For a man who has arguably been assigned the worst job in the world, General
David Petraeus gives a good impression that he is enjoying his unenviable
assignment to bring security back to Iraq in the face of al-Qaeda bombs and
falling support for the war back home.
In his air-conditioned office in Saddam Hussein’s former presidential palace,
the lean and sprightly 54-year-old US commander still manages to flash a
Hollywood smile as he sets out his belief that America does not have an
option just to walk away from Iraq after more than four bloody years of
fighting.
Unlike those who devised the invasion of Iraq, his conviction is not
ideological, but practical and built on his experiences here over the best
part of three years, where he served as a divisional commander during the
invasion, the officer in charge of training Iraqi forces and now the
commander of coalition troops.
“Our assessment is that this is the central front for al-Qaeda. They have a
global war of terror, and Iraq is the central front. Whether you like it or
not. That is something that the leaders of the intelligence community in the
West and our joint special operations commander agree on. It is certainly
one very important consideration in looking at Iraq,” he told The Times.
He said terrorists were quite capable of increasing their attacks in the short
term and that al-Qaeda’s leadership in Iraq was still largely drawn from
foreign fighters. He estimated that 80 al-Qaeda volunteers crossed into Iraq
from Syria every month. He said that they still accounted for a large
proportion of the suicide bombings that have wreaked such havoc in the
country.
But he dented Democrats’ hopes that his crucial report to Washington in
September would help to make their case for the withdrawal of US troops.
September was “a deadline for a report, not a deadline for a change in
policy”, he said.
General Petraeus is overseeing what many regard as President Bush’s last
effort in Iraq, a “surge” of more than 25,000 troops who have been deployed
in and around Baghdad to restore security and allow the country’s leaders a
chance for political reconciliation and economic recovery.
Using a laser pointer he flicks a red dot across a map of Iraq picking out
hotspots, giving a potted history of the ethnic and sectarian make-up of
various provinces and outlining the dangerous strategy that his men are
executing on the ground.
In the most high-profile operation – codenamed Arrowhead Ripper – 10,000
American soldiers flooded the restive town of Baquba on Tuesday.
The area was a stronghold of al-Qaeda and the Americans are determined to
wrest it back.
“There are operations going on all around Baghdad (in the south, west, north
and east). This is part of an offensive around what we call the Baghdad
belt. This is using the five brigades and a combat aviation brigade and
Marine Expeditionary Unit. This is a combined effort,” he said.
But as General Petraeus is the first to acknowledge, his main enemy is just as
capable of a “surge” as well. Just as the first pictures were being shown of
US forces marching through Baquba, a suicide truck bomb exploded in central
Baghdad near a famous mosque. Nearly 80 people were killed, many of them
burnt in their cars.
“You are never going to eliminate sensational attacks in Baghdad. That cannot
be your measure of success. What we have to do is reduce their number and
their impact. We had done quite well until the attack yesterday that killed
a number of innocent civilians,” said General Petraeus.
How the headlines play back home is very much part of the general’s war. In
September he and Ryan Crocker, the US Ambassador to Baghdad, are due to
report back to Congress on the situation in Iraq.
The Democrats, with an eye on the presidential race, are expected to use the
occasion to redouble the call for US forces to be brought home. “Ambassador
Crocker and I intend to go back and provide a snapshot at that time . . .
and begin to describe what has been achieved and what has not been achieved
and provide some sense of implications of courses of action. Neither of us
is under any illusion.”
At the very least the Princeton-edu-cated paratrooper hopes to “put time back
on the Washington clock”. He has always maintained that there are two clocks
on Iraq. One ticks slowly away in the hot, grubby streets of Baghdad, where
progress is small and painful, while the other ticks furiously on the
Potomac, where patience is fast running out for a war that has claimed more
than 3,528 American lives and billions of wasted dollars.
Al-Qaeda is keenly aware of the Washington clock,” he said. “They are
obviously going to have a surge of their own. You saw an example of this
yesterday. They wanted to make sure that the headlines about the launch of
the offensive don’t create too much hope.” A more immediate problem facing
the general is the future of his largest ally in Iraq, the 7,000 British
troops who control Basra and provide key military and diplomatic know-how to
his command.
With Tony Blair about to hand over power to Gordon Brown in the coming days,
fears that the British will follow other allies, such as Spain and Italy,
and head for the exit, dominate speculation among US officers in Baghdad.
General Petraeus is adamant that America wants and needs the British presence,
not only because his men would have to fill the gap in the south if the
British went home but also because they bring unique experience in
counter-insurgency war.
He had particular praise for Lieutenant-General Graeme Lamb, his No 2, who
heads the Force Strategic Engagement Cell. It is responsible for secret
talks with insurgent groups, some of whom have been persuaded to change
sides, particularly in Anbar province, previously one of the most violent
areas of Iraq.
“It is very instructive to have as a deputy commander a guy like Graeme Lamb.
