Huyu ana make sense sana!
Obama won the general election yesterday and he?ll make a fine President too. Obama was looking for more than American Presidential Idol points and his questions were a masterstroke of strategy. Those shallowly focusing on Obama?s sly and deferential style of questioning in the hearing failed to see one thing; he has bound the military and to some extent, the administration with the answers Petraeus and Crocker gave. 1. We cannot define success as the elimination of Al Qaeda in Iraq. 2. We cannot define success as the elimination of Iranian influence in Iraq. Rather than grandstand on the outrage of the war, he has built his ammunition for a contrast with McCain in an election by going after the core of their BS argument and you will see it come to pass. You see, the political objectives for the war in Iraq, other than the overthrow of Saddam, have been soundly defeated. They cannot be achieved militarily. Generals fight wars and they do so to achieve political objectives set by responsible Commanders-in-Chief where diplomatic action has failed. If the decorated General Petraeus and the very experienced Ambassador Crocker sat there and basically said, the political objectives for which military commitment is being requested are not attainable, and are not reasonable definitions of success, the case for staying the course in the long-term is destroyed. This is not the same as advocating hasty withdrawal, which has been McCain?s parrot refrain. If you chose to be impressed with the theater, you missed the strategic point of the questions. Senator Obama asked his questions very innocuously (he had to look passive, otherwise it wouldn?t have worked) and they probably didn?t fully understand the ramifications of their sworn answers on how they sell the military strategy going forward. If they tell Bush to redefine success more realistically, they?re basically agreeing with Obama; if Bush and McCain press on, they are disregarding expert professional and military advice from the ground. Another thing the General and Ambassador went on the record as saying, courtesy of Senator Biden: 3. Chasing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan is more important than chasing Al Qaeda in Iraq. ?and people say Obama isn?t a smart guy?.. Wow! He?s a brilliant political poker player! Lording over Petraeus would have looked arrogant and stupid. They let down their guard and gave simple but damning admissions on what success means. That is the key question. Our military has fought bravely and done what armies are meant to do i.e., take territory. They can return with honor knowing they did that. They cannot police Iraq for the Iraqis. The political objectives that are impossible to attain militarily are: 1. Democracy in Iraq - Iraq is no more democratic today than Saudi Arabia or Iran. Voting blocs in Iraq are controlled by violent militia who must be co-opted and bribed into government for the government to be stable, that's a shameful situation for a global superpower. Soldiers basically pay former insurgents millions of dollars not to fight. There are Americans walking with backpacks of cash in Iraq doing exactly that. 2. Al Qaeda in Iraq has established itself from non-existence under Saddam to a potent, violent source of instability in the region; they can be contained but General Petraeus has admitted, on the record today, that completely eliminating them militarily is an unattainable objective and cannot be used to define success. 3. Iranian influence: Iraq under Saddam Hussein had no visible powerful Iranian influence. Iraq in fact, acted as a useful buffer against Iranian influence in the region. Enter George W Bush, now Iran is a powerful broker in Iraq with more power there than the United States. Ambassador Crocker today went on record as saying; the elimination of Iranian influence in Iraq cannot be a military objective. It is unattainable. 4. Stability in the Middle East - I don't need to tell anyone, Republican, Democrat or otherwise, that the Middle East is more violent and unstable today than it was in 2002. Iran is in an arms race with Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian-Israeli Peace process is stagnant and America's diplomatic credibility is weakened with key Arab allies like Eqypt. Military action has not made us safer. 5. Elimination of weapons of mass destruction ? well, I don?t need to explain that to anyone. Obama asked these questions and he got the admissions the American people needed to hear, on the record. Extending this war serves only to defend a Republican-led mistake. Borrowing money from China to send our troops to die for political objectives that are militarily unattainable is infuriating to many senior officers who value the ultimate sacrifice of their colleagues. Yesterday was a masterstroke!
