Senator Reid… Picking the Wrong Fight
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “incompetent” during an interview Tuesday with a group of liberal bloggers, a comment that was never reported. Reid made similar disparaging remarks about Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said several sources familiar with the interview.
While Reid may have made this comment to foster future political gains, in light of what it appears to be inconclusive results from the “surge” effort, it only proves how out of touch he is with the policy implementation of the War. Although Pace and Petraeus, exert influence in the conduct of the War, they are limited in scope by the policy crafted by the administration. Pace’s job is not to criticize Bush’s policy in public; rather, it is to offer him sound advice based in his assessment of the security situation. Bush and his team can choose to agree or disagree.
Reid couldn’t possibly be more out of touch with his assessment of Petreaus. Petreaus earned a Master of Public Administration (1985) and a Ph.D. (1987) in International Relations from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. He later served as Assistant Professor of International Relations at the U.S. Military Academy, and also completed a fellowship at Georgetown University. He has a BS from the U.S. Military Academy - class of 1974.He subsequently earned a Master of Public Administration (1985) and a Ph.D. (1987) in International Relations from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. He later served as Assistant Professor of International Relations at the U.S. Military Academy, and also completed a fellowship at Georgetown University. He has a BS from the U.S. Military Academy - class of 1974.
Beyond his academic and fellowship experiences, his humanitarian and peace keeping missions in both Haiti and Bosnia, lead most former general officers and policymakers to believe that there is no one in the Armed Forces more qualified to serve in his position. Unfortunately, I have a feeling democrats and some republicans will slam him in late September or at another time in late 2007 at an open hearing.
The problem in Iraq is not the quality of the officers and soldiers; rather, it is the mission they are given. Soldiers can only put a cap on the sectarian violence. The Army’s ability to influence the Iraqi government to buy into a democracy that reconciles the needs of both the Sunni and Shia is dependent upon the Army’s ability to quell enough violence to allow for meaningful discussions to evolve. While the U.S. Army may train the ISF, it can’t be held responsible for a unit that has no desire to function. The National Intelligence Estimate indicates that many ISF soldiers will not operate outside of the areas which they were recruited. Without the ISF and the police, the Iraqi state will likely collapse, which would result from its inability to contain the sectarian violence.
The whole argument for success in Iraq hinges upon the idea that a strong central government will work in Iraq. If Reid did his homework, he’d realize that Petreaus probably floated the idea of a more flexible and decentralized government structure to Bush, which would allow for greater ethnic autonomy. I make this assertion based on Petreaus’ experience with peace enforcement as a Brigade Commander (4000 troops) in the Balkan Conflict during the late 1990s.
NATO and U.S. forces were successful because they realized very quickly that the only way to diminish ethno-religious violence was to separate the different groups. Additionally, these ethnic factions were given significant autonomy to develop their own forms of government once they were contained within the borders of their respective ethnic group, which gave them a reason to lay down arms. Many Serbs, Croats, Bosnians and Kosovars had to migrate, but the more homogeneous the ethnic groups became the less violence they took part in. The coalition gave them a stake in their self determination.
In Iraq we’ve prescribed an American like democracy without understanding the nature of the ethnic tensions and the influence of Muslim faith on government. At this time the establishment of a democracy is a moot point, the Bush Administration has the option to support a strong federal democracy or change course and allow the Sunni and Shia to opt for stronger self governance. Ultimately, I envision a confederacy being the only type of democracy that will work. The U.S. probably could co-opt the Sunni, Shia and Kurds to form a consensus on foreign affairs, but the ethnic divide is on such a scale at the state level that the only hope for a federal government, is to outlive the extreme ethnic violence. Essentially, the Sunni and Shia kill each other until both sides find it in their best interests to cease hostilities.
Back to Senator Reid, Petreaus’ background leads me to believe that my argument for physical separation of ethnic groups and a confederacy is a conversation that he, Pace and others have had at one point or another. This is the same argument Joe Biden, the Democrat from Deleware and Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has made on the floor of the Senate and to potential voters as a candidate for President. If anyone understands the effective use of force, it would be Petreaus.
JOE BIDEN’s COMMENTS ON SENATE FLOOR
My hope was that the Democrats would have found stronger and more competent leadership than that of Harry Reid. Comments like this have Rove doing cartwheels in the West Wing, and it only weakens Reid’s party and their ability to make meaningful changes to public policy.
Submitted By:
http://spinityourway.blogspot.com/
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>





Why Autonomous Regions Won’t Work
Joe Biden and others have proposed that Iraq be cut up in to 3 regions. Here’s why it won’t work.
Autonomous regions would only survive temporarily, before they are swept up by surrounding countries. Sunnis+Saudi Arabia and Shiites+Iran. Turkey has threatened to invade Kurdistan if it becomes any more autonomous than it already is.
And how would it be possible to cut up the country? Baghdad is full of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds? The whole plan is unrealistic.
There would be a temporary period of peace before the whole region is engulfed in war.
Other options will work. It will take time and patience, but what Petraeus is doing in Iraq right now will work. We need to give them more time, something the majority of Americans are too impatient to do.