I’ve seen the op-ed version of Gen. David Petraeus’ report from Baghdad. There’s a link below. This is not a joke, but there is a surprise ending, unless you already know it. To me, it was a surprise when a friend referred me yesterday to the op-ed. Here are outtakes from the Petraeus piece:
“There are reasons for optimism.”
“I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up. The institutions that oversee them are being re-established from the top down. And Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously…
“Equipment is being delivered. Training is on track and increasing in capacity. Infrastructure is being repaired. Command and control structures and institutions are being reestablished. Most important, Iraqi security forces are in the fight…
“Iraqi National Guard battalions have also been active in recent months. Some 40 of the 45 existing battalions — generally all except those in the Fallujah-Ramadi area — are conducting operations on a daily basis, most alongside coalition forces, but many independently. Progress has also been made in police training…”
Gen. Petraeus cautions that the work remains difficult, the enemy determined and vicious, but he concludes:
“There will be more tough times, frustration and disappointment along the way. It is likely that insurgent attacks will escalate as Iraq’s elections approach.” [That was a hint if you haven’t figured out the surprise yet, EB.]
“Iraq’s security forces are, however, developing steadily and they are in the fight. Momentum has gathered in recent months. With strong Iraqi leaders out front and with continued coalition — and now NATO — support, this trend will continue. It will not be easy, but few worthwhile things are.”
Read it for yourself, here, from the Washington Post, Sunday Outlook Section of September 26, 2004, published three years ago, shortly before the last presidential election, in which Petraeus’ commander-in-chief, George W. Bush, was narrowly reelected.
What think?
Cross-posted at Minnesota Monitor.
Cute twist. I guess I find the story of congressman Brian Baird (D) more interesting. He opposed the war and voted in favor of withdrawl, but changed his mind after a recent trip to Iraq. The idea of someone changing positions on the war in opposition to their (probable) political future is kind of interesting, no?
In fact, it seems like there is kind of an upswell in support for keeping troops there longer. Simply saying that people were wrong in the past doesn’t really get to the heart of the current question. Especially because the situation over there has changed between 2004 and now. Different leadership and all that.