The Jury Is Out

 

I am baaack!

This may become the first time in the history of the United States Congress that it has voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose his plan that is necessary to succeed in that battle.

President Bush wryly hit the nail on the head when he was referring to Lt. Gen David Petraeus as the 'new commander'.

Only last week did the Senate unanimously confirm General Petraeus as the top U.S. commander in Iraq, full well knowing that his appointment "marks the real start of the new US strategy in Iraq, but is also seen as a last chance to turn things around".

And the new US strategy is what? Is it just more troops -- 21,500 extra U.S. troops, to be precise? Does it mean, that these extra "troops are now going to run out and look for gun battles with insurgents in back alleys", as critics immediately after the President's State of the Union address had us believe?

Of course not.

When both Democratic and Republican Senators unanimously confirmed General Petraeus, they knew that "it will mark the start of an historic turn in military strategy in Iraq and perhaps in U.S. war-fighting doctrine".

They knew, "this isn't a one-off effort as at Fallujah, but counterinsurgency as daily U.S. military policy."

It is the product of an enormous amount of self-criticism and analysis done by military and civilian analysts in and out of government.

They understood and voted for a solid plan; they knew that this was not some last resort botch-up job.

They read the Mattis plan, which is based on Marine Maj. Gen. James Mattis' successful Marine experiment to integrate U.S. and Iraqi forces in Al Anbar province, putting "advisers alongside Iraqi units down to the NCO level".

[Marines] stayed with and fought with their Iraqi counterparts 24/7. And the Marines reported that the Iraqis fought with more confidence and effect, a k a spine-stiffening.

They all received and acknowledged the Army's new Counterinsurgency Manual released in December, the drafting of which was overseen by the very man they now have put in charge to execute the new counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy. They all read at least the foreword on the second page, signed by Gen. Petraeus and Gen. Amos:

Conducting a successful counterinsurgency campaign requires a flexible, adaptive force led by agile, well-informed, culturally astute leaders. It is our hope that this manual provides the guidelines needed to succeed in operations that are exceedingly difficult and complex. Our Soldiers and Marines deserve nothing less.

In short, they voted unanimously for giving General Petraeus a chance to succeed in Iraq with COIN, which includes of course extra troops. Thus, they voted for extra troops, but can't be seen to have done so by their rabid Bush-hating constituents. Hence the introduction of 'nonbinding measures'.

Politics prevents politicians from standing upright. That's all there is to know about this 'nonbinding measure' opposing the administration's plan to increase troop strength in Iraq.

In the words of Rep. Geoff Davis, R-Ky., a West Point graduate who was a flight commander with the Army's 82nd Airborne: "This nonbinding resolution serves no purpose other than pacifying the Democrats' political base and lowering morale in our military."

Let's hope, that such obvious political maneuvers backfire and, that as a result, the President is regaining his footing. My friend Joe Gandelman thinks the President's rebound is rooted in the certainty he portrays -- everyone knows where he stands, take it or leave it.

And that includes our thugs in Iran. The heat is on for the Mullahcracy, for they are facing a difficult dilemma: Fueling sectarian violence in Iraq, they are convinced, is the best strategy of driving American troops out of Iraq and eventually out of the Middle East. But, on the other hand, if Sunnis and Shias don't cease their wrangling, Muslims end up turning to secularism as their savior; the ultimate death knell for the expansionist theocracy.

Comments

[Alexandra]

JPE,

For some reason I seem to remember you were always an idiot, from your first belligerent comment on ATB to your...er...last. I don't even recall whether I have already told you that you are no longer welcome here, although I seem to have fond memories of an array of vitriolic bullshit I allowed for a while. Coming back to share some more, perhaps you mistook me for a liberal overcome by obligatory lassitude, to allow your precious pearls of wisdom to just keep on giving.

By the way, just in case you were interested: men like General Petraeus, and others like him have opinions on strategies and especially delicate positions like Iraq, and fortunately or unfortunately (as is the case with someone like you), those opinions go hand in hand with the man, his competence, and inherently the original vote of confidence. But then the words "in short", would have escaped your...er...inimitable mind eager to impress. Is it simply naivety that drives your perspicacious mind into vociferously believing that opinions and stances on important issues are divorced from the man? Yeah right. Political agenda is irrelevant in the entire process, competence is what counts.

