The email sent will contain a link to this article, the article title, and an article excerpt (if available). For security reasons, your IP address will also be included in the sent email.
ARTICLE: “Our Main Man in Baghdad: Petraeus succeeded in Iraq because he looked at the situation from a political standpoint,” by Linda Robinson, Washington Post National Weekly Edition, 22-28 September 2008.
Linda Robinson clearly trailed Petraeus for a long stretch, and unsurprisingly writes a book that is Petraeus-centric.
One nice and straightforward takeaway:
The extra surge brigades certainly helped, but the number of U.S. troops was far less important than the new ways in which they were used. The most important new tactical move still gets scant Beltway attention: Petraeus’s initiative to reach out to the Sunni insurgency and its base. “We cannot kill our way to victory,” he said.
So yes, Mr. McCain, there is a difference between tactics and strategy, and it’s important to understand it.
And no, Neocon camp, the “surge” did not prove that there are military solutions to political problems—just the opposite.
In the end, Robinson argues, “Petraeus’s willingness to grapple with Iraqi politics made all the difference. His replacements’ tasks will be more than ever political, not military.”
Key finish to remember as the presidential campaign argument continues:
No, the Iraqis can’t finish the job on their own now; at the same time, no, we don’t need 100,000 U.S. troops to stay in Iraq and do it for them. It would be heartening if we could understand the real record of Iraq’s turnaround—and talk about its future like grown-ups.
So please, stow the infantile argument about “winning,” “losing,” “surrendering” or any of that bullshit.
Return to Article
