Abizaid: It Takes a Village
In an Early Birded story from the New York Times, General Abizaid is apparently telling the American people “it takes a village” when it comes to solving the problems in Iraq:
General Abizaid, who is completing the final months of a highly decorated military career, acknowledges that additional American forces, favored by some of President Bush’s top advisers, might provide a short-term boost in security. But he argues that foreign troops are a toxin bound to be rejected by Iraqis, and that expanding the number of American troops merely puts off the day when Iraqis are forced to take responsibility for their own security.
Final months, eh? Prepping for a political career with this move, maybe? Wesley Clark part 2 coming down the road?
I wonder how the U.S. troops on the ground feel about being thought of as a ‘toxin’ by their commander. Well, General, you’re right that more troops puts off the day Iraqis are forced to take responsibility for their own security. And that’s exactly the point. Since Abizaid has been incapable of wiping out the insurgency by explaining to the nation that tough steps need to be taken and then taking those steps, precisely what the Iraqis need is more time.
Then the NY Times shows it’s stripes by saying:
But the generals are facing a different assessment from a growing number of civilian officials in the Bush administration, who see a sharp increase in troop strength as an effective means to stabilize Baghdad and as a dramatic initiative for the president to announce in January.
The old “Bush vs. the Generals” game… except it wasn’t the administration that was calling for more troops. In fact, it was the media taking shots at the administration for not having enough troops.
“You have to internationalize the problem,†General Abizaid said. “You have to attack it diplomatically, geo-strategically. You just can’t apply a microscope on a particular problem in downtown Baghdad and a particular problem in downtown Kabul and say that somehow or another, if you throw enough military forces at it, that you are going to solve the broader issues in the region of extremism.â€
Right. Truly, this is correct. But apparently the General has forgotten we have that Global War on Terrorism thing going on where we attack extremism globally. Otherwise he wouldn’t suggest something we’re already doing, would he? Or is he saying “go regional?” Oops… sorry, that made me throw up a little in my mouth.
He emphasizes that the threat to American national security interests ranges far beyond any one country in his area of responsibility.
“When you take a look at the reach of the extremism as exemplified by Al Qaeda, it’s not just in Afghanistan, it’s not just in Iraq — it’s in Pakistan, it’s in Saudi Arabia, it’s in Great Britain, it’s in Spain,†he said. “It attacked the United States. It is organized in the virtual world in a way that is very unique, very modern, very dangerous.â€
Ask for a solution to Sunni insurgents in Anbar Province, and he talks about their supporters in Syria and implications should Saudi Arabia overtly take sides against the Shiites of Iraq.
On the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, General Abizaid says the only course includes understanding tribal loyalties in Pakistan. Turn the conversation to Middle Eastern terrorists, and he describes the military’s efforts to preclude their establishing havens in ungoverned corners of Africa.
Again, all correct. Good job looking at the broader picture. Now friggin’ focus on the damn insurgents and remove them. Your job is not diplomat to Saudi Arabia. It’s not financial transfer analyst focused on Syria. It’s not global extremism analyst, either. It’s the leader of the forces at CENTCOM. You apply the military might. You tell the nation what it is you need to do in order to pound the enemy into submission. While you need to have visibility on all those things to make decisions, you have to make the damn decisions. Wait until you’re retired to start your political career, sir. Doing it now is costing lives and prolonging this war.
Right Wing Guy gets it right saying:
We must unleash the full might of our military and not fight such a PC war, if we were able to use our military might in its full effectiveness than this fight would have been over with some time ago, but we are saddled with reporters imbedded with our troops.
Who’s the one who should have been pushing this approach in the national eye? Abizaid.
Right Wing Nuthouse explains that additional troops isn’t really the discussion as the WaPo would have you believe. It’s having a clear goal to work with! And who should be bringing this issue up? Abizaid. Disagree? I really don’t think Patton, Eisenhower, or MacArthur had trouble letting Uncle Sam know what they needed to win. I blogged about needing more purpose the other day.
Finally, Wake Up America explains why “going regional” is much the same as “going to hell” if we’re to include Iran.
Want more on Abizaid?
Post a Comment