The Petraeus Factor
The United States’ destiny in Iraq is in the hands of General David Petraeus, as is the future military and political strategies the nation will employ to crush global terrorism.
It is not General Petraeus’ duty to defend the US decision to stay in Iraq, nor does he care about President Bush’s legacy.
Since 1776, military victories have influenced presidential elections. Seated presidents and their political parties have universally benefited from military successes. Most notably, General Grant’s victories at Chattanooga, Vicksburg and Gettysburg, assured President Lincoln’s reelection.
The Democrats are aware that General Petraeus’ performance in Bagdad (this summer) is the fulcrum upon which the outcome of the 2008 election rests. They saw the radical, Shiite cleric, al-Sadr’s decision to hide in Iran, and General Petraeus’ brilliant counter-insurgency offensive in the al-Anbar Province, boding well for the Bagdad campaign.
When Senator Reid declared defeat in Iraq, it was wishful thinking. His party has bet the 2008 election on the Iraqi battlefront. Every Democratic candidate has wrapped his or her political future around the enemy’s success.
Their best recourse was to get General Petraeus off the field of battle. Hence, their legislative efforts to set a ninety day deadline to capitulate. The cut-and-run legislation didn’t survive. The next best option was to interrupt the flow of supplies, training and a sustainable military campaign with sixty-day budgets. That also failed. Alas, with heavy political hearts, they funded the war against terrorism for four more months. It took $17 billion of pork to sooth their anguish.
In fairness, the left’s challengers for the Oval Office can’t show a flicker of support for a US victory in Iraq and expect to win in the primaries. Senators Clinton and Obama symbolically buried the prayers of the nation beneath personal ambition when they cast dissenting votes.
Tragically, their political calculation signaled Iran, al-Qaeda, and Syria that increased violence in Bagdad this summer—especially dead Americans in uniform—will benefit Democrats, which will benefit them. This unholy alliance, bonded by a common cause, sheds light on their principles.
And they are equally short of options. It’s somewhat unlikely they could persuade the French to train Islamic terrorists. They see the line in the sand. The American public—and possibly even the New York Times—wouldn’t tolerate shipping arms and medical supplies to al-Qaeda.
There is a wildcard in this deadly game. General Petraeus can only set the table for a stable Iraq. If the fledgling government fails to pass the legislation which will defang the political situation, and end the stalemate, the Republicans will retreat. Iran, al-Qaeda, the Democrats and Syria will win.
If the cohesive elements of the Iraqi puzzle actually begin to fit by late September, the liberal bell ringers in our media will not toll the message. Listen for the sound of silence. It will confirm that the blood of our soldiers wasn’t wasted. God bless General Petraeus, his warriors, their friends and families and predecessors, on this Memorial Day.
It is not General Petraeus’ duty to defend the US decision to stay in Iraq, nor does he care about President Bush’s legacy.
Since 1776, military victories have influenced presidential elections. Seated presidents and their political parties have universally benefited from military successes. Most notably, General Grant’s victories at Chattanooga, Vicksburg and Gettysburg, assured President Lincoln’s reelection.
The Democrats are aware that General Petraeus’ performance in Bagdad (this summer) is the fulcrum upon which the outcome of the 2008 election rests. They saw the radical, Shiite cleric, al-Sadr’s decision to hide in Iran, and General Petraeus’ brilliant counter-insurgency offensive in the al-Anbar Province, boding well for the Bagdad campaign.
When Senator Reid declared defeat in Iraq, it was wishful thinking. His party has bet the 2008 election on the Iraqi battlefront. Every Democratic candidate has wrapped his or her political future around the enemy’s success.
Their best recourse was to get General Petraeus off the field of battle. Hence, their legislative efforts to set a ninety day deadline to capitulate. The cut-and-run legislation didn’t survive. The next best option was to interrupt the flow of supplies, training and a sustainable military campaign with sixty-day budgets. That also failed. Alas, with heavy political hearts, they funded the war against terrorism for four more months. It took $17 billion of pork to sooth their anguish.
In fairness, the left’s challengers for the Oval Office can’t show a flicker of support for a US victory in Iraq and expect to win in the primaries. Senators Clinton and Obama symbolically buried the prayers of the nation beneath personal ambition when they cast dissenting votes.
Tragically, their political calculation signaled Iran, al-Qaeda, and Syria that increased violence in Bagdad this summer—especially dead Americans in uniform—will benefit Democrats, which will benefit them. This unholy alliance, bonded by a common cause, sheds light on their principles.
And they are equally short of options. It’s somewhat unlikely they could persuade the French to train Islamic terrorists. They see the line in the sand. The American public—and possibly even the New York Times—wouldn’t tolerate shipping arms and medical supplies to al-Qaeda.
There is a wildcard in this deadly game. General Petraeus can only set the table for a stable Iraq. If the fledgling government fails to pass the legislation which will defang the political situation, and end the stalemate, the Republicans will retreat. Iran, al-Qaeda, the Democrats and Syria will win.
If the cohesive elements of the Iraqi puzzle actually begin to fit by late September, the liberal bell ringers in our media will not toll the message. Listen for the sound of silence. It will confirm that the blood of our soldiers wasn’t wasted. God bless General Petraeus, his warriors, their friends and families and predecessors, on this Memorial Day.
Labels: General Petraeus, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, Senator Reid
posted by David at
6:56 AM
<< Home