The commentary in the blogosphere following Bush's speech has left me feeling glum. Reading Maj. Hilt's assessment of LTG Patraeus has lifted my mood somewhat.

G-d only knows what lies ahead, but there can be no doubting the competence and intelligence of a man like Patraeus.

I know some active duty military and they never cease to impress me. One thing that is really impressive is how well-educated our military is (despite what John Kerry may think). I noticed that Lieutenant General Patreaus has a masters and doctorate from Princeton. I doubt there are any slacker generals, but clearly LTG Patreaus is not a mental slouch by even the most elitist standards. I really hope he can turn things around in Iraq because I think we have an obligation to the people of Iraq to leave them better off than when we came, not to mention our own security interests in not ceding an oil-rich country to barbaric terrorists.

"I really hope he can turn things around in Iraq because I think we have an obligation to the people of Iraq to leave them better off than when we came,"

The Shiites and Kurds are already far better off than when we came, and the Sunnis don't deserve to be better off, having brutalized their countrymen for the last five or six decades. I'm not too worried about them. Our sole concern should be America's national interest.

Kishke:

I think you're correct when you say that our sole concern should be our national interest, but I don't think we get there by shorting the Sunnis.

Our national goal at this point is to create a stable, democratic Iraq that will secure itself and leave its neighbors alone. If we get that, we give moderate Arab leaders something to point to and strive towards, and we may just see a renaissance throughout the Arab world. Not tomorrow, but perhaps in a few decades. Anyway, that's the "neocon" vision of Arab freedom I embraced when I volunteered to try to help the Iraqis attain it.

A stable Iraq can't be fragmented into Shiite/Sunni/Kurd. All three groups need to become Iraqis. Can we get there? We shall see. If you want to review some of Petraeus' more controversial decisions, Google him and "de-Baathification." A unified Iraq will require many things that are hard to stomach, including amnesty for some of the thugs who killed brave Americans and Iraqis who fought next to me. But we're building this republic in Mesopotamia, not Utopia.

Fern's comment that we should leave Iraq better than we found it may well be in our interests after all. Thinking observers might otherwise decide that we are an ineffectual enemy, and a treacherous ally.

I am happy, like Tamara, that we are getting a great team in to try to resolve these seemingly insoluble problems.

Best,
Virgil

Virgil:

You may be right, but I'm not altogether sure that a stable Iraq is the goal we should be working toward. As I once argued here, realpolitik perhaps dictates that an Iraq in perpetual three-way tension might provide the best long-term solution for defanging the country. As for our reputation if we leave, two-thirds of the country (Shiites and Kurds) will be profoundly grateful to us for bettering their situation. The other third (Sunni) will hate us whether we stay or go.

And who is to say that a stable, democratic Iraq will be a friend to the US? It might easily end up being ruled by Islamo-fascists, in which case we'd have created a new and potentially powerful enemy. So far the record of Arab democracies is nothing to write home about.

Again, I'm not sure I'm right; but there's certainly room for argument here.

Kishke:

I cannot say that I have all the answers either. Certainly France is no friend of the US today, after two wars to free them.

Another challenge is finding Arab moderates who have the vision to build secular countries, and the courage to stand up and do it.

Even under the best circumstances, there will be nothing easy about this.

I found most telling the first comment about Petraeus -- people either love him or hate him. That's actually promising. You don't rise to his level making friends with everyone. If you do, you're a politico, a hack, and a yes-man. In a position of power, if you're going to make the hard decisions, you're going to make enemies. Thus, I think it speaks well for the man that there are those who don't like him. Equally fortunately, it doesn't seem that there are any who don't respect him.

the problem with leaving Iraq in full blown civil war is the impression that the Jihadis would reinforce: that the United States can be beaten down by the forces of Islam. That we have no staying power, and we will fall apart just like the Soviet Union. Too many even on the right have no appreciation for the strategic goals of Al-Qaeda and the Wahabist/Salafist/ Takfiri enemy. An Iraq blowing up will allow the Iranians to gain greater control, will prevent the GOP from launching any kind of action on Iran's WMD, and will be a boon to Jihadist recruitment around the greater Middle East.

Lt. Fishman:

I get your point about the impression, but that alone is not sufficient reason to stay, unless staying means going all-out to win. I don't believe the political realities will support an all-out effort, in which case the impression we make by staying might well end up being worse than the one we make by leaving. That would be even a greater boon to the jihadi goons.

As for the Iranians, although their goals might for the moment coincide with the Iraqi Shiites, they are actually ancient and recent enemies. In other words, they hate each other guts, and if left alone will probably soon be at war. It's an Arab-Persian thing, and it transcends religious afflitions. I predict that once the common enemy (the US) departs, they will be at each other's throats. That might prove a far more effective way of neutralizing Iran than our presence.

In fact, I don't begin to understand where you see our presence there neutralizing Iran in the slightest. We have been there over two years now, and in that time, Iran has grown more, not less, bold. Even if our government had the will to confront Iran with force at this point (which I find highly doubtful), do we even have the necessary force? Not so long as the army is busy with police actions in Iraq. If anything, freeing up our armies in Iraq would increase our ability to deter Iran, b/c we would then pose a credible threat, whereas now we do not.

Well, my plan all along has been to move our forces to bases around the periphery of Iraq to protect its sovereignty and the Kurds- and then unleash air attacks on Iran the world has never seen. So I do agree that unless we neutralize Iran, it won't matter what we do in Iraq. We need to think regionally, not be focused on tactical problems.

Dear Mr. Avrech,
Shalom aleichem. After reading this post, your blog will be added to my frequently read group. As a former paratrooper and sniper with the 82nd ABN Division, I appreciate LTG Petraeus' style and abilities. I have a small amount of freelance civil affairs work in Central America, and recognize LTG Petraeus' use of successful techniques for planting the seeds of decmocracy in any culture. My support, prayers, and hope are with him and all who work with him.
G-d bless him, AND you, for your faithfulness and work toward improving our world with words and actions. May we meet one day, as I would be honored by your presence in my home.
Alan Briley, RN

Alan:

Aleichem Shalom.

Thanks so much for your service. Seraphic Secret has a great love for soldiers, and we hold a special place in our hearts for snipers.

We greatly appreciate your comment and look forward to your experience enlivening this blog.

May we all meet sooner better than later.