Truthy Goodness

Secretary of Defense Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Pace gave a press conference to talk about the War in Iraq, and unfortunately it was the same tired song and dance the Administration has been giving on Iraq these past four years

Mr. Gates demonstrated some fine footwork when answering a question concerning the all-important September date for the progress report, the one the President was ballyhooing as the time when there would be signs whether the all important “surge” would have had the effect of giving breathing space to the raging sectarian divide.

The President was the one who set the expectations for the progress report by criticizing the Democrats who question the surge tactic by saying “wait until Gen Petraeus gives his progress report to the Congress in September.” Now the President is tamping down expectations for that report, saying they never made it out to be a make or break date, rather a time to examine the “metrics” as Press Secretary Tony Snow alluded to the other day.

Mr. Gates then did a fancy side step around a question about his model for the future presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, a model that sees a long-term presence in Iraq. He stealthily did not answer the question, said something about events on the ground, etc, etc.

Gen Petraeus was asked a similar question on Sunday, but it was more in terms of how long insurgencies have historically taken to defeat, and consequently how long US troops will be in Iraq in large numbers. At this point he could have said something like, "Insurgencies typically take 8 to 10 years to defeat, and since I wrote the book on counter-insurgency, I advised the President and Congress that the U.S. should be preparing to be in Iraq with a large combat force for 10 years. I am now here telling the American people that that is the commitment it will take to truly be successful in Iraq."

General Petraeus could provide no greater service to his nation than if he said those simple words. Whether or not the country is prepared for that should not influence his decisions. I am sick and tired of hearing things like it’s going to be a tough fight, instead of honest assessments on the reality of the war.

That way the American people could have an open and honest debate about whether the U.S. should make that type of commitment to Iraq.

The problem so far has been the Administration and the Generals have been more than willing to give assessments about the grim future if the U.S. withdraws, yet has been conspicuously silent when it comes to the possibilities, indeed the planning, of a long term commitment to Iraq. If our military strategy is aimed at just getting the U.S. out of Iraq as fast as practicable, then tell the American people. If the plan is to stay for many years, tell the American people, and dispense with the vague references to fighting until the job is done and the rest. Contrary to your beliefs Mr. President, the American people are smart enough to handle the truth. Actually, they are entitled to the truth.

Then we have the Democrats on one side saying we have to get out of Iraq, yet offering little else in terms of substantive debate, while the Republicans echo the White House that we have to stay in Iraq “until the job is done,” but never detailing how long or how many losses are acceptable, saying the Generals on the ground decide that.

This is where Petraeus could step in to give the most honest assessment that would not be political, merely the honest truth going forward. He could tell the President and the Congress in September that to be successful we need to have a long term commitment with a large combat force for at least 10 years, and yet this will not guarantee victory, while also detailing the effects as he would see them if the U.S. were to withdraw its combat forces from Iraq within one year. Most experts agree there would be death on a scale greater than Iraq is living through now. What does this mean for Iraq, the region, not to mention the al-Qaeda’s left behind after the U.S. withdrawal?

So if the Democrats want to be elected on a bring the troops home platform, they are made aware of the possible consequences, and the Republicans know that if they want to be elected on a supporting the war platform, they are doing so knowing it means committing the bulk of the U.S. military to Iraq for the next 10 years.

In my opinion, that would be the most honest and fair debate the American people could have, and it would take place with the backdrop of a Presidential race, so we could all see just the choice we are making. We can this and that about how we got into this war, but that will do us no good, except to point out the things not to do in the future, which is the reality we have to deal with in order to extricate the U.S. from Iraq, be it in 1 year or 10.