Edwards Versus Petraeus

General Petraeus says we'll be in Iraq for years. John Edwards fired back this morning:

“General Petraeus’ comments are just the latest example of the Bush Administration’s disconnect from the reality on the ground. In order to get the Iraqi people to take responsibility for their country, we must show them that we are serious about leaving, and the best way to do that is to actually start leaving. Instead of talking about keeping our troops in Iraq for another decade, the Administration should begin bringing our troops home to the hero’s welcome they deserve.

I'm not entirely sure how this fits into the residual forces debate but Edwards does seem to be at least playing footsie with the idea of differentiating himself on this issue.

Comments

The weird thing about this all is that Petraeus is almost certainly correct: a successful and properly applied counterinsurgency is going to take a long term commitment and will not be wrapped up nicely by September. The thing is, I (and most Americans) don't want to attempt a successful counterinsurgency, we just want out. Petreaus' comments, then, are actually helpful to that cause, insofar as they illustrate honestly what Bush's definition of "success" will require. That's certainly better than having the voters rely on sugarcoated scenarios from the administration and their toadies.

Posted by Cain | June 18, 2007 5:17 PM

Though I still want more of a definitive statement from John Edwards on leaving Iraq completely if elected President, as always Edwards has the most defined and most attractive positions of any candidate.

thank you John Edwards!

Posted by Jennifer | June 18, 2007 6:01 PM

General Petraeus’ comments are just the latest example of the Bush Administration’s disconnect from the reality on the ground.

That's a very bold claim for Edwards to make, considering General Petraeus LIVES IN BAGHDAD.

Posted by SR | June 18, 2007 6:13 PM

Cain,
Problem is, Petraeus has been saying it for 3 years now.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | June 18, 2007 6:14 PM

Uh, we've heard lots of delusional things from people LIVING IN BAGHDAD. Wasn't the entire Green Zone full of people living in Baghdad? And they all did such a great job.

Posted by mwg | June 18, 2007 6:40 PM

if only the problem in iraq were an insurgency, i'd be happy to listen to a (theoretical) counterinsurgency specialist.

alas, that is not the problem in iraq....

Posted by howard | June 18, 2007 7:18 PM

with all respect to Edwards...that was really stupid (as are some of the commenters on this thread).

Petraeus' remark that a successful counter-insurgency could take ten years is exactly the type of realistic assessment that has been missing from the Bush administration.

what would Edwards have said if Petraeus had said that it would take six months?

I'm beginning to think you guys are as dumb as Drum's commenters.

Posted by Nathan | June 18, 2007 7:47 PM

No question; going to war against a country that was absolutely no threat to us was stupid and rotten, and occupying a country that should be free was stupid and rotten, and dying and being wounded and killing in Iraq is about the most stupid thing I can conceive of.

Nathan, you are an immoral moron but that's just me being stupid.

Thank you, John Edwards.

Posted by Jennifer | June 18, 2007 8:11 PM

Nathan, let's say this verrrry slowwwwly: there is nothing close to enough support in america to stay in iraq for 8-10 years; the notion that we're going to hang around for 8-10 years (or 50 years, if you prefer the "korea model" that is all the rage among your hard-core bush enablers) doesn't encourage (insofar as its possible) the various ethnic factions in iraq to take a shot at coming to some kind of power-sharing; and we aren't involved in a counter-insurgency, which would, after all, suggest that the problem is an "insurgency" rather than a variety of ethnic factions with various grudges and scores to settle and long-term animosities.

Posted by howard | June 18, 2007 8:12 PM

keeping the IQ wattage low:

neither Howard nor Jennifer noticed that I didn't say we should stay for ten years. morons. as usual, you can't read but instead superimpose your ideas of what you think someone might be saying onto the thread. (hint: like Edwards, I support withdrawal....but that doesn't change the fact that his riff off of Petraeus' statement was a riff off of exactly what Petraeus didn't say.)

Posted by Nathan | June 18, 2007 8:26 PM

I will note that Cain got it exactly right. bravo. the rest of you need a remedial course in reading comprehension.

Posted by Nathan | June 18, 2007 8:28 PM

So Petraeus is working on a report about what "might" happen when we leave. Nothing wrong with a worst case analysis of what could happen.

