Just the mention of Gen. David Petraeus’ name in this town will send soldiers, pols and journalists alike scurrying toward his direction. And so it was when someone in the Pentagon press area mentioned this morning that the former MNF-I commander would be speaking at the State Department. We all ran over to our desks and turned on the Pentagon channel to watch as Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker received the Distinguished Service Award, the State Department’s highest honor.
While we were all hanging on every word Petraeus uttered, it was Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who made the most interesting comment of the ceremony: “Ladies and gentlemen, nothing is certain in this life. And success in Iraq is not a sure thing.”
Why did she drop that statement into her comments, I wondered. If violence is down and political progress is taking shape, why is one of the chief backer of this war now expressing doubt? Perhaps she was reinforcing Petraeus’ long-held view that the situation in Iraq is “fragile and reversible.”
Or maybe it was a subtle reference to campaign rhetoric. After all, one of the biggest differences between Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain is over the war and whether the U.S. is on the path to success. McCain has said the U.S. winning; Obama is not as convinced. Perhaps Rice was calling for a more sophisticated discussion on the future policy in Iraq.
She then went on to define success: “We can now see a glimpse of what success will look like: an Iraq at peace with itself, secure in its region, with a democratic government that can defend itself and sustain itself eventually without international support. This has been our goal all along, and now it is emerging -- slowly, imperfectly, but it is emerging. And the triumph of peace and freedom in Iraq will be a beacon of hope in the broader Middle East.”
But if Iraq does not reach this level of success, then what will be an acceptable level of violence, security and political progress for the U.S. to leave, I wondered. Is there one? And at that point, can the U.S. claim success? What Rice’s comments told me is that this nation is still debating what success in Iraq really means.
As usual, we have not heard relevant questions asked or answered re: the assessment of success as Iraq becomes a postconflict region. Will the infighting between the Sons of Iraq and the Iraqi Awakening end in the formation of political party? What about the question of fundamental needs of the Iraqi people in a postconflict region i.e. the costs of war? Do families reunite? I do not understand how such a 'peacebuilding effort' can proceed without International support and so I was flabberghasted by Rice's statement of objectives. I am not talking about aid in the form of tossed money. I am talking about globalization of the peacebuilding process in the form of advice. This process would, for example, have the Iraqis consider energy-efficient homes for rebuilding. Do you get my drift?
Posted by: Philip Henika | October 07, 2008 at 04:31 PM