Oh come on, Petraeus should have some say in when the pull out happens. Obama just disregarding any legitimate security concerns that he has is idiotic. What Obama should have done is at least compromised and pushed it up a few months so that Petraeus can feel that Obama is somewhat reasonable. The only reason for a 16 month plan is to get the troops back by Independance Day 2011 so that Obama can get a PR boost. Keeping to this schedule doesn't help Obama's relationship with the military, Iraq's security, and it especially won't help America's image if another dictator takes over.
Ugh.
Hey guys, let's make the unstated assumption that American troop presence is always a force for stability and progress and the only motivation for opposing it must be selfish and political! As long as we all agree on that, then the argument can proceed! How about let's not.
"Now that's not fair. I'm taking Petraeus' word for it, and surely we should listen to him?"
Hey, I'm as willing to defer to technical authority as anyone here. But Petraeus isn't the only expert, and he's far from an unbiased one.
The man is a project manager. Of course he wants more resources and time. His job is to evaluate how the military can achieve its goals, not to run a cost-benefit on whether those goals are achievable, cost-efficient, or desirable in the larger scheme of international politics. His job precludes him from declaring the mission futile, but someone else has to make the call at some point.
"Yeah, but what if there's a dictator? That would be bad!"Who? Nobody's got the muscle to take down Maliki. Maliki could become a strongman, but he's already halfway there thanks to the Bush administration, not that they actually planned it.
He was playing with house money: he knew he could call in the US to protect his regime and back up his power grabs, as long as they were carried out under the flag of the Iraqi government. He was able to populate the national army with party loyalists and elbow out rivals, rather than seeking peaceful compromises, because he had the most guns.
Our guns.
It's like the military version of lemon socialism. Uncle Sam bails him out when things go badly, but Maliki reaps the benefits after the victories.
The point is that America can't control the political outcomes in Iraq, or even steer them towards some acceptable range. The strongest regional and national players will continue to consolidate their control, using both violent and non-violent means, whether the US is there or not.
"Relationship with the military! He should at least make Petraeus feel like he's being listened to."He should spend a few dozen billion dollars more, and let more Americans die, so that a general won't have his feelings hurt? I like to think I'm fairly sensitive, but come the fuck on.
If only Truman had nuked the hell out of China, to keep MacArthur from pouting.