There is a guy who comes from a military where he sat down across the
negotiating table with people who were swinging pipes at their lads a few
years earlier. Every endeavour like this has ended by getting some folks to
change sides. That is what happened in Anbar province. It was described as
lost ten months ago,” he said.
As for Mr Brown, the general seemed sure that he would continue Mr Blair’s
policy. “I have talked to [him] a couple of times. I came through No 10 on
my way out here and he came here. That is the way we would like to continue
to carry on,” he said.
Fit for duty
Born in 1952, the son of a Dutch sea captain, General Petraeus graduated from
West Point military academy in 1974. He later gained a PhD from Princeton
University, with a doctoral dissertation entitled The American Military and
the Lessons of Vietnam
He has served two previous tours of duty in Iraq. In the first, in 2003, he
commanded the 101st Airborne Division in Northern Iraq – when he said of the
occupation: “This is a race to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.
And there are other people in this race. In some cases, they want to kill
us”
His second tour in 2004 involved overseeing the training of Iraqi security
forces. After that he spent 15 months writing the army’s manual on
counterinsurgency
He is renowned for his fitness. During a training exercise early in his
career, retired General Jack Keane accidentally shot Petraeus in the chest.
Just a few days after surgery he demanded to be released. When his request
was refused, because he would be too weak, he reputedly dropped to the
ground and did 50 press-ups
Source: US National Public Radio
As i look at what has transpired in Iraq, i quake at the thought we (USA) would leave there without restoring a functional government.
The huge diaster of Vietnam still hangs on even today. Imagine what the impact to US (and others) will be leaving Iraq without safeguarding the OIL from terroris
kirk anthony, flushing, usa
NO doubt Iraq and the area will have a much bigger problem if the US. leaves before peace is established. However, there will NEVER be peace in the area until the various factions learn to live and work together. Not before.!!
When will this happen.?? Only the people in Iraq can decide on peace. The departure of the US may or may not be of benefit to Iraq. Does Iraq want to live in peace.??? If Iraq wants to liev in peace, THEY must start now. Stop fighting yourselves. The US will leave when you stop fighting yourself.
ada gott, mkt, USA
Certainly among the reasons the USA went to Iraq was to keep S. Hussein from using billions in oil revenue to re-arm and to perpetuate his continued mass murder of Kurds and Shiites.
If the USA leaves, whom would control the Oil Money in Iraq? Al-Queda? Iran? Syria? Al-Sadr? This is a question you should all be asking. 3600 lives is small small price to pay to keep oil money out of the hands of genocidal maniacs, islamic extremists and terrorists. Leaving Iraq will have far worse consequences 10 years down the road than any consequences on the ground today.
There are certain people and organizations that will only respond to raw power...I would submit that Al-Queda and Iran are amongst them. Does the name Hitler or Stalin ring any bells? How did they respond to weakness? The USA should solve this problem now with the inevitable sacrifice of thousands of more lives, rather than put off a showdown that would be infinitely more expesive in dollars and lives 10 years from now
Paul C, Corona Del MAr, California, USA
Bush/Cheney & neocon company wanted to change the face of the middle east. It just hasn't changed in the manner they expected.
Bruce L. Northwood, Washington, D.C., USA
"America can’t just walk away from the fight with al-Qaeda, US general insists"
A message to America:
'You are either with the rest of the world or against..' The rest of the world wants out.
Mohammed, London, UK
Petraeus is Bush's current "dog robber". He followed Colin Powell who lost his value at the dog and pony show he put on for the U.N. Petraeus helped Bush in the 2004 election. Sept 26, he wrote an op-ed for the Wash . Post saying," I see tangible progress...Iraqi leaders are stepping forward...Iraq's security forces are developing steadily and they are in the fight".
Pwetraeus is on his third tour, Odierno has been here before. The coterie of American generals have been beaten badly by an irregular force. Are they bad generals or are they the victims of" bad fairys" They seem immune to criticism from press and public. When will they be called to account?
c. perry, boyton beach, USA florida
@Honest Jon. If we really had the Iraqi's interest at heart, why did we support a dictator for so long? Why did we pardon those who attempted to sell arms to Iran? Why did we suddenly shift the causus belli from purpoted wmd to 'regime change'? Why was the US government keen to imply a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam when no link has ever been substantiated. Why would governments spend billions of dollars out of the goodness of their own heart? Why not start with Burma if we were concerned with freedom and democracy?
Perhaps this is all a smokescreen and the real objective was military penetration and long-term presence in order to project military power across the Middle East and further afield. The added bonus of securing access to some of the world's largest oil reserves is an added bonus, of course. I don't believe for one second that either the US or Brits want to see a successful Iraq: I believe they want a weak and fractured country which they can manipulate and control.
Robert The, London, UK
Regarding "wasted" dollars — this is hardly an opinion. The $9 billion or so that is completely unaccounted for must be written off as wasted, by any measure. The public works projects that were built so shoddily they are falling down after two, three, four years, is money wasted — again, by any measure.
