Every so often, the spin that's used to defend our continued presence in Iraq gets boiled down to an essential, ridiculous nugget of falsehood. It happened today, in the front-page Democrat & Chronicle story on the testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. Randy Kuhl says:
I'm confident that General Petraeus is the most competent, qualified, objective individual to determine how this country should proceed in Iraq.
This one sentence is the reductio ad absurdum of all the Petraeus-centric rhetoric we've been hearing for the last six months. Kuhl is putting a general above the President and Congress in making the strategic decision of the next steps in Iraq. Kuhl's flight from responsibility has led him to utter a statement that, taken to its logical conclusion, would have the reader believe that we live in a military dictatorship instead of a republic.
Petraeus, Crocker and the rest can give their report on how they think things are going in Iraq, but Kuhl is living in a fantasy world if he thinks residents of the 29th are going to adopt David Petraeus as their new Caesar. I think yesterday's editorial in the fairly conservative Corning Leader, which states that Petraeus' report is "anti-climactic", is pretty close to the prevailing majority opinion.
After today's non-event of Petraeus' testimony, the Congress, which has the power to declare war according to a quaint little document we like to call the Constitution, will be called upon to make a decision. They may not be "competent, qualified and objective", but they are responsible, whether or not our Member of that august body wants to admit it.
Comments
If you assume that we want to stay (and pay) in Iraq till the job is done, retain the honor of those who sacrificed for us there, not "rush to failure" (Petraeus), or go the "surrender/failure/defeat" route (McCain) then Petraeus makes a very good case.
Obama's statement during the Senate hearing was an especially eloquent and well-reasoned argument against that assumption. Republicans in general, and Kuhl in particular can't admit that success in Iraq, even if it's possible, is simply not worth the price.
I agree that Obama had it right - we need to stop drilling in on Iraq and focus on the overall security picture.
I also agree that Republicans seem to want to give it yet another shot. Even those who have expressed reservations, like Dick Lugar, aren't willing to do more than endorse the non-withdrawal "withdrawal".