NYT must-read: A calm Iraq, unrecognizable

posted at 11:17 am on September 21, 2008 by Allahpundit

Literally unrecognizable, says Pulitzer winner Dexter Filkins, back in the country for the first time since 2006 and relentlessly disoriented by the normalcy he finds in areas he remembers firsthand as bombed-out moonscapes. No piece I’ve ever read better communicates the amazement of Iraq’s revival; the effect is the same as these photo comparisons from Hurricane Ike, except in reverse. I want you to read it all so I’ll keep this short, but we (and a lot of other bloggers) were remiss last week thanks to the election in not paying proper attention to the handover of command in Baghdad, when Gates, Adm. Mullen, and Gen. Odierno gave Petraeus his due. As a tribute to his achievement, you can scarcely do better than this:

In Sadr City, the small brick building that served as the Mahdi Army’s headquarters still stands. But not 50 feet away, a freshly built Iraqi Army post towers above it now. Next to the army post, perhaps to heighten the insult to the militia, the Iraqi government has begun installing a new sewer network, something this impoverished and overcrowded ghetto sorely needs. “Wanted” posters adorn the blast walls there, too, imploring the locals to turn in the once-powerful militia leaders.

Inside the Sadr Bureau, as it’s called, the ex-militia gunmen speak in chastened tones about moving on, maybe finding other work, maybe even transforming their once ferocious army into a social welfare organization. I didn’t see any guns.

“Please don’t print my name in your newspaper,” one former Mahdi Army commander asked me with a sheepish look. “I’m wanted by the government.”

Read it all. And try to suppress a smile, or a catch in your throat, at this: “THERE IS NOWHERE FOR YOU TO HIDE.”

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Comment pages: 1 2

1:12 Reuters Business and Finance
Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor

Social Media Group Category: Reputation Monitoring
Aug.27’08 “a reflection on the health or viability of social media as an industry”

Chimp…Socialist propaganda manipulation as if to be swallowed whole: how to force feed Marxism to babies.

maverick muse on September 21, 2008 at 1:31 PM

The last thing he wants is to jump into the septic tank of partisan politics.
ManlyRash on September 21, 2008 at 1:21 PM

And that’s exactly what is is.

But he faced down the enemy who had guns. And he helped the people of Iraq to live a better life after helping to destroy the enemy.

It’s a similar situation here in the US, and these same people want to defeat us here at home. And supplant their version of how things should be on all of us. Different tactics, different ‘people’ but the same in many ways. If he doesn’t want to, I can understand. But there is a job to be done, and he can do more good. If he wants to.

wise_man on September 21, 2008 at 1:35 PM

Another great American general refused political office.

“If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve.”

His name was William Tecumseh Sherman. Ask if anyone in East Georgia has ever heard of him.

Patraeus could run, but the track record for generals as presidents has never been good. Of the five professional soldiers who rose to general officer rank and served as president – Washington, Jackson, Taylor, Grant and Eisenhower – only Washington could be said to have been a success.

Jackson formed an important ideology that endures to this day in the Democratic Party. Otherwise his presidency achieved little – he compromised with South Carolina over Nullification. Taylor managed the Compromise of 1850 but died shortly thereafter. Grant had to deal with Reconstruction and failed – but then no one could have succeeded with that. Eisenhower faltered on civil rights at first, like Brown vs Board of Education, but later redeemed himself with sending the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock Central High School. The Cold War also challenged him as it would his successors.

I think it best to let Patraeus retire honorably, lest he risk becoming another Wesley Clark.

KillerKane on September 21, 2008 at 1:39 PM

As a Democrat who thought the surge was a foolish idea, I’m glad that I was wrong. Even though I think the Iraq war was a grave error in judgment, I’d much rather the US leave the country in a position of strength than weakness.

Ric on September 21, 2008 at 1:39 PM

NOTHING TO SEE HERE!
IRAQ IS MESS

I’ve been reading The War Within and the current situation is truly extraordinary. By mid 2006, Bush and his team were publicly talking about the success and progress in Iraq while privately harboring far different views, including the prospect of US defeat in the Middle East, comparable to Vietnam. The surge was seen as the last and only chance to avoid a complete American humiliation.

The surge envisioned using more troops to try and secure the capital and a couple major cities. It never foresaw the collapse of support for the al Qaeda among Sunni insurgents and many of the other remarkable sceneraios that worked in confluence to bring peace to Iraq.