However I'd like to know when he'll be publishing a worst case analysis of what could happen if we stay for ten years.

Posted by DJ | June 18, 2007 8:52 PM

[T]he Administration should begin bringing our troops home to the hero’s welcome they deserve.

This talk about the troops being "hero's" is nonsense.

The casualties they have taken are a fraction of those incurred in, for example, many of the Civil War battles.

They have been guilty of many war crimes. They are responsible for the deaths of numerous civilians and have engaged in torture.

And as they return in defeat - and it is a defeat - it will not be because they were betrayed but rather because they got their butts kicked. Sniveling and dishonored, their tails between their legs, they slink out.

Posted by Thinker | June 18, 2007 8:55 PM

From the article:

Asserting steady, albeit slow, military and political progress, Petraeus said that the "many, many challenges" would not be resolved "in a year or even two years."

It seems to me that Petraeus is wrong on the consequential part: whether we're making progress.

Posted by Matt Weiner | June 18, 2007 8:56 PM

I like Petraeus drawing comparisons with Northern Ireland.

The administration is hiding behind him because they know their own long-term policy is running an oil colony and that won't sell in plain language. So they've made Petraeus their water carrier, and whether he knows it or not, he is fronting for that very same half-assed policy. Edwards is right, take him out or ask him politely to quit helping the clowns at white house hide behind his hard work.

Posted by Thunderlips | June 18, 2007 9:00 PM

Actually, Nathan, you are wrong. The ten years remark was in the context of a comparison of the Iraq war to the dirty war in Northern Ireland. That is a completely unrealistic and falsifying comparison. The casualties suffered on all sides throughout the course of the dirty war are about 10 percent of the casualties suffered in the course of the Iraq war so far. That gives us a sense of the difference of scale. Shall we list other differences?

1. The british and both the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland shared a common language.
2. The British presence in Northern Ireland has, in actuality, not been a ten year presence, but has been a presence on the side of the protestants since 1688.
3. The amount of firepower in Ireland was considerably less than the amount of firepower in Iraq.
4. The British did invade Northern Ireland - but back in the 1500s.
5. The distance between Northern Ireland and London is about the distance between Washington D.C. and Atlanta.
6. The relationship of the Catholics in Northern Ireland with the Catholics in Ireland is, to say the least, much different than that between the Shi'a of Iran and the Shi'a of Iraq.
7. There was no equivalent, on the protestant side (pretending that, for analogy's sake, these are the Sunnis), to the role being played at the moment by Saudi Arabia. No protestant billionaires were arming the protestants.
8. There was no foreign force, like Al Qaeda, in Northern Ireland.
9. Finally - the political terms of the dispute was about something wholly different than the dispute in Iraq, since Iraq, unlike Northern Ireland, has been an independent nation since the twenties - longer than most nations in the Middle East, in fact - Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, etc.

So one can only say that the analogy is about as poor an analogy as possible. Why would Petraeus use such a dumb analogy? In the service of continuing to make the Iraq war look manageable. If he was really realistic about his assessment, the obvious question is: does he realistically think the American public is going to spend another trillion dollars and lose another 4,000 dead and 20,000 wounded in Iraq? He is trying to make the answer to that question "yes" by continuing the war. Realism in the service of an unrealistic goal is bullshit. It isn't even clever bullshit - thus, the ridiculous analogy.

So much for your reading lesson, Nathan. Next lesson, I will teach you how to read metaphors. You'd be surprised!

Posted by roger | June 18, 2007 9:01 PM

Roger:

1. um, so your contention is that Petraeus underestimated the necessary period of time? that's certainly possible. however, um, that wasn't Edwards' critique. so, um, nice try.

2. um, ten years is, by the way, simply the standard shorthand for a successful counterinsurgency timeframe...see the Malay insurgency, the Mau Mau insurgency, the Sendoro Luminoso, etc. its a loose period that may well not be long enough for Iraq (or maybe its too long). but that wasn't Edwards (nonexistent) point.

3. so, yeah, try some reading comprehension.

Posted by Nathan | June 18, 2007 9:06 PM

"um, so your contention is that Petraeus underestimated the necessary period of time?"

What? Where in the world did you get that from in my comment? you are a strange commenter, Nathan. You insist on reading comprehension, and then do your best to prove you have none. Nowhere do I contend anything like that - I bracketed the whole question of the validity of ten year frame.

