
Gen. Petraeus
The United States' top military man in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, was tasked with the responsibility of bringing sufficient order in that country so that the Iraqi government could find a political solution to the insurgency. That's an overwhelming task. But no more daunting than the political obstacles that Washington presents.
Petraeus has been testifying before Congress about his plan to withdraw 30,000 troops from Iraq. That figure coincides with the number of additional troops deployed there at the beginning of the year. Constituting the so-called "surge" to create some stability.
Even before he arrived in Washington, Democrats, who anticipated he would suggest continuing the surge, criticized what they thought he was going to say. His surprise suggestion that some of the additional troops could return home by year's end, however, certainly didn't deter those members of Congress who were bent on gaining politically from his visit.
This is serious stuff. The action in Iraq (which nearly every member of Congress, including Democrats, supported) was undertaken for dubious reasons. The mission has been changed repeatedly by the administration. Confusing, no doubt, those who were deployed.
But when a person of Petraeus' position, character and stature reports to Congress, he should be afford the courtesy of at least the appearance of being listened to before he is criticized.
Congress' discourteous treatment of Petraeus extends beyond the "preactions" and reactions. Yesterday, there were two hearings held. One by a committee of the House. Another by a Senate committee. Petraeus and his support staff weren't even given time to take a lunch break between the two meetings. The first ended. The congressmen shuffled out of the hearing room. Senators moved in. And began questioning the general again before he was able to finish the sandwich he was trying to scarf down.
The bigger question is, is Petraeus being used by both parties for political gain? Are the Democrats simply using his report as an excuse to criticize the president? And is the president using Petraeus as cover so he doesn't have to directly answer for his Iraq policy (or lack thereof)?
Peter Beinart, Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy, suggests that the general has been put in an untenable political position. He says, given the ramifications of this issue, not just to Iraq but to policy with regard to other nations in the Middle East, it is not his job to decide how much longer troops will remain in Iraq.
"George W. Bush is paid to have opinions on those topics," Beinart writes. "David Petraeus is not."