I’m not declaring victory yet- doing so in the past was innacurate- and even leading thinkers on the right such as Rich Lowry of National Review have finally admitted that lining up behind Rumsfeld’s message was a huge mistake and reflected a failure of the right to assess the facts. Before the surge, Iraq was one huge failure. Let’s hope that the Sunni and Shiite have decided to live in peach, and that this isn’t the calm before another storm.

bayam on September 21, 2008 at 1:41 PM

As a Democrat who thought the surge was a foolish idea, I’m glad that I was wrong. Even though I think the Iraq war was a grave error in judgment, I’d much rather the US leave the country in a position of strength than weakness.

I was convinced that the war had been badly mismanaged through mid 2006 and opposed Bush because of his failure, but did fully support the surge. Bush’s top generals in early 2006 were almost universally opposed to the concept of a surge but Bush realized that it was the only chance to avoid defeat, and pushed the plan forward anyway. (McCain was one of those who helped convince Bush to do it.)

The idea behind sending in more troops was to force insurgents out of key areas but what actually occurred was far broader and something that no one anticipated. Americans didn’t realize the complete break between al Qaeda and the Sunnis, the scope of infighting among Shiites, and a number of other factors that were required for the surge to succeed. In other words, the surge worked but for none of the reasons that anyone initally assumed. It’s truly a remarkable history.

bayam on September 21, 2008 at 1:48 PM

Ahhem, Barack Obama. Time to admit that the surge was a good idea? Rather than how you left it as something that was wildly successful, but that you still would not have done.

Mr. Joe on September 21, 2008 at 1:49 PM

As a Democrat who thought the surge was a foolish idea, I’m glad that I was wrong. Even though I think the Iraq war was a grave error in judgment, I’d much rather the US leave the country in a position of strength than weakness.

I was convinced that the war had been badly mismanaged through mid 2006 and opposed Bush because of his failure, but did fully support the surge. Bush’s top generals in early 2006 were almost universally opposed to the concept of a surge but Bush realized that it was the only chance to avoid defeat, and pushed the plan forward anyway. (McCain was one of those who helped convince Bush to do it.)

The idea behind sending in more troops was to force insurgents out of key areas but what actually occurred was far broader and something that no one anticipated. Americans didn’t realize the complete break between al Qaeda and the Sunnis, the scope of infighting among Shiites, and a number of other factors that were required for the surge to succeed. In other words, the surge worked but for none of the reasons that anyone initally assumed. It’s truly a remarkable history.

bayam on September 21, 2008 at 1:50 PM

A thread like this used to be a MB4 magnet (hell he probably would have had a dozen posts by now).

Did he get the stick?

Mike Honcho on September 21, 2008 at 12:08 PM

Not trying to be funny but I believe that MB4 is actually a woman.

TooTall on September 21, 2008 at 1:55 PM

God help Gen. Ray Odierno taking over for Gen. Petraeus in Iraq. He not only must perform a successful tightwire act alongside al-Maliki and an upcoming overhaul Iraqi government following their subsequent election, but with whomever we elect POTUS.

Filken’s account is amazing.

Sept.20’08
By Dexter Filkins, NYT

The result, now visible in the streets, is a calm unlike any Iraq has known in the five and a half years since the Americans arrived. Iraqi life is flowing back into the streets. The ordinary people, the “normal people,” as Mr. Aziz called them, have the upper hand, at least for now.

But for how long?

By any measure, General Odierno faces a huge challenge in the coming months: consolidating the gains the American military has achieved with possibly fewer troops, depending on the decisions made by Iraq’s leaders and America’s next president. Second, in all likelihood, General Odierno will have to oversee a potentially chaotic transition from one Iraqi government to another, assuming that Iraqi leaders hold nationwide elections in 2009 or 2010.

In Iraq, the calm is very fragile.
[The calm] “It’s all thanks to them.” [The Sunni Awakening Council.] “Without us, there would be chaos.” Chaos, indeed. Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has expressed an intention to dismantle the Awakening Councils [for Sunnis having previously shot at him].
Everyone, it seems, is trying to enjoy the calm while it lasts.

