After four years of saying he would listen to the generals on the ground, Kennedy said, Bush is ignoring their advice not to put more troops on the ground in Iraq, but if more go it should be hundreds of thousands of men and women to subdue a large city like Baghdad.
Senator Harry Reid:
"The president's plan will receive an up-or-down vote…. With that vote, our hope, really our prayer, is that the president will finally listen: listen to the generals, listen to the Iraq Study Group, listen to the American people and listen to a bipartisan Congress."
While Congress complains about Bush not listening to Generals and the Iraq Study Group, let's review what Generals have said.
Particularly, the Commander in Iraq, Lt. General David Petraeus is one we should listen to seeing as how he wrote the book on Counter-Insurgency
During a confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Petraeus said it would discourage U.S. forces and encourage their adversaries if Congress passed a resolution expressing disapproval of Bush's troop surge.
"This is a test of wills at the end of the day," said Petraeus, who is expected to win the committee's approval.
"A commander in such an endeavor would obviously like the enemy to feel that there is no hope."
Petraeus offered a picture of what might happen if the United States left Iraq before the violence has been quelled.
He said sectarian groups would "stake out their turf" through ethnic cleansing, neighboring countries might intervene on behalf of their Iraqi allies, terrorists might lay claim to part of Iraq and oil production might be disrupted, harming the global economy.
Congress, in the form of Senator McCain asked
With more than a dozen House and Senate resolutions outstanding that would voice opposition to the troop increase, McCain asked Petraeus what effect such expressions might have on troop morale.
"It would not be a beneficial effect, sir," Petraeus said.
And Lieberman
Pressed by Lieberman whether passing a Senate resolution opposed to the strategy would encourage insurgents, Petraeus replied, "That's correct, sir."
The Iraq Study Group was quite clear on what they thought would happen if we left Iraq
Iraq is vital to regional and even global stability, and is critical to U.S. interests....
Iraq is a centerpiece of American foreign policy, influencing how the United States is viewed in the region and around the world. Because of the gravity of Iraq’s condition and the country’s vital importance, the United States is facing one of its most difficult and significant international challenges in decades. Because events in Iraq have been set in motion by American decisions and actions, the United States has both a national and a moral interest in doing what it can to give Iraqis an opportunity to avert anarchy....
If the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, the consequences could be severe for Iraq, the United States, the region, and the world.
Continuing violence could lead toward greater chaos, and inflict greater suffering upon the Iraqi people. A collapse of Iraq’s government and economy would further cripple a country already unable to meet its people’s needs. Iraq’s security forces could split along sectarian lines. A humanitarian catastrophe could follow as more refugees are forced to relocate across the country and the region. Ethnic cleansing could escalate. The Iraqi people could be subjected to another strongman who flexes the political and military muscle required to impose order amid anarchy. Freedoms could be lost.
Other countries in the region fear significant violence crossing their borders. Chaos in Iraq could lead those countries to intervene to protect their own interests, thereby perhaps sparking a broader regional war. Turkey could send troops into northern Iraq to prevent Kurdistan from declaring independence. Iran could send in troops to restore stability in southern Iraq and perhaps gain control of oil fields. The regional influence of Iran could rise at a time when that country is on a path to producing nuclear weapons....
Terrorism could grow. As one Iraqi official told us, “Al Qaeda is now a franchise in Iraq, like McDonald’s.” Left unchecked, al Qaeda in Iraq could continue to incite violence between Sunnis and Shia. A chaotic Iraq could provide a still stronger base of operations for terrorists who seek to act regionally or even globally. Al Qaeda will portray any failure by the United States in Iraq as a significant victory that will be featured prominently as they recruit for their cause in the region and around the world. Ayman al-Zawahiri, deputy to Osama bin Laden, has declared Iraq a focus for al Qaeda: they will seek to expel the Americans and then spread “the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.” A senior European official told us that failure in Iraq could incite terrorist attacks within his country.
The global standing of the United States could suffer if Iraq descends further into chaos. Iraq is a major test of, and strain on, U.S. military, diplomatic, and financial capacities. Perceived failure there could diminish America’s credibility and influence in a region that is the center of the Islamic world and vital to the world’s energy supply.
The Bone Fides of the Iraq Study Group are well known, but what bone fides does General Petraeus have? From Wikipedia
Petraeus commanded the 101st Airborne Division during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and during that unit's occupation of Mosul into mid-2004. Petraeus has been widely lauded for his effectiveness in administering Mosul, where public order decayed rapidly in 2004 soon after the 101st left.
Shortly after being appointed the ground commander in Iraq, Petraeus later observed at the time of his appointment that the US Army had been historically unprepared to fight insurgencies, and that despite having overwhelming force for conventional combat, it lacks the British experience of empire and the experience of Ulster and Malaya, and was intellectually unequipped to deal with the subtleties of guerilla warfare, noting that the British, with their colonial history had been in retrospect far better at combining local diplomacy with military force.[5]
In June of 2004, Petraeus was charged with the task of training the new Iraqi Army and security forces as commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command - Iraq. He relinquished the post in September of 2005. Petraeus then assumed command of the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center (CAC).
The Combined Arms Center, headquartered at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, the command that oversees the Command and General Staff College and 17 other schools, centers, and training programs located throughout the United States. The Combined Arms Center is also responsible for: development of the Army’s doctrinal manuals, training of the Army’s commissioned and noncommissioned officers, oversight of major collective training exercises, integration of battle command systems and concepts, and supervision of the Army’s center for the collection and dissemination of lessons learned.
It seems to me that Congress should listen to General Petraeus.
It seems to me Congress should listen to the conclusions of the Iraq Study Group, if not it's recommendations.
And they should od this before accusing the President of not listening.
Because the bottom line is that we can not lose in Iraq. And if that's the case, what is the best chance for success?
Withdrawing or giving General Petraeus a chance?
I think Bush has listened quite well.
But I think Congress is deaf.