Obama on the Iraq War and the Petraeus Doctrine

Dear General Petraeus,

Did you like being the center of attention, for a while the other night, during the presidential debates?

The guys had lots to say about you in the midst of the back and forth about Iraq.

It seems to me, and tell me if I'm right, that Barack Obama is a proponent of a new kind of engagement as a backdrop to his practical policies about Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Al Qaida, and the war on terror generally. That backdrop is one that is partly expressed when he speaks of being open sitting down and talking to other world leaders with preparation but without preconditions. He is saying, that in the 21st century we must explore new avenues of diplomacy. McCain accuses Obama of being naive. But it isn't naivete is it, General Petraeus? It is a recognition that the Powell doctrine* of the late 20th century has died. The Petraeus doctrine has arrived.

Both McCain and Obama seem to acknowledge your importance. But I think that they appreciate different things. McCain wants to say, "Hah, the surge worked. Military might really does work." But his understanding is hearkening back to the Powell doctrine. Obama says instead, and perhaps with more understanding than McCain of the Petraeus doctrine, "Hm.m.m, the surge cannot be a surge of might. It is instead a surge of cultural engagement." Embracing some of the new thinking from military philosophers such as John Nagl, Obama accepts that events such as those of 9/11, “conclusively demonstrated that instability anywhere can be a real threat to the American people here at home.” For the foreseeable future, political conditions abroad rather than specific military threats will pose the greatest danger to the United States.

General Petraeus, have you seen this video? It will take about eight minutes, but I think it is eloquent.



When Obama does sometimes sidestep the question of "winning" the war in Iraq, he is acknowledging that traditional military victory is secondary to the greater necessity of instituting diplomatic scaffolding that will maintain lasting stability throughout the region.

The Atlantic Monthly states,

"According to the emerging Petrae­us Doctrine, the Army (like it or not) is entering an era in which armed conflict will be protracted, ambiguous, and continuous—with the application of force becoming a lesser part of the soldier’s repertoire."

Instability creates ungoverned spaces in which violent anti-American radicals thrive. Yet if instability anywhere poses a threat, then ensuring the existence of stability everywhere—denying terrorists sanctuary in rogue or failed states—becomes a national-security imperative. Define the problem in these terms, and winning battles becomes less urgent than pacifying populations and establishing effective governance.

War in this context implies not only coercion but also social engineering. As Nagl puts it, the security challenges of the 21st century will require the U.S. military “not just to dominate land operations, but to change entire societies.”

. . . enabling the Army, he writes, “to get better at building societies that can stand on their own.” That means buying fewer tanks while spending more on language proficiency; curtailing the hours spent on marksmanship ranges while increasing those devoted to studying foreign cultures. It also implies changing the culture of the officer corps. An Army that since Vietnam has self-consciously cultivated a battle-oriented warrior ethos will instead emphasize, in Nagl’s words, “the intellectual tools necessary to foster host-nation political and economic development.”

We are living in a very different world from the one that predated the global society. Even the lessons of Vietnam don't quite apply, do they? To effectively maintain just and decent leadership in this world, we cannot afford to place all of our hopes on the gun, on the bomb, on the power of power. We must seek a new solution. That is what Barack Obama is saying when he calls for an end to the military engagement in Iraq.

Could you say that too? Would you serve him as your commander-in-chief?

BRD

Link to Obama on Iraq from Presidential debates.

*The Powell Doctrine held that military force should only be used if there was a clear risk to national security; that the force used should be overwhelming; and that the operation must have strong public support and a clear exit strategy.

Iraq and other matters...OR What a tangled web

Dear President Bush,

You have been in a painful slide lately I think. As one of your faithful, if somtimes confused, supporters, it has frankly been hard to watch. I want to believe you had an honorable heart in all this mess, but often I am unsure. I am here to engage the topic of Iraq today, and as I researched and thought about this subject, I just kept coming back to you.

This picture was taken this week, as you talked to us about the latest blow to hit your presidency, the impending collapse of the financial market. You frankly looked beaten. I heard the quacking of a lame duck calling the two Ganders to waddle their way to Washington to assist in the decision that would really affect their administration more than yours.

It made me think back to the days not so long ago when you were younger, determined, and riding a wave of public support. You had comforted us after the terrible day of 9/11, you had taken a posse and sent them to Afganistan to string up the outlaw who did it, and you were ready to show that you were not only a reactive guy, but proactive as well. There would be no second 9/11 on your watch. Hussein would be the next to go. I wonder if you regret the speech below now, especially the prophetic lines that those of us who were listening did not expect to be as true as they turned out to be.

