Gen. Petraeus discusses situation in Iraq

Hugh Hewitt interviews the commander of US forces in Iraq:

...

HH: Some of the arguments about Iraq in the United States argue that it’s possible for American troops to withdraw to their bases and just strike at al Qaeda, sort of an Anbar only option, I guess. Does that make any sense to you at all, General Petraeus?

DP: Well, first of all, al Qaeda-Iraq is throughout pretty substantial parts of Iraq, and it is a significant enough network in capability that it is not going to be dealt with just by certainly, if you will, classical counterterrorist operations. Indeed, we are doing those. Our best operators in America and in the world are here in the largest number of anywhere in the world by several multiples, and conducting a very, very high operational tempo, and doing extraordinary operations. When I think back to the operations that we did, for example, going after war criminals in Bosnia, or something like that, you know, and one of those would be a big deal, and you’d dine off that for the next several months. On a nightly basis here, you know, ten or twelve serious operations are going down by those forces.

HH: Wow.

DP: And any one of those is far more significant than we conducted for decades. They are very sophisticated, very complex, very lethal sometimes, and very effective. Having said that, although they may be the most important operations, because they can take down, as they did the senior Iraqi leader in al Qaeda-Iraq, or kill the three al Turkey brothers, or what have you, it is also the weight of the operations conducted by the, if you will, the regular special forces, the Green Berets and the others that make up the special operations task force, and operate throughout the country as a very high operational tempo, and of our conventional forces. I mean, it is conventional forces who cleared Western Baquba. Certainly, augmented by, again, our special forces and our special mission unit elements, but they’re the ones that, you know, killed the 80 or 90 confirmed kill, and perhaps another 80 or so more, and captured a couple of hundred in addition to that as well. And they’re the ones who will hold that area against attempts that have already taken place by al Qaeda and their affiliates to try to get back into those neighborhoods.

...

HH: It sounds optimistic, General. I want to respect your time and close with just a couple of questions, one that Senator Webb this past weekend rightly denounced politicians who try and put words into the mouths of troops. So I’m going to ask you. What do you hear your men and women saying about this mission? Do they think it can be won?

DP: Well, I think they do. I mean, I think…nobody…look, everybody wants to go home. I mean, nobody was cheering when we extended from 12 to 15 months, and I wasn’t, either, you know? This is my fourth year of longer deployment since 2001. My family would love to have me back home, and I’d love to be there. But we want to go back the right way, if you will, so that although every soldier’s first right is to, you know, grouse a bit, and we all exercise that on occasion, I think everybody’s very determined to try to do the very best that we can to accomplish this mission. I was privileged on the 4^th of July to swear the oath with some 588 soldiers in one huge formation here at Camp Victory, who reenlisted for another tour in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and so forth. And it was extraordinary. And I can tell you, you know, it’s not because of the bonus or anything like that. There is no bonus that can compensate for the sacrifices and the hardship in the selfless service that our soldiers are providing here. So again, I think individuals are doing all that they can to try to achieve success in this mission here, and that’s the focus of the folks with whom I’m privileged to soldier.

...

This is just a brief excerpt from a very long interview. Gen. Petraeus explains counterinsurgency warfare and the time it takes to be effective at length. However, I selected these two piece because they address the recent debate in this country. The first speaks to the impracticality of the Levin plan that was debated all night by the Senate this week. Probably most people do not even know what the debate was about since it was cast as one over briging the troops home. Actually it was change in the counterinsurgency strategy to one for force protection with an sally forth element to fight al Qaeda concentrations. As Gen. Petraeus points out, the best way to fight those concentrations is to be out with the people who can then help you find them which is what we are doing now.

The second excerpt is about the moral question that Sen. Webb has been pushing. I frankly think that Sen. Webb is disingenuous with this argument and is using it as an excuse for retreat and defeat in a war he does not want to win. It is a cowardly attempt to avoid debating an out right retreat which he favors.

A Washington Times Editorial points out that Levin is somewhat incoherent on how his amendment would effect operations in Iraq. One thing should be clear. Levin is no military genius. What I am trying to do in this post is break through the rhetoric of the debate and look at the alternative proposals. When you do so, the Democrat case gets even weaker and is exposed as a political fraud on their base as well as the country. Dick Morris looks at the House version of the Democrats "withdrawal" bill.

Wretchard at the Belmont Club discusses the interview at length. He focuses on other areas of the interview, but it is definitely worthwhile.