Although, now that you mention it, and seem so ardently to think it is true, I am beginning to doubt it. FARC has been around in Colombia, for instance, for 25 years; and the Soviets, after ten years, were defeated, which sorta ended the counterinsurgency there. As for Sri Lanka, that's been going on a good fifteen years.

So you've convinced me - not only was the analogy bogus, but Petraeus is pulling the figure out of his ass.

Posted by roger | June 18, 2007 9:14 PM

nathan, roger is doing a good job on you, but just to return to my earlier notion: there is nothing intelligent about thinking of what we're doing in iraq in the context of counterinsurgency.

rather, it's a case of a man with a hammer seeing a problem as a nail.

Posted by howard | June 18, 2007 9:32 PM

"let's say this verrrry slowwwwly: there is nothing close to enough support in america to stay in iraq for 8-10 years"

If Iraq continues to look like this? Absolutely true. If the chaos/U.S. casualties/press attention there can be dialed down closer to their corresponding levels in Afghanistan, Americans will tolerate a longer presence in Iraq -- that may even be the case if only U.S. casualties go down. Let's consider all three factors though.

Chaos: Petraeus is now trying to dial that down with the surge. He's got his full complement of troops now and won't be getting any more than this. If he can't reduce the chaos after a few months, plan B will probably end up reducing U.S. casualties.

U.S. Casualties: More combat troops in the middle of sectarian conflict means more casualties; more combat troops means more logistics troops, which means more convoys vulnerable to attacks, which means more casualties. By dramatically reducing the U.S. footprint in Iraq, and moving to an adviser model, U.S. casualties can probably be brought down dramatically. A smaller force could still hit Al Qaeda and deter interventions from neighboring countries, but it wouldn't be able to do much to affect the level of sectarian violence among Iraqis. Then again, if we go to this sort of Plan B, it will mean the larger force hadn't had much effect on the level of sectarian violence. Nevertheless, these sorts of sectarian wars tend not to last forever; at some point this one will fizzle out.

Press attention: Not much Petraeus can do here. IMO though, if a Democrat (i.e., Hillary) wins in '08, press attention to Iraq will drop -- perhaps not to Afghanistan levels, but certainly lower than current levels.

Fewer troops + fewer U.S. casualties + a Dem President = U.S. troops in Iraq for a total of a decade or more, IMO. Iraq could even start looking like a positive for a Dem President: the bar will be set so low for success a few years from now that Hillary might even take a shot at claiming it.

Posted by Fred | June 18, 2007 10:25 PM

Maybe with an occupation "SURGE!" of some 100 million additional troops the situation could be stabilized, unlike nearly every other historical example of a former colonized people revolting against a distant colonial occupier.

I wonder why Britain isn't still hard at work pacifying and stabilizing Kenya? Or Ghana, for that matter?

Surely if the British had kept their nerve they could have depleted the population of the UK in a continual effort to 'stabilize' their colonies throughout Africa.

Posted by El Cid | June 18, 2007 10:26 PM

Nathan is being egregiously provocative and I agree that saying that Petraeus is being "honest" is a gross overstatement, in the least.

But isn't Nathan's essential point correct: the Admin has the Pentagon have been telling Americans for years now that this is a short-term project and the troops will be coming home any time now. It's been lies from the beginning. Well, it's arguable that at the beginning it may not have been lies but rather delusion. No matter. The point is that it has already been years and the Friedman unit keeps expiring.

Petaeus's analysis may be in the service of another set of BushCo lies, but at the very least it has to remove the scales from the eyes of the remaining few Republicans and ignoramuses that there's no end in sight unless we simply leave. Anything approaching the stated aims for this occupation will require years and years. The public is better told this than the lie of another six months.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | June 18, 2007 11:05 PM

"I wonder why Britain isn't still hard at work pacifying and stabilizing Kenya? Or Ghana, for that matter?"

Post WWII, Britain was broke and worn out from the war. Plus colonialism was widely considered to be an impediment to freedom and progress for third worlders (now we see they were better off with the Brits).

Britain did rule some colonies (e.g. India) for over a century, with relatively little manpower.