Shiites in predominantly Sunni [areas] considered themselves likely targets. In the 24 months that her sons were gone, Ms. Salman said she rarely ventured outside. The exception, she said, was when she saw American soldiers. “Oh, I love them,” Ms. Salman said, brightening in her darkened house. “I always knew I was safe with them.” “We are the first Shia to come back,” Feraz said. “The rest of the families are still too afraid.”

maverick muse on September 21, 2008 at 2:02 PM

But, but, but I thought I heard where our traitorous democrat leaders, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi stated, the U.S. lost the war in Iraq? How could that be? /Sarcasm

byteshredder on September 21, 2008 at 2:03 PM

the scope of infighting among Shiites, and a number of other factors that were required for the surge to succeed. In other words, the surge worked but for none of the reasons that anyone initally assumed.

Actually if you read Gen. Petrayus’s writings on counter-insurgency you’ll see that what happened is a complete validation of his approach in the military, political, and social sphere. Implying that we all got “lucky” shows a great deal of ignorance on your part.

PackerBronco on September 21, 2008 at 2:12 PM

The guy running against Harry “we lost” Reid should use this in a campaign spot too.

celtnik on September 21, 2008 at 2:13 PM

Even though I think the Iraq war was a grave error in judgment

So if we were in a situation where Iraq was still controlled by Saddam this would have been better for us? For the political situation in the Middle East? For the war on terror? For the oil crisis?

We can’t really evaluate the Iraq War fairly for many years to come; however any evaluation has to compare the war’s result to a reasonable assumption about the alternative. If the end result is a stable Iraq that is reasonably Democratic and acts as a bulwark against terrorism and is a stable source of energy for the world markets, then I would think Bush’s decision is validated.

PackerBronco on September 21, 2008 at 2:20 PM

Contrast this upbeat assessment with todays AP which states:
Ethnic Cleansing, Not Surge, Pacified Iraq
From (we kid thee not) the health and science editor at Reuters:
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/reuters-ethnic-cleansing-won-war-in-iraq

I would like to see a post from Hotair on this, too.
Dispicable.

Gil on September 21, 2008 at 2:21 PM

*sigh*

If only Congress had listened to John McCain about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2006 as well…..

rockmom on September 21, 2008 at 2:22 PM

Actually if you read Gen. Petrayus’s writings on counter-insurgency you’ll see that what happened is a complete validation of his approach in the military, political, and social sphere. Implying that we all got “lucky” shows a great deal of ignorance on your part.

Indeed. To claim that it was entirely “luck” – sure “luck” played a role as it so often has in every war – is to ignore much of what Petraeus wanted to do. E.g., “surge” the forces into the populace to work with them to restore order. This was based, as I understand it, on the belief that the Iraqi people – Sunni and Shia – wanted our help in stopping the violence.

No luck involved in that part of the plan.

SteveMG on September 21, 2008 at 2:30 PM

In other words, the surge worked but for none of the reasons that anyone initally assumed. It’s truly a remarkable history.

bayam on September 21, 2008 at 1:48 PM

+1

The unpredictable is the only predictable element in life, and visa versa. That’s no excuse for a presumptive executive’s inability to make a decision. Maybe. Maybe not. YES, NO, PRESENT. If a “leader” can never reach a decision, he will drag all attachments into his own failure to respond effectively.

We might all have a goal in mind, “the preservation of America,” and a path towards achievement. As you say, in the end, circumstances require adjustments. Naturally, how the outcome transpires has more to it than the initial outline, and more to it than any present situation as time remains in flux as do multiple agendas and the balance of powers.

maverick muse on September 21, 2008 at 2:31 PM

Actually if you read Gen. Petrayus’s writings on counter-insurgency you’ll see that what happened is a complete validation of his approach in the military, political, and social sphere. Implying that we all got “lucky” shows a great deal of ignorance on your part.

You’re right about the general’s overall framework for winning an insurgency, but you’re missing the point. No one realized how far the Sunnis would go in essentially joining the same Shitte cause of defeating al Qaeda and supporting the government. By his own admission, Patreaus didn’t foresee the social conditions evolving in such a favorable light. That’s not taking anything away from his outstanding leadership.

You might want to read The Inside War to address the ignorance you try and place on others.

bayam on September 21, 2008 at 2:42 PM

But isn’t that itself worthy of some re-examination?

Why did so many people assume that Iraqi Sunnis would not get as tired of war and futile, stupid al Qaeda suicide bombings as we did? We may be “lucky” in that al Qaeda eventually overplayed its hand in Iraq, but even that is not really outside the realm of reasonable expectation for a terrorist group. They overplayed their hand with 9/11, after all.

rockmom on September 21, 2008 at 2:49 PM

Could this mean that finally the MSM and liberals will stop aiding and abetting our Islamic Fascists enemies?