Do try to rein in that unwarranted superciliousness and condescension if you are constitutionally capable of doing so. On second thoughts, I don't think we'll bother to stick around to witness your ebulent exit...once again.

[jpe]

In short, they voted unanimously for giving General Petraeus a chance to succeed in Iraq with COIN

Welcome to America! First, you'll find it's a great country. Apparently your citizenship classes never covered the way in which Senate confirmations work. Here's the short version: the Senate confirms individuals for offices, not plans. The generally agreed upon standard for confirmation is competence: if the nominee is competent, s/he will be confirmed, even if the Senate disagrees with his/her positions. What that means is that the Senate expressed no opinion on any strategies or positions advanced by Petraeus.

Hope that was helpful, and welcome. Sounds like you've got a learning about US government ahead of you, but stick with it!

[Ghost Dansing]

This may become the first time in the history of the United States Congress that it has voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose his plan that is necessary to succeed in that battle.

This may be the first time in American history that the Executive Branch has shown such abject incompetence in it capacity as Commander-in-Chief that the Congress has been forced to make such a declaration.

(Dubya)  doesn’t seem to care that Congress wants a bigger role in guiding the Iraq war. Talking about his plan to send in 20,000 additional troops, he said on “60 Minutes” that he knows Congress can vote against it, “but I’ve made my decision and we’re going forward.”

It is hardly the first time this president has insisted that he is “the decider,” or even the first time he’s used the Constitution to justify it, as Vice President Dick Cheney did when he told Fox News: “The Constitution is very clear that the president is, in fact, under Article 2, the commander in chief.”

But Mr. Cheney told only half the story. Congress has war powers, too, and with 70 percent of Americans now opposed to President Bush’s handling of the war, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll, it is becoming more assertive about them. Congress is poised to pass a resolution denouncing the troop increase. Down the line, Congress may well consider mandatory caps on the number of troops in Iraq, or setting a date for withdrawal.

If it does, we may be headed toward a constitutional clash, with the administration trying to read powers into the Constitution — as it has with its “enemy combatant” doctrine and presidential “signing statements” — that the Founders did not put there. The Constitution’s drafters were intent on balancing power so no one branch could drift toward despotism. The system of checks and balances that runs through the document divides the war power between the president and Congress....

....The Founders, including James Madison, who is often called “the father of the Constitution,” fully expected Congress to use these powers to rein in the commander in chief. “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it,” Madison cautioned. “It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature.”

Congress, the Constitution and War: The Limits on Presidential Power, Adam Cohen, NYT

 

[jainphx]

We haven't used one tenth of our military might in Iraq.Is it winnable,we could turn Iraq into a sand box.The problem is the same here as in Viet Nam,the enemy in this country determined the out come of Nam and are trying again.The only way we lose this war is to lose here.

[Alexandra]

Thank you my friend. We've missed you...

[Michael van der Galien]

NxN: point well taken. However... the problem is: how long can they do that? If they are able to do it for decades... well... then Iraq will never get peaceful.

Do you believe that Iraq can still be won?

[North by Northwest]

Thanks for the COIN Manual. It's more encouraging than I initially realized. Especially after I read this in the first paragraph of the Introduction:

The United States possesses overwhelming conventional military superiority. This capability has pushed its
enemies to fight U.S. forces unconventionally, mixing modern technology with ancient techniques of insur-
gency and terrorism. Most enemies either do not try to defeat the United States with conventional operations or do not limit themselves to purely military means. They know that they cannot compete with U.S. forces on
those terms. Instead, they try to exhaust U.S. national will, aiming to win by undermining and outlasting public support. Defeating such enemies presents a huge challenge to the Army and Marine Corps. Meeting it requires creative efforts by every Soldier and Marine.

I mean, let's not forget, this has been written under the supervision of the guy who is now in charge of our finest in Iraq, General Petraeus. One thing is certain, Iran and Syria will be throwing everything they've got at us to prevent COIN from succeeding. They are more concerned than we realize!

[Julie]

The lesbians are feeding on balls again and threatening the Iraq war and Afghanistan. I think cancer is slow, but that's what they trade. Hillary is a pass and so is OBama.

[Michael van der Galien]

Welcome back A!