Thoughts on Petraeus, Noonan and Biden

Peggy Noonan is a bit of skeptic on the future of Iraq, as her latest column eventually makes clear.  But Noonan writes so well, and with such an awareness of the larger picture that transcends ordinary daily events, and with such evident goodwill, that I cannot help but enjoy her writing even when I disagree with it.  Here's a bit of her latest:

In a way, David Petraeus won the day when MoveOn.org came forth with its famous "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" ad. They shot themselves in the foot and deserve to be known by their limp. Republicans enacted fury (Thank you, O political gods, for showing the low nature of our foes!), and Democrats felt it (Embarrassed again by the loons!). No one--no normal American--thinks a U.S. Army four-star came back from Iraq to damage our democracy by telling lies.

Gen. Petraeus's testimony was dry, full of data points and graphs. He gave the impression that everything he said was, to the best of his considerable knowledge, true. One sensed that like good witnesses everywhere, he was not saying everything he thought.

He was earnest, unflappable, and low-key to the point of colorless. Maybe he figures things are colorful enough. I felt relief that he was not wearing his heart on his sleeve or talking about our guys and gals. It was very Joe Friday: Just the facts, ma'am.

He clearly had a point of view, and it was, not surprisingly, in line with the administration's. But I think the appearance of independence and straight dealing that was necessary to his credibility was lessened by the White House's attempts to associate itself with him in the weeks leading up to his appearance.

The level of sophistication and seriousness shown by Sens. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain and Chris Dodd was equal to the moment, and seemed to me patriotic. They were probing, occasionally strict, always respectful. At one point Gen. Petraeus was asked by Sen. John Warner if Iraq has made America safer and said, "Sir, I don't know actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind." Later, invited to expand on this by Sen. Evan Bayh, said he'd been surprised by Mr. Warner's question and added that "we have very, very clear, very serious national interests" in Iraq.

That of course is the great question. History will answer it.

I can't comment on the other senators, but I think Noonan is too charitable toward Biden.  He is typically rude, condescending and disrespectful toward the witnesses in front of him who are not on his side of the political aisle, and his demeanor toward Petraeus was no exception, at least in the soundbites I saw.  It discredits Biden, of course, rather than the witnesses in front of him. 

During the Alito confirmation hearings, Noonan wrote that she found Joe Biden endearing, "like a garrulous uncle after a drink."  If Biden reminds Noonan of an old uncle, one can't fault her for it.  But my uncles were much nicer than that.

As for Iraq -- well, its history is still being written.  Are we powerful enough to prevail in Iraq?  Absolutely -- as long as we persist until we're completely satisfied that the Iraqis can defend themselves.  And yet, the plan right now is to reduce troop levels.  As Noonan notes:

An unspoken part of the larger story is that Gen. Petraeus backed up the argument that our troops have been stretched painfully thin, and the postsurge presence cannot, practically, be maintained. Thus a seeming illogic in the general's presentation:  For the first time in years we're making progress, therefore we should reduce troop levels to the same point at which we made no progress.

In seeming to stand pat and at the same time lower temperatures by bowing to public pressure and reducing troop levels, the administration has made a virtue of necessity. This was not unshrewd.

To put this in simpler terms, the surge has helped us make progress in Iraq.  Reducing troop levels will risk the loss of that progress.  Yet the Democrats demand that troop levels be reduced.  Therefore, the plan is to reduce troop levels just enough to placate the left a bit, without losing the war.

The Democrats are already screaming that the troop withdrawals being planned are not enough.

Of course they're not enough!  As long as we're winning the Iraq war, the left will be demanding that we withdraw enough troops to ensure that we lose it.

Comments

[jay k.]

winning the war? what planet do you live on? which war? the war on terror? that would make iraq a battle. a 4-1/2 year old battle with no end in sight. and by what metric are we winning that battle? by what metric are we winning the war?

[Bruce]

It's Bush that's reducing troop levels. But all you can say is that it's the Democrat's fault? Bush and Petraeus are not responsible for deciding to reduce troop levels? And don't try to say the Democrat party forced them into it. Bush and Petraeus are not pushovers. They're pulling back the troops before victory is sealed with their eyes wide open, and don't you forget it.

[jay k.]

bush has aabsolutely no choice but to reduce troop levels or make theri stay longer than 15 months...which probably wouldn't fly. the ratio of time in country to time out of country is already an abuse of the military. anything more would be outlandish. and the reductions won't even get the troops back to pre-escalation levels. it's all spin. wake up to it.