dhalltoyo
Veteran Expediter
We note with bittersweet reverence the passing of the torch for Multi-National Force Iraq from Gen. David Petraeus to Gen. Ray Odierno. Gen. Petraeus’ outstanding leadership has been a regular part of these pages.
Indeed, who can forget the remarkable counterinsurgency strategy he devised and executed—the so-called “surge” —rescuing Iraq from the brink of all-out civil war? In little more than 18 months, Gen. Petraeus transformed Iraq from a would-be haven of chaos and despair into a nascent foothold of freedom in the Middle East.
Even so, he cautioned that insurgent extremists—though greatly weakened—still had not yet been entirely defeated. Petraeus also described his replacement as “the perfect man for the job.” We certainly hope so.
Petraeus’ surge arrived not a moment too soon. Thanks to its success, discussions of “drawdowns” and “transitioning missions” can now be made with a straight face, as Iraqi forces shoulder increasing responsibility for countering the ever-weakening insurgency. Why can’t we find such people to run our government?
Evidently, however, drawdown discussions should be tabled—at least, that is, until “President Obama” assumes office. The New York Post is reporting that while publicly campaigning for a speedy withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has privately attempted to convince Iraqi leaders to delay any drawdown agreement until after a new U.S. administration arrives (read: his).
The Post cited Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, who stated that Obama’s demand for a delay was a central topic of discussions with Iraqi leaders in July. “He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the U.S. elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” Zebari said. Why a delay? So Obama can take credit for pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq, of course. Nothing to see here, folks... just move along.
A study in contrasts: John McCain said, “I’d rather lose an election than lose a war.” Barack Obama says, “I’d rather lose a war than lose an election.”
--- The Patriot Post ---
Indeed, who can forget the remarkable counterinsurgency strategy he devised and executed—the so-called “surge” —rescuing Iraq from the brink of all-out civil war? In little more than 18 months, Gen. Petraeus transformed Iraq from a would-be haven of chaos and despair into a nascent foothold of freedom in the Middle East.
Even so, he cautioned that insurgent extremists—though greatly weakened—still had not yet been entirely defeated. Petraeus also described his replacement as “the perfect man for the job.” We certainly hope so.
Petraeus’ surge arrived not a moment too soon. Thanks to its success, discussions of “drawdowns” and “transitioning missions” can now be made with a straight face, as Iraqi forces shoulder increasing responsibility for countering the ever-weakening insurgency. Why can’t we find such people to run our government?
Evidently, however, drawdown discussions should be tabled—at least, that is, until “President Obama” assumes office. The New York Post is reporting that while publicly campaigning for a speedy withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has privately attempted to convince Iraqi leaders to delay any drawdown agreement until after a new U.S. administration arrives (read: his).
The Post cited Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, who stated that Obama’s demand for a delay was a central topic of discussions with Iraqi leaders in July. “He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the U.S. elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” Zebari said. Why a delay? So Obama can take credit for pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq, of course. Nothing to see here, folks... just move along.
A study in contrasts: John McCain said, “I’d rather lose an election than lose a war.” Barack Obama says, “I’d rather lose a war than lose an election.”
--- The Patriot Post ---