posted on June 20, 2007 08:14:18 PM new
From The Times
June 21, 2007
timesonline
America can’t just walk away from the fight with al-Qaeda, US general insists
Despite four years of bloodshed, the US soldier in charge of restoring security to Iraq tells Richard Beeston that Britain is still important to the continuing battle
For a man who has arguably been assigned the worst job in the world, General David Petraeus gives a good impression that he is enjoying his unenviable assignment to bring security back to Iraq in the face of al-Qaeda bombs and falling support for the war back home.
In his air-conditioned office in Saddam Hussein’s former presidential palace, the lean and sprightly 54-year-old US commander still manages to flash a Hollywood smile as he sets out his belief that America does not have an option just to walk away from Iraq after more than four bloody years of fighting.
Unlike those who devised the invasion of Iraq, his conviction is not ideological, but practical and built on his experiences here over the best part of three years, where he served as a divisional commander during the invasion, the officer in charge of training Iraqi forces and now the commander of coalition troops.
“Our assessment is that this is the central front for al-Qaeda. They have a global war of terror, and Iraq is the central front. Whether you like it or not. That is something that the leaders of the intelligence community in the West and our joint special operations commander agree on. It is certainly one very important consideration in looking at Iraq,” he told The Times.
He said terrorists were quite capable of increasing their attacks in the short term and that al-Qaeda’s leadership in Iraq was still largely drawn from foreign fighters. He estimated that 80 al-Qaeda volunteers crossed into Iraq from Syria every month. He said that they still accounted for a large proportion of the suicide bombings that have wreaked such havoc in the country.
But he dented Democrats’ hopes that his crucial report to Washington in September would help to make their case for the withdrawal of US troops. September was “a deadline for a report, not a deadline for a change in policy”, he said.
General Petraeus is overseeing what many regard as President Bush’s last effort in Iraq, a “surge” of more than 25,000 troops who have been deployed in and around Baghdad to restore security and allow the country’s leaders a chance for political reconciliation and economic recovery.
Using a laser pointer he flicks a red dot across a map of Iraq picking out hotspots, giving a potted history of the ethnic and sectarian make-up of various provinces and outlining the dangerous strategy that his men are executing on the ground.
In the most high-profile operation – codenamed Arrowhead Ripper – 10,000 American soldiers flooded the restive town of Baquba on Tuesday.
The area was a stronghold of al-Qaeda and the Americans are determined to wrest it back.
“There are operations going on all around Baghdad (in the south, west, north and east). This is part of an offensive around what we call the Baghdad belt. This is using the five brigades and a combat aviation brigade and Marine Expeditionary Unit. This is a combined effort,” he said.
But as General Petraeus is the first to acknowledge, his main enemy is just as capable of a “surge” as well. Just as the first pictures were being shown of US forces marching through Baquba, a suicide truck bomb exploded in central Baghdad near a famous mosque. Nearly 80 people were killed, many of them burnt in their cars.
“You are never going to eliminate sensational attacks in Baghdad. That cannot be your measure of success. What we have to do is reduce their number and their impact. We had done quite well until the attack yesterday that killed a number of innocent civilians,” said General Petraeus.
How the headlines play back home is very much part of the general’s war. In September he and Ryan Crocker, the US Ambassador to Baghdad, are due to report back to Congress on the situation in Iraq.
The Democrats, with an eye on the presidential race, are expected to use the occasion to redouble the call for US forces to be brought home. “Ambassador Crocker and I intend to go back and provide a snapshot at that time . . . and begin to describe what has been achieved and what has not been achieved and provide some sense of implications of courses of action. Neither of us is under any illusion.”
At the very least the Princeton-edu-cated paratrooper hopes to “put time back on the Washington clock”. He has always maintained that there are two clocks on Iraq. One ticks slowly away in the hot, grubby streets of Baghdad, where progress is small and painful, while the other ticks furiously on the Potomac, where patience is fast running out for a war that has claimed more than 3,528 American lives and billions of wasted dollars.
Al-Qaeda is keenly aware of the Washington clock,” he said. “They are obviously going to have a surge of their own. You saw an example of this yesterday. They wanted to make sure that the headlines about the launch of the offensive don’t create too much hope.” A more immediate problem facing the general is the future of his largest ally in Iraq, the 7,000 British troops who control Basra and provide key military and diplomatic know-how to his command.
With Tony Blair about to hand over power to Gordon Brown in the coming days, fears that the British will follow other allies, such as Spain and Italy, and head for the exit, dominate speculation among US officers in Baghdad.
General Petraeus is adamant that America wants and needs the British presence, not only because his men would have to fill the gap in the south if the British went home but also because they bring unique experience in counter-insurgency war.
He had particular praise for Lieutenant-General Graeme Lamb, his No 2, who heads the Force Strategic Engagement Cell. It is responsible for secret talks with insurgent groups, some of whom have been persuaded to change sides, particularly in Anbar province, previously one of the most violent areas of Iraq.
“It is very instructive to have as a deputy commander a guy like Graeme Lamb. There is a guy who comes from a military where he sat down across the negotiating table with people who were swinging pipes at their lads a few years earlier. Every endeavour like this has ended by getting some folks to change sides. That is what happened in Anbar province. It was described as lost ten months ago,” he said.
As for Mr Brown, the general seemed sure that he would continue Mr Blair’s policy. “I have talked to [him] a couple of times. I came through No 10 on my way out here and he came here. That is the way we would like to continue to carry on,” he said.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 20, 2007 08:18 PM ]