What is really "distrubing" is that the mass media has been afraid to do the spade work and to name the names in this hidepously expensive misadventure.
It is not "opinion" to state the obvious. If anything, it needs to be stated more clearly and vigorously at every turn. The invasion and occupation of Iraq is a failure: Now what?
Jim Cornelius, Sisters, Oregon, USA
The Democrats haven't the power to overthrow Bush's policies in Congress...yet, and the General is just making it clear he will not provide the political fodder for the Democrats to accomplish it.
That job belongs to the Republican party, who aren't liking what they are hearing today and will like the General's report in September a whole lot less. The majority of the American voting public aren't into 99% of what is said, identified or explained by this article, they are primarily concerned about getting America and her troops out of Iraq and to hell with everything else. Right, wrong, good, bad or indifferent is beside the point, Americans are simply sick to death of the entire fiasco and want done with it.
The fall the Republican party, its leaders, bosses, party hacks and politicians will ultimately decide whether to continue supporting their party leader and gamble the parties fate big time in 2008, or they begin the road to open revolt either driving Bush to withdraw from Iraq or bring him down. If they are going to force Bush to bring the boys and girls home Republicans cannot delay any longer than the coming fall, because that policy change will take at least 6 months to bear fruit and well into the 08 primary season.
Robert, St. Clair, MI,
Just imagine what the results of the war might be if it is brought to a successful conclusion. In a few years, the Iraqi people will be wealthy-with all of the oil revenue that the country will generate. If these people can muster the courage to bury their differences instead of each other, they will be the wealthiest nation in the middle east. The USA and British are there for only one reason: to help the Iraqis to succeed. We want out more than anything else, but not before the job is done. One can only hope-for the sake of the Iraqis, the USA, and the British-that it will be successfully concluded.
HONESTJON, Lexington, Kentucky
Of course we can't walk away.
Executive Order 39 allows for the following: (1) privatization of Iraq's non-oil-related economy which dominated by 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100 percent foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) 'national treatment' of foreign firms; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses. Thus, it allows the U.S. corporations operating in Iraq to own every business, do all of the work, and send all their money home.
D.DENTON, N.Y.,
Petraeus is an overrated General who is obscessed with his career and is as responsible for the military dilemma as anyone else. He was on hand while Abizaid and his cronies failed and he is still trying to doubletalk everyone.
The Bush-Cheney-Petraeus "surge" is going nowhere while US casualties continue to mount and slowlyt and quietly the economy is becoming imperiled in spite of the superficial aura of euphoria.
bill goldman, annapolis, md.
I find it rather disturbing that a news article would refer to the lives and dollars expended in this war as "wasted." That sort of statement belong on the opinion page.
Phil, Vienna, Austria
The above is just an incredibly stupid rant. Invading Iraq was a dumb idea, but as it seems to escape everyone now, a popular one in the US at the time with many, many high profile proponents. Those folks won't talk about that now. Petraeus seems a fine man. He's a soldier and he does what soldiers do. Accomplish the mission.
Erick Blair, Manila, Philippines
It is amazing and frightening to see people so obsessed with their
hatred of President Bush that they want an Al-Qaeda victory in Iraq
and Afghanistan. I guess they live wherever they live and tell
themselves that the battle cannot reach them.
They are wrong. Anybody who makes even a little effort to read
Al-Qaeda's religious justifications and it's military strategy will know
that these are the opening battles in the third world war.
The battle will come to them if it has not yet, and it will eventually come
with nuclear weapons, supplied either by Iran or by a
post-Musharaff Pakistan.
In fact, the best hope for avoiding a nuclear exchange, such as
the one that Mark from Canada wants to see "not allowed" is for
these initial battles to be won by conventional weapons.
The liberal movement got four million killed in Vietnam and Cambodia
by forcing early withdrawal and can do the same in Iraq, but that
will not be the end of it. Be careful what you wish for.
Dave M., Tonopah / London, USA / UK
Can't just walk away. Need to be thrown out?
Phil, Hong Kong,
Well if General Petraeus is a watchdog, he watch over my house anytime! The world is at war with al qadea. Most people just will not see the truth. It is never wise to put down your weapons and leave in the middle of a fight.
It was never about oil. Just look at history, the US does not steal....the Marshall plan after WWII, not to mentioin the economic aid that we are pouring into Iraq.
BobWoodyard, Sachse, USA/Texas
He's quite right to give the world the choice of, "whether you like it or not". From what I've seen, the world doesn't like it, and they should be left to get on with this disaster if they are hellbent to nosedive the whole country. Just as long as they are prevented from going nuclear, this is an option the only country to ever use nuclear weapons must not be allowed to use again. America does not have the conventional combat power to subdue Iraq, never mind throwing Iran into the mix. Petraeus is a disappointment, just another talking head after all.
Mark, Victoria, Canada
as he is describeb general petraeus has a great personality it is a pity he is used as a watchdog by bush and co to help them take frealy the iraki petroleum how mush is he payed to do such a dirty job
youcef, ain t, algeria