Travis1 on September 21, 2008 at 2:50 PM

In other words, the surge worked but for none of the reasons that anyone initally assumed. It’s truly a remarkable history

Sorry, but that’s just not my reading of what happened.

None of the reasons? The theory behind the surge was to work with the Iraqi people and draw them away from both the militias and support for Al-Qaeda. By restoring order, the Iraqis would turn away from supporting those groups in order to defend themselves from other sectarian or tribal enemies.

That it worked more then they has anticipated is undoubtedly true. But to claim that surge worked for “none of the reasons” predicted is, in my readings, not accurate.

SteveMG on September 21, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Amongst the list of generals:

George Marshall

Calm Before the Storm on September 21, 2008 at 3:02 PM

Hmmm, this morning CNN still thinks we are still fighting 2 wars.

I was convinced that the war had been badly mismanaged through mid 2006 and opposed Bush because of his failure, but did fully support the surge.

bayam on September 21, 2008 at 1:48 PM

I agree the war was poorly managed, but how do you manage any war properly?

What I think, to Bush’s credit, was to take the war to Iraq. A risky strategy that seems to be working. It became the focal point and battle cry, of the Islamic extremist and Al Qaeda, which funneled the extremist en mass to Iraq. The dynamics of either not doing anything or fighting a war are pretty clear to me: we either continue to be attacked or kill the attackers before the can attack. That’s not to say we will never ever be attacked again, but I would hope we’ll be better prepared to prevent any future attack. So far, that seems to have worked.

So there is less of them, Islamic extremist and Al Qaeda, and more of us, those that would rather live in peace. I do not think the Islamic world is that stupid not to think that Islamic extremist organizations like Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and other Neofascism religious Islamic groups are good for Islam, its world image, or as a whole. If they do, then they are destine to live in a world of violence and war. Which means the practice of training children in the ways of Wahhabism and other extremist sects of Islam threaten to repeat and encourage generations of martyrs to be. It begs the question if Islam really wants to live in peace with the rest of the world. Let alone the superficial appearance or illusion of anything resembling a religion of peace.

Kini on September 21, 2008 at 3:15 PM

You might want to read The Inside War to address the ignorance you try and place on others.

You might want to reread your own posts. For example, your statement:

the surge worked but for none of the reasons that anyone initally assumed.

contradicts your other statement:

You’re right about the general’s overall framework for winning an insurgency

I think what you should say is simply “the surge worked better than Patraeus could have predicted” and I would agree; but the framework, the goals, and how they expected the Iraqi citizens to respond is textbook counter-insurgency. Instead you seem to think the surge’s goal was only the following:

The idea behind sending in more troops was to force insurgents out of key areas but what actually occurred was far broader and something that no one anticipated.

Yes, but the reason behind sending in more troops wasn’t simply to force insurgents out of key areas, it was also to facilitate that broader “awakening” of Iraqi citizens to throw down the insurgency.

If you don’t credit Petraeus (and by extension Bush) with also having that as a goal for the surge, then you have missed the essential part of this story.

PackerBronco on September 21, 2008 at 3:18 PM

Yes, but the reason behind sending in more troops wasn’t simply to force insurgents out of key areas, it was also to facilitate that broader “awakening” of Iraqi citizens to throw down the insurgency.

Exactly.

Restore order, work with the populace, and help them turn against the insurgents.

That it worked better than they foresaw doesn’t mean they didn’t anticipate it.

SteveMG on September 21, 2008 at 3:23 PM

And when did it cease to be called “Bush’s surge?” The press used to love to call it “Bush’s surge,” (Google it) but now it’s just “the surge.” I wonder what could have happened to make the difference….

This one’s simple. When a mother asks her husband (or baby daddy anyway) “Do you know what your son did?”, you can bet your @$$ it wasn’t any good, but if she talks about “my son”, or even “our son” it’s followed by something good.

Since Bush can’t possibly have done something good, it’s “Bush’s failed policy of…” but “our brave military’s successes…”.

The Monster on September 21, 2008 at 4:23 PM

KillerKane, I think Eisenhower was a more successful president than you give him credit for, if only for the Interstate Highway System. It’s had a profound effect on America and it was Ike’s baby. We can wonder if the effect was all that good – all those empty Main Street stores – but Eisenhower wanted it and he got it and it did something, which is success of a sort.

