Petraeus’s strategy is working, says … war critic Batiste
posted at 5:56 pm on December 8, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
This isn’t quite the shocker it’s being touted as, as you’ll see if you revisit Batiste’s quotes from January about the folly of Democratic plans for withdrawal and the advisability of adding more troops. In May he was unhappy enough with how things were going to appear in an anti-war ad for VoteVets, but even then his preferred solution was to double down — replete with a draft, if need be — to complete the mission rather than give up. That always made him an unlikely nutroots hero and an even more unlikely VoteVets spokesman. Although he did have plenty of contempt for Rumsfeld, which I guess is enough reality for the reality-based community seal of approval.
Seven months after the VoteVets ad, here we are:
Third, the counterinsurgency campaign led by Gen. David Petraeus is the correct approach in Iraq. It is showing promise of success and, if continued, will provide the Iraqi government the opportunities it desperately needs to stabilize its country. Ultimately, however, these military gains must be cemented with regional and global diplomacy, political reconciliation, and economic recovery — tools yet sufficiently utilized. Today’s tactical gains in Iraq — while a necessary pre-condition for political reconciliation — will crumble without a deliberate and comprehensive strategy.
In the past month, the left’s stable of military leaders with Absolute Moral Authority has lost this guy and replaced him with the man who presided over the rise of the Iraqi insurgency. I’ll take that trade — although look closely at Gen. Sanchez’s speech from October and you’ll see he has some Batiste-ish inclinations himself. Exit question: Is the passage I quoted really the most troublesome part of that op-ed for the left? I see something else that’s much more “problematic.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
You mean the Iran thing?
see-dubya on December 8, 2007 at 6:13 PM
At this point contempt for Rumsfeld is a positive for me, too.
Number 2 on December 8, 2007 at 6:14 PM
No, but that’s not exactly out of the nutroots playbook either. I meant the WoT stuff.
Allahpundit on December 8, 2007 at 6:16 PM
In The Weekly Standard article, it notes that GEN Batiste was a Board member of the anti-war VoteVets.org and not only quit that group, but also joined up with the support-the-war-effort Vets for Freedom.
To the Left, that’s basically like leaving Planned Parenthood and joining up with some Pro-Life group.
Michael in MI on December 8, 2007 at 6:16 PM
Are you talking about this part, AllahPundit:
That “Long War, will probably take decades to prosecute” part is reality, but a reality the Left (and even many on the Right) refuses to acknowledge.
Michael in MI on December 8, 2007 at 6:19 PM
Nothing more problematic. They’ll just forget they ever used him.
laelaps on December 8, 2007 at 6:19 PM
…whether or not we like it, Iraq is central to that fight. We cannot walk away from our strategic interests in the region. Iraq cannot become a staging ground for Islamic extremism or be dominated by other powers in the region, such as Iran and Syria. A premature or precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, without the requisite stability and security, is likely to cause the violence there — which has decreased substantially but is still present — to cascade into an even larger humanitarian crisis. …
Fourth, our strategy in fighting the Long War must address Iran. Much has been made this week of the intelligence judgments that Iran has stopped its weapons program. No matter what, Iran must not be permitted to become a nuclear power. All options should be exhausted before we use military force, but force, nonetheless, should never be off the table. Diplomatic efforts — from a position of strength, both regionally and globally — must be used to engage our friends and coerce our enemies to apply pressure on the Iranian regime.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/07/AR2007120701772.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR
bnelson44 on December 8, 2007 at 6:21 PM
Although, as Allah points out, this was in the works for a while, I think that Gen Batiste’s defection from VoteVets to Vets for Freedom is a VERY big deal. Just as important as the military surge in Iraq working is a surge here at home in support for our war efforts, if we ever want to see a lasting victory. The pendulum has begun to swing back in favor of support for our troops, contempt for our enemies, and victory against Islamic extremism. I pray the progress continues.
davenp35 on December 8, 2007 at 6:33 PM
From the WaPo piece: “After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, America was not mobilized for the Long War. This was an opportunity lost, but it is not too late. Many Americans are frustrated by the war effort, the burden of which has been shouldered by less than one percent of our citizenry. Our country is accustomed to winning. We deserve a comprehensive strategy that is focused on victory and guided by decisive leadership.”
.
I often wonder why the citizens of the US aren’t called on to do more. I wish our leaders would provide a better vision and specifics in that respect. For example, (I believe it was in one of the State of the Union addresses) Bush talked about a civilian service corps. I don’t recall seeing much about that since then.
dont taze me bro on December 8, 2007 at 7:51 PM
Hmmmm. You have a point. Anyone seen Cindy Sheehan lately?
SouthernGent on December 8, 2007 at 8:14 PM
They sure want to forget about using Jesse Macbeth
clghitis on December 8, 2007 at 9:31 PM
I’m glad he’s come around, but I wish he had thought of these when visionaries like Sec Rumsfeld and Pres Bush were mobilizing, rather than making their jobs harder and helping our enemies. He should acknowledge that he was also wrong when he said there was “failed leadership, lack of strategy and misdirection” at the start of the war.
Pres. Bush and Sec Rumsfeld fought the battle when it was difficult and mistakes were inevitable. They set a direction that addressed the root cause of the 9/11 attacks and enacted a workable, global strategy to defeat it, all the while keeping US AND civilian casualties lower than any other US war.
As it becomes clear that we are wining, more and more people like Gen Batiste will appear. We shouldn’t make all of these Saul’s apologize before entering Damascus, because in a war you take your allies as they arrive. We should, however, make sure they learn from and correct their mistakes.
Jason on December 9, 2007 at 1:50 AM
“I often wonder why the citizens of the US aren’t called on to do more. I wish our leaders would provide a better vision and specifics in that respect. For example, (I believe it was in one of the State of the Union addresses) Bush talked about a civilian service corps. I don’t recall seeing much about that since then.”
What would a civilian service corps do? Either take jobs away from people who already do what the corps wants to do or take away volunteer opportunities from people who already fill those slots as volunteers.
Alternatively, the corps will become just another paid volunteer job which does make work, feel good, projects.
Roosevelt’s Civilian Conservation Corps paid its workers $30.00 with board and lodging at a time when soldiers were being paid $17.00.
davod on December 9, 2007 at 5:09 AM
War bonds.
spec_ops_mateo on December 9, 2007 at 12:39 PM