Post-Petraeus Report (oh, and Crocker, too)

So, we've now made it to September -- that month that loomed in the back of our heads that was supposed to tell us everything. That month that President Bush promised would provide us with the much needed info on the Iraq "surge" (if a roughly 25% increase in troops can be considered a "surge", especially when original military estimates for occupying the country were closer to a 200-300% larger force than we had pre-surge). That month that Bush asked the country to be patient for. Well, it, and the Petraeus Report, arrived. And, we were told to be patient -- again. To paraphrase Dick Cheney, victory is just around the corner.

Except that it isn't. Petraeus, and to a greater extent, Crocker admitted that the problems lie on the political side. No, not our political side -- the Iraqis'. Ultimately, this is the same problem that I've mentioned before. "Victory", or at least "success", as originally envisioned by Bush, depended on the actions of the Iraqis. This is an unfair burden to place on our troops and our government, as we have no control over the Iraqis.

George Will wrote a very good column that summarized my views so well. Read it. It's short and worth it. As he astutely points out, by the original metric, the surge has failed because the ultimate consequence was supposed to be some sort of grand political reconciliation.

This is not to say that the military has not reduced violence, although the GAO appears to disagree with the military's reports on this issue. The gains in the Anbar province, it should be noted, however, are due to Petraeus's far more intelligent reading of the situation than his predecessors rather than due to the surge. In fact, the surge's goal was to reduce violence in Baghdad and its environs, which it has (admittedly unevenly). The success in Anbar was unrelated to the troop increase and related to Petraeus (and others) convincing the Iraqi Sunnis and insurgents to turn against the non-Iraqis (i.e. terrorists & al-Qaeda in Iraq). However, I seriously doubt that the Sunnis suddenly feel warm, brotherly love toward the Iraqi Shiites, particularly when the Shiites have done such a good job cleansing Baghdad neighborhoods.

To sum up my views on all that has been reported, I have no doubts about Petraeus's integrity. Moreover, I think he was probably the man for the job back in 2003. The problem is that it's 2007 and a different ballgame. In reality, it may have always been a different ballgame and the chance for a unified, democratic Iraq may have always been nil, regardless of who was in charge of our troops. The president appears to have subtly shifted to a stance that accepts a looser confederation in Iraq. Unfortunately, however, the president's plan appears to be to dump the whole thing into the next president's lap, leaving no good options for the next one (whether he/she is a Democrat or Republican).