PersonFromPorlock on September 21, 2008 at 4:29 PM

Hey. Has that lying, seditious, defeat-o-crat snake Murtha apologized yet?

locomotivebreath1901 on September 21, 2008 at 5:33 PM

locomotivebreath1901

I don’t know….have they suddenly started ice skating in Hell?

SgtSVJones on September 21, 2008 at 6:21 PM

In other words, the surge worked but for none of the reasons that anyone initally assumed. It’s truly a remarkable history.

bayam on September 21, 2008 at 1:50 PM

No, the surge worked because we brought the fight to them. It helped that AQ was so hard on the Iraqis that they also turned against them and with the surge they knew they would not be abandoned by us [think back to Vietnam 1975 and a Democratic Congress killing all of President Ford's attempt to help South Vietnam with military aid].

A paramilitary force like AQ cannot last against a professional military; what they can only do is hope to outlast the will to fight of the latter’s political masters.

As Barrack bin Laden has no will to fight AQ, he would have left Iraqis to AQ

Bubba Redneck on September 21, 2008 at 6:51 PM

If you don’t credit Petraeus (and by extension Bush) with also having that as a goal for the surge, then you have missed the essential part of this story.

You can read the The War Inside for answers to this question. It’s hard to quote specific text without key points being taken out of context in a short message post.

Why did so many people assume that Iraqi Sunnis would not get as tired of war and futile, stupid al Qaeda suicide bombings as we did?

The Sunnis and Shittes have enjoyed killing each other for thousands of years and it’s hard to say that the trend is over. Nor was it clear how far the Sunnis would go to rid the country of al Qaeda given their mutual hatred of the Shiite enemy. It’s still not clear if the Sunnis and Shiites can live peacefully together.
Al Qaeda could never steal a page from Hezbollah and start opening schools and medical centers to build a bond with the population. Fortunately al Qaeda fighters are nothing more than the scum of the earth and incapable of building any kind of community.

bayam on September 21, 2008 at 7:50 PM

What I think, to Bush’s credit, was to take the war to Iraq. A risky strategy that seems to be working. It became the focal point and battle cry, of the Islamic extremist and Al Qaeda, which funneled the extremist en mass to Iraq.

Of course, the case against the war in Iraq (among non peaceniks) is that the US had to turn most of its military and resources away from Afghanistan. The Islamic extremsists were not only flowing en messe into Afghanistan- many originated from that part of the world. Afghanistan and Pakistan were essentially the home countries of Islamic terrorism.

As a result, bin Laden remains free while Afghanistan has largely descended into the chaos of the world’s biggest narco state where brutal warlords rule areas beyond the capital region. This outcome was only inevitable once the US made Iraq it’s primary focus. Now that Musharef is gone, it’s not clear that there’s the political will in Pakistan to go after militants in the border regions, so our chances of success in beheading the Islamofascist monster don’t look very promising anytime soon.

Iraq wasn’t where al Qaeda and the extremists groups originated. While it’s true that Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, and other countries had an operating al Qaeda and/or terrorist presence, Pakistan and Afghanistan were the true center of gravity. What could the US and Western forces have achieved if the focus had remained on Afghanistan, beyond the US retaining far broader support on the international scene? That’s something we’ll never know. When Afghanistan was invaded, the goal was to transform it into a democracy free of the warlords and narcotics.

One fact reamins- there’s no sign today that the number of terrorists in the world has been decreased. As Rumsfled used to ask, have we killed more terrorists or created more terrorists? Does this indicate a problem with our overall strategy? I don’t have the answers, but it’s troubling reality.

bayam on September 21, 2008 at 8:04 PM

Who are you and what have you done with the NY Times?!?!

;-)

Good article!

Yakko77 on September 21, 2008 at 9:12 PM

bayam on September 21, 2008 at 8:04 PM

Same old Lib-Dem talking points. What’s new? What’s new is we’ve done the job in Iraq and it’s time to eliminate the Islamic Fascists in Afghanistan

Travis1 on September 21, 2008 at 9:13 PM

What could the US and Western forces have achieved if the focus had remained on Afghanistan, beyond the US retaining far broader support on the international scene? That’s something we’ll never know. When Afghanistan was invaded, the goal was to transform it into a democracy free of the warlords and narcotics.

bayam on September 21, 2008 at 8:04 PM

If US forces remained in Afghanistan and not expanded the war into Iraq, then we would have been in the same situation as was the USSR was when it invaded Afghanistan. For lack of a better word, we leveled the playing field. By going into Iraq, an Arab country and with significant Islamic religious interests, the extremist found this more of an emotional calling than a non-Arab Afghanistan.

