well as he repeated it in the SOTU address. Al Qaeda bombed the mosque, not the insurgents. This was my point. The fact that Al Qaeda is not brought up more in the general discourse by all the military officials in Iraq plays right into the liberal media’s hands. Why? Petraeus leaves out the notion of the bombers of the Mosque were Al Qaeda and their factions; this is not conducive to garnering support for the war, in my opinion. Another thing is maybe the media correspondent or the editor left it out – that is if he indeed made a clarification.
My point is if one leaves out mentioning Al Qaeda as much as possible, the people begin to believe they are not involved. That is why I was happy in the last few weeks President Bush has been clarifying this key point. The reason Petraeus says “The situation in Iraq is dire” is because we are fighting Al Qaeda there, who are operating in the shadows. This is where the war is and where the media should be concentrating their rhetoric.
This has nothing to do with his ability or knowledge- probably he is the best we have had. But, whoever is stopping him from mentioning Al Qaeda in every breath needs to be fired. Finally, Bush is making it clear in his communiqués. The liberal media tries to make me believe it is the insurgents who they cloud in shadows as upset Iraqis of sunni and shia factions and that Al Qaeda doesn’t exist in Iraq. They are getting help by the generals and military correspondents who are not citing the correct labels. That was my point.
example:
"Iraq and its new government have been challenged by [ Al Qaeda] insurgents, international terrorists, sectarian militias, regional meddling, violent criminals, governmental dysfunction and corruption. " - Petraeus
You believe Amy the American public understands these terms; believe me they do not - they understand Al Qaeda more than any of these terms and that is where the rhetoric belongs – out there in the public’s ears. I’m so glad Bush is starting to understand this by his actions of recent. See his recent interviews and the latest SOTU address.
Gotcha, Cal. Thanks for explaining it further. I do believe the American public is VERY uninformed and uninterested in understanding the comprehensive nature of this subject.
If the Democrats are going to substitute their judgment for that of Gen. Petraeus, what's the point of even asking for his opinion?
...love your blog by the way and will add you to my blogroll...
I hope the new strategy and pressures pay off. We've held our soldiers back to long for political reasons and tied their hands based on sectarian and religious issues.
The Iraqi Parliament just voted and passed a new bill...
"Maliki’s most important warning was when he said that no one and no place would be immune to raids. Mosques (Sunni or Shia), homes or political offices will all be subject to searches and raids if they are used to launch attacks or hide militants."
I just hope this means arrest as well. For to long our forces have found weapons and explosives in Mosque and the Imams are never arrested or the doors closed for good. There should be an Three Strike and your out policy. Upon finding illegal weapons in a "House of Allah" 1) Warning, 2) Arrest Imam, 3) Close down the Mosque.
That simple and clear. No more violence. Religious leaders are not allowed to support the violence. The government must take control.
If the government is not willing to take these simple steps. Then the government is not serious about ending violence.
Article...
http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/01/baghdad_today_quiet_too_quiet.php
There is a definite change of pace and engagement in all areas of Baghdad it seems.
ric, I agree 100%. Not only that, they lie about which generals are endorsing what. First they said stay the course was wrong. Leave Iraq now. GENs Abizaid and Casey said the troop levels were fine, we just need more time. Then Dems say the troop surge is wrong, after Bush "changes course", and that all his generals are against it. If any of these Democrats would LISTEN at the hearings, they would have heard Petraeus say he, Casey and Abizaid are all in support of the increase.
This anti-war movement is so obvious its painful to watch. I can't believe so many Americans are this stupid. It's really sad.
Michael, yep, there are already changes in Baghdad because of the surge. Not that the media reports it.