There are now few that don't hate you for this decision. Did you know that the weapons of Mass Destruction would never quite show up? Was it really all about oil? Or was it about the human rights violations against millions in Iraq? I guess we will never know. Right or wrong, you have suffered. And maybe I am naive to still hope that your intentions were good. But even corruption has been corrupted now, with the evilest standing up and calling themselves the best, so how are we on "main street" to know.

So now, we have two men with plans for what to do next. I was struck by something McCain said in the debate this past week. Obama was talking about why this war was the wrong war at the wrong time. But now that is a mute point. We are here and it is now and there is no going back. So the question is what do we do now.

See minute #2 for the quote. Watch the whole video for McCain's side of the debate on Iraq. I wish it had both sides of the debate, but this is what I found.

The fact of the matter is, we cannot "lose" in Iraq. Remember how that went with Vietnam? But how do you define "winning" when you are fighting against guerilla warfare? When the enemy army has a global pool to draw from? And when the enemy does not value the lives of its own members? In fact, the enemy blends with the civilian population one day and blows them up the next. Lets just say it gets confusing.

So, to the point. What does John McCain recommend? On his site he says he "believes it is strategically and morally essential for the United States to support the Government of Iraq to become capable of governing itself and safeguarding its people. He strongly disagrees with those who advocate withdrawing American troops before that has occurred." OK, what else...

"The best way to secure long-term peace and security is to establish a stable, prosperous, and democratic state in Iraq that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists. When Iraqi forces can safeguard their own country, American troops can return home." A democratic state that poses no threat to its neighbors? I disagree with that. Its neighbors should be at risk of catching the same disease...democracy and freedom. Those terrorists take refuge with Iraq's neighbors...But Iraq should be able to safe guard themselves, I agree.

McCain calls for 1. Support of the successful counterinsurgency strategy (see BRD's discussion of the Patreaus doctrine). 2. Push for Political reconciliation and good government, 3. Get Iraq's economy back on its feet, 4. Call for International pressure on Syria and Iran, 5. Level with the American people about what is going on in Iraq

He closes his Iraq info with this: “I know the pain war causes. I understand the frustration caused by our mistakes in this war. And I regret sincerely the additional sacrifices imposed on the brave Americans who defend us. But I also know the toll a lost war takes on an army and on our country's security. By giving General Petraeus and the men and women he has the honor to command the time and support necessary to succeed in Iraq we have before us a hard road. But it is the right road. It is necessary and just. Those who disregard the unmistakable progress we have made in the last year and the terrible consequences that would ensue were we to abandon our responsibilities in Iraq have chosen another road. It may appear to be the easier course of action, but it is a much more reckless one, and it does them no credit even if it gives them an advantage in the next election.”

I fear that I still agree with your administration, Mr. Bush, and with John McCain. I think you both sort of agree, although all this politics has addled my brain a bit. I just know that simply promising to bring troops home does not a successful strategy make. We are where we are, and we must, slowly but surely, strengthen Iraq and prepare to leave. There will be risks, there are always risks, but we must allow this butterfly, which we removed from its cocoon a bit before it was ready, to spread and strengthen its wings. And then when it can fly, we must let it.

AND THEN>>> We must decide what we will do with evil in this world, both the evil that threatens us and the evil that does not. What about the Darfurs? What about the Irans? There are probably 10 more places we could go to war at for all the same reasons that you took us to war in Iraq. So what kind of possible consequences will we allow to drive us to that point again? It is something that American's must grapple with. We must also grapple with where in the world we will spend our money, especially now. 2 Billion to Georgia to support democracy...how many billions to the world in general to cut poverty in half by 2015?

"The world has changed, I can feel it in the water, I can feel it in the earth". America must change with it, and we must decide who we are going to be globally... "freedom bully", nuclear enforcer, savior, uncle money bags, trouble maker, scape goat...what?

But I digress and fall into so many other topics. One last thing I want to say though, is that I am glad for what you have done in Africa. I wish more people knew about this. With all the horrible things going on in Iraq, there have been so many good things in Africa. But no one wants to report the good things...the people living better, surviving longer with AIDS, prevention of the spread of AIDS, etc. Thank you for doing this.

So enjoy your last few months in the White House, and I truly hope you can enjoy retirement on the ranch. It will be here very soon.

Your friend and critic,

CaDh 8

p.s. Oh, yeah, And Bush, I did not get to talk about that unbalanced budget, but it is one of my major gripes with you. If America had had to feel this war due to spending cuts to make war funding possible, I think the war would have been handled very differently from the beginning. But maybe that is a topic for next time...