Of all the innumerable times that lawmakers asked Gen. David Petraeus over the last two days for some indication of what success in Iraq is, this answer seemed as clear as any of them. At least in this answer, there was no reference to success being “conditions-based” or any mention of “battlefield geometry.” Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) asked “Please tell us, general, what is winning?”
“Ambassador Crocker and I, for what it’s worth, have typically seen ourselves as minimalists. We’re not after the Holy Grail in Iraq, we’re not after Jeffersonian democracy,” Petraeus responded. “We’re after conditions that would allow our soldiers to disengage.”
For those who’ve been watching the Iraq debate, this sort of “minimalism” is nothing new. After all, administration officials have been saying since the start that a “Jeffersonian democracy” isn’t likely to take root in Iraq (even Paul Bremer said “We’re not going to have a Jeffersonian democracy here” in 2003). But with Iraq, there never can be enough minimalism.
Transcript of the full exchange is below.
WEXLER: Please tell us, General, what is winning?
PETRAEUS: Well, first of all — first of all, Congress, let me tell you that what we are fighting for is national interest. It is interest that, as I stated, have to do with Al Qaida, a sworn enemy of the United States and the free world; it has to do with the possible spread of sectarian conflict in Iraq, conflict that had engulfed that country and had it on the bring of civil war; it has to do with region stability of a region that is of critical importance to the global economy; and it has to do with, certainly, the influence of Iran, another, obviously, very important element in that region.
In terms of what it is that we are trying to achieve, I think, simply, it is a country that is at piece with itself and its neighbors. It is a country that can defend itself, that has a government that is reasonably representative and broadly responsive to its citizens, and a country that is involved in, engaged in, again, the global economy.
Ambassador Crocker and I, for what it’s worth, have typically seen ourselves as minimalists. We’re not after the Holy Grail in Iraq, we’re not after Jeffersonian democracy; we’re after conditions that would allow our soldiers to disengage, and that is, in fact, what we are doing as we achieve progress, as we have with the surge, and that is what is indeed allowing us to withdraw the surge forces — again, well over one-quarter of our ground combat power, five of 20 brigade combat teams, plus two Marine battalions and the Marine Expeditionary Unit by the end of July.Ambassador Crocker and I, for what it’s worth, have typically seen ourselves as minimalists. We’re not after the Holy Grail in Iraq, we’re not after Jeffersonian democracy; we’re after conditions that would allow our soldiers to disengage, and that is, in fact, what we are doing as we achieve progress, as we have with the surge, and that is what is indeed allowing us to withdraw the surge forces — again, well over one-quarter of our ground combat power, five of 20 brigade combat teams, plus two Marine battalions and the Marine Expeditionary Unit by the end of July.
