Earlier in the week I wrote that it seemed to me that many boosters of the war have made General David Petraeus into some sort of magic general who, if we would just stick with him, will lead us to victory in Iraq. Specifically I noted a Charles Krauthammer column and an Ed Morrissey post. James Joyner also noted what he called “Petraeus Fetishism.”

Now we have Bill Kristol in WaPo: Why Bush Will Be A Winner

Bush has the good fortune of having finally found his Ulysses S. Grant, or his Creighton Abrams, in Gen. David H. Petraeus. If the president stands with Petraeus and progress continues on the ground, Bush will be able to prevent a sellout in Washington. And then he could leave office with the nation on course to a successful (though painful and difficult) outcome in Iraq. With that, the rest of the Middle East, where so much hangs in the balance, could start to tip in the direction of our friends and away from the jihadists, the mullahs and the dictators.

Now, I do think that Petraeus was a good appointment and I further believe that if we had engaged in many of the anti-insurgent policies he is currently using years ago, we would probably be in better shape in Iraq. However, an improving security situation in Diyala and Anbar are not enough to proclaim that we are on the road to victory. (And, to be honest, the boosters of the current direction really haven’t defined what “victory” means in any practical sense).

The notion that one general is enough to fix this situation is grasping at straws.

A major problem with this line of thinking is that it conflates The Surge (Anbar, or whatever) with the overall policy. There is still the overarching problem of state construction and the major problem of finding a way for the various sectarian factions to work together in a civil political manner. If I thought that a slight increase in security would lead to substantial improvement in these areas, I would be less pessimistic about The Surge and similar policy initiatives. If we had been better prepared to secure the country right after the invasion, then perhaps we would be in a position to see more successful state construction at this stage. Instead we allowed the security situation ti spiral out of control and now we are trying to fix that mistake–and it seems to me that it is far too late to accomplish this task.

Even if The Surge establishes higher levels of security, are we really any closer to solving the more major problems in Iraq? And if the only way to stop full blown sectarian civil war in Iraq is an ongoing Surge, then the administration needs to tell the public that we are going to be there for another decade at least under the current policy direction.

Share on Facebook

6 Responses to “Another Example of Petraeus Messianism”

1. Jim Henley Says:
   July 15th, 2007 at 11:50 am

   Correct. Based on the exoteric criteria - “Iraq the Model” - we lost the war years ago. Iraq looks to any Arab/Muslim observer like the best argument against democracy conceivable. Syrians, Jordanians and Egyptians see tens to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in their midst, desperately seeking some of that dread “stability” that Condi assured everyone was the problem with the region.

   We’ve managed to make “democracy” massively less attractive to Arab societies.

   Now the esoteric criteria of victory - we get to keep using those expensive bases - is not a lost cause. It just isn’t one that the US government dare voice as its real aim because, needless to say, it stirs no breasts. (”We’re fighting and dying just so we can stay somewhere we’re not wanted???“)

   The reason you get such official vagueness about “what ‘victory’ means in any practical sense” is that they dare not tell you what “victory” means in any practical sense.

2. ProfessorBainbridge.com ® Says:
   July 15th, 2007 at 12:17 pm

   Bill Kristol’s Rose-Colored Glasses

   Steven Taylor:Earlier in the week I wrote that it seemed to me that many boosters of the war have made General David Petraeus into some sort of magic general who, if we would just stick with him, will lead us

3. ts Says:
   July 15th, 2007 at 12:23 pm

   Having read Kristol’s entire column, I find it far more measured in tone with respect to the prospects in Iraq, and he fully acknowledges that much remains to be done. It seems that you are insistent on forcing the messianic mantle on Petraeus far more than Kristol is.

4. Dr. Steven Taylor Says:
   July 15th, 2007 at 2:10 pm

   Jim,

   There was a point were I would have thought that you were correct–i.e., that basing rights was a key goal. However, at this stage while I am sure we would like such rights, I have lost any confidence that a clear definition of “victory” actually exists in the minds of the administration.

   ts,

   While I will fully admit to using exaggerated language to make a point (i.e., Kritol didn’t called Petraeus a “messiah”), however the basic logic in the quoted paragraph is that Petraeus is finally the man who can save the policy, hence my description of the logic as “messianiac.”

5. Jim Henley Says:
   July 15th, 2007 at 6:29 pm

   There was a point were I would have thought that you were correct–i.e., that basing rights was a key goal. However, at this stage while I am sure we would like such rights, I have lost any confidence that a clear definition of “victory” actually exists in the minds of the administration.

   Good heavens, that make me the optimist.

6. Political Mavens » Another Example of Petraeus Messianism Says:
   July 16th, 2007 at 10:21 pm

   [...] Cross-posted from PoliBlog: [...]