Best advice on Iraq comes from generals in charge of the war
Iraq divides America. We already knew that. But what became evident after Gen. David Petraeus testified to Congress about progress in Iraq is that the division that really matters isn't between Bush-haters and Bush-backers, or between those who would pull out U.S. troops today and those who worry about leaving too quickly. Rather, it's a division fueled by differing expectations.
On one side, you have those Americans who understand that conflicts on foreign soil can be long and complicated. On the other, you'll find those who, judging from their carping, prefer wars the way we have been conditioned to get our food -- fast and neatly packaged.
One of the goals of the troop surge was to provide enough stability so as to bring about political reconciliation between Iraqis. War critics like to point out that even if parts of Iraq are more stable, this reconciliation hasn't occurred. Ergo, they claim, the surge has failed.
Not so fast. The surge was announced in January and troops weren't up to full strength until spring. That's not much time to force a reconciliation that requires healing wounds that go back a generation or more. It may be convenient for Americans to demand that the various factions of the Iraqi population put aside their hatred for one another for the sake of political expediency, but it's not terribly realistic. Does Northern Ireland come to mind?
Before Americans can expect a reconciliation in Iraq, they must also come to an honest recognition of just how complicated this situation is, and show a willingness to reject simple solutions that may well lead to more problems down the road.
Americans always hear that we broke Iraq, and so we bought it. And now critics of the war are blasting the administration for not being able to piece together what's been broken. That's fair enough. For too long, the president had the wrong strategy, the wrong number of troops, and the wrong people in charge.
When it comes to Iraq, Bush could use some good news. And here it is: In politics, your enemies can make you look good. Some of those who oppose the president's Iraq policy have shown themselves to be despicable. MoveOn.org proved that last week by taking out a full-page ad in The New York Times contending that Petraeus would "betray us" by presenting false information to Congress.
Democrats should have denounced the ad. Instead, they simply insisted they had nothing to do with it -- a feeble run for cover. No one needs cover more than those Democrats running for president. The fact they want us out of Iraq so quickly tells us they understand what a complicated situation this is. The last thing any of them wants is to inherit this war.
The administration deserves loads of criticism for where we find ourselves in Iraq. But it's hard to respect folks who refer to Iraq as the biggest foreign policy blunder in a generation and then proceed to map out an exit strategy that fits on a cocktail napkin. Who better than the generals -- and ultimately, the commander on the ground, Gen. Petraeus -- to tell us how our troops are faring in Iraq and how quickly we can withdraw without leaving so much unresolved that someday we might have to send another generation of soldiers to finish the job?
Petraeus told Congress that the surge is working, that it would be a mistake to pull out troops before next spring. And, in a revelation that carried extra poignancy delivered on the week of the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, he also said that al-Qaida has begun to treat Iraq as the front line in its war on the West. Americans would be wise to listen, discard the cocktail napkins, and give the professionals time to work.
© 2007, Washington Post Writers Group