I do not believe it was the goal of the Afghanistan invasion was to transform it into a democracy, although that would have been part of any post war reconstruction, the goal was to get Bin Laden and crush the Taliban government. One was achieved, the other is still pending. Bin Laden said it himself that the focus on the war is in Iraq against the US occupation. Thus the war was brought to Bin Ladin and his Al Qaeda. As for Afghanistan, it was never off the radar screen, it just didn’t get the attention like Iraq did until now and we don’t know what’s been going on behind the scenes.. The origins of the Islamic extremism did manifest itself from a multitude of countries where this disease metastatic into what we know it now. It has spread to many countries.

I don’t believe Pakistan has either the political will or stomach to go after the Islamic terrorist. It’s all lip service. But I do believe the monster has been cornered, or at least we have restricted their movement to freely move from one country to another.

Do we have more or less terrorist in the world today? As I mentioned before, they’re breeding them. It will be generational until such a time, as Golda Meir once said, [The Arabs] will stop fighting us when they love their children more than they hate [Jews]“. As long as we have the fortitude to continue keep them looking over their shoulder wondering if a hellfire missile isn’t already in their sights, then it’ll be a numbers game till one of us wins this war. I don’t intend to let them win.

Kini on September 21, 2008 at 9:23 PM

The earlier posts on the Great American Generals that Petreaus ranks with should have included Winfield Scott.

He won battles in the war of 1812 (Lundy’s lane and others). Defeated Mexico with only 8000 men in the Mexican American War (securing Texas and acquiring California, New Mexico and Arizona) and was the author of the strategic plan for defeating the South in the Civil War which was ultimately successful. Not to mention his great work with West Point and seeing to it that successful young West Point gradualtes like Lee, Grant, Johnston and Jackson got the chance to show their stuff in the Mexican American War and thus were prepared to be the Great Generals of the Civil War.

In the tour of Fort Erie, the Canadian docent referred Winfield Scott as the Greatest American General ever. Nice compliment from the other side of the fight.

KW64 on September 21, 2008 at 9:44 PM

This is not the NYT I knew.

Urban Infidel on September 21, 2008 at 9:58 PM

Kudo’s to America,for Freeing and Liberating Iraq,
let it be said,so it is written!!:)

And for those,who have sacrificed in the name
of Freedom.:)

canopfor on September 21, 2008 at 10:01 PM

Big A,

It has been nice. Been a lot less shots in my direction since the end of the battle in Basra. If the Iraqi Army can settle into the grove here, I think they won’t need quite so many of us CF here. Give them a bit more time and everyone getting used to peace and the violence may recede to a simple “Middle East politics” level.

major john on September 22, 2008 at 12:07 PM

I know this will ruffle some feathers but Swartzkopf while a fine American and a gifted leader does not rise to the level of the other Generals listed, while it may be from a lack of a war to win, he has never been truly tested in combat as a general… repelling the Iraqi Army in Kuwait? come on… that was no test of leadership. it was a victory expected and taken easily. and what other combat did he oversee besides Desert Storm? his bravery in Vietnam not withstanding he was not a General at that time.
-
the truest test of a general does not come from just winning but fighting insurmountable odds and overcoming great adversity… Washington, Grant, Sherman, Bradley, MacArthur, Eisenhower, Patton… are all great defenders of the republic… who rallied against sure defeat to deliver undeniable victory.
-
Lee and Jackson… were some of the greatest traitors to our flag… not among America’s great Generals, slavery and states rights are not enough to equivocate attacking old glory… these men were generals of another country they sought to destroy the republic, not defend it. I know it’s going to make some southerners mad but they seceded, they were no longer truly American, backed by the British and the French, they were anti-american… until forced back into the union.
-
now Petraeus, he has over come adversity to deliver victory… and I don’t think anyone can say that he hasn’t. I would add him to the list if and when we leave Iraq stable… then it will be a testament to his and Bush’s resolve and leadership.

Kaptain Amerika on September 23, 2008 at 1:56 AM

Comment pages: 1 2