I first met General Petraeus when I was in Mosul in 2003, and have been impressed with him each time we have spoken. He is clearly the most capable commander we could have in Iraq and his counterinsurgency strategy has made modest but real improvements in the military situation, particularly in Sunni-dominated Anbar province. For that, every American should be grateful to General Petraeus and the heroic troops under his command.
But, as General Petraeus recognizes, the President’s escalation of our troop commitment to Iraq was centered on the goal of using our military to buy time for the Iraqis to build the trust and institutions necessary for rebuilding the country. Unfortunately, the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has shown no inclination towards reaching a political settlement with Sunnis that could allow national reconciliation to begin. In addition, the ranks of Iraq’s national police are riddled with Shiite militiamen, who are more interested in sectarian supremacy than in stabilizing their own country.
In the coming weeks we will need to reconcile General Petraeus' report with the less optimistic assessments of the Government Accountability Office and the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq.
While I am glad that General Petraeus announced his intention to begin in the coming weeks a gradual withdrawal of American combat troops, even under the best of circumstances he anticipates that we would not reach "pre-surge" levels until next summer. I also believe that the General left unanswered perhaps the most important question: In light of the lack of political progress, is the continued massive presence of American military forces in Iraq in our nation's best national security interest or would a redeployment of those forces better equip us to pursue al Qaeda and defend the country?