Posted by Harry | June 18, 2007 11:33 PM

Harry Reid (in the State of the Union response, no less!): "Listen to the Generals".

It's too funny to see the left flip-flop between telling us to "listen to the Generals" and saying that the Generals actually on the ground are "disconnect[ed] from the reality on the ground".

Posted by Al | June 19, 2007 12:48 AM

Roger,

Those are all excellent points. To go back to the William Lind well again, I'll link to a column he wrote about comparing Northern Ireland to Iraq (most of it a long quote from Martin Van Creveld). All of Van Creveld's points are salient but this one about the British Army caught my eye:

"Fourth, and in marked contrast with most other counterinsurgents from the Germans in Yugoslavia to the Americans in Vietnam and elsewhere, not once in the entire struggle did the army bring in heavy weapons such as tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery, or aircraft to repulse attacks and inflict retaliation…"
http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_4_23_07.htm

Posted by beowulf | June 19, 2007 12:50 AM

This just shows what an absolute amateur edwards is, and by this I refer to the tone rather than the substance of his comments. It wouldve been far wiser for edwards to 'respectfully disagree' with petraeus. To baldly assert that he simply knows more about whats happening on the ground in iraq than a guy who has actually been on that ground for the last few years makes him look like an arrogant jackass.

He is being far too crude in his courtship of you lunatics and further alienates sane democrats with his every utterance. As can be observed from the polling.

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | June 19, 2007 4:02 AM

Well, a pimp knows what is real and right as pimps always do. As long as other people are dying and fighting, pimps go pimping happily and disgustingly along. War-mongers always know how to pimp. Go along, Pimpy.

Nathan is of course simply another war-mongering monster.

Posted by Jennifer | June 19, 2007 5:11 AM

I must have missed the part where Edwards explains how, as a retired Senator, he maintains any connection to the realities on the ground in Iraq at all.

Posted by JM Hanesd | June 19, 2007 5:23 AM

Having his head located outside his ass is pretty much sufficient.

Posted by Matt Weiner | June 19, 2007 8:28 AM

This is the same Jennifer who was a complete lunatic on the China thread.

Posted by Matt | June 19, 2007 8:53 AM

Al: Harry Reid and John Edwards are, last I checked, not the same people. John Edwards doesn't have to fall in line with Harry Reid while running a campaign. That type of monolithic groupthink is the Republican way.

Also, your argument holds little water because Bush went and handpicked a guy that agreed with him. Obviously there are no surveys among generals saying X% support withdrawal and what not but the consensus last year seemed to be, among top brass and retired generals and the like, that the surge was a fool's errand.

So, ignoring all of them while saying that you must listen to the one guy that agreed with Bush to the exclusion of all others is dishonest at best.

Posted by joshua | June 19, 2007 9:58 AM

one point to make about Richardson re: troop withdrawal, since on a previous post some commenters complained to Matt that Richardson was not really for TOTAL withdrawal. Here is what he has said, just to clarify his position: "That means no airbases, no embedded soldiers training Iraqi forces, no troops in the Green Zone. Zero troops. I would leave the customary small marine contingent at the embassy, but if that became unsafe, then I'd bring them home too."

Posted by Dan B | June 19, 2007 11:22 AM

"Also, your argument holds little water because Bush went and handpicked a guy that agreed with him. "

That doesn't sound accurate. First, Bush has been (perhaps overly) deferential to the military leaders. Until fairly late last year, Bush was still wedded to Gen. Casey's strategy of focusing on training the Iraqis and letting them take the lead. It was only after months of criticism (both by Dems and GOP hawks like McCain), calls for a "change of course", and of course the '06 election defeat, that Bush started considering a different strategy.

I don't know if it was the Kagan paper that convinced Bush to try the surge, but I doubt it was his idea to begin with -- Bush isn't a hands-on war leader like Johnson, who picked out targets for the Air Force to bomb in Vietnam. Petraeus was a natural choice for theater commander because, among other qualifications, he had literally written the book on counter insurgency for the U.S. Army -- a book informed by several years of American measures and missteps in Iraq.

Posted by Fred | June 19, 2007 11:45 AM

Bush has been (perhaps overly) deferential to the military leaders.

Google "Shinseki."

Posted by Matt Weiner | June 19, 2007 1:52 PM