July 9, 2007; Page A15
This week, Democrats on Capitol Hill are expected to present several different bills meant to undermine the war in Iraq. I fear that it will be difficult for Americans to discern the facts, as members on the Hill (including some Republicans) will revisit past failures and lament unfortunate losses rather than undertake a serious critique of the new counterinsurgency strategy.
Why? Because for some members of Congress, there is a growing fear that Gen. David Petraeus just might have a winning strategy in Iraq.
Despite four years of failed policy, the strategy we have in Iraq today is sound, both in principle and in practice, as my combat tour in Iraq confirmed. Gen. Petraeus is bringing safety and stability to Baghdad and Anbar Province, putting insurgents on the run. Now it's a question of whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and wobbly Republicans will give him the time and resources he needs. So, before the debate reconvenes, I thought a brief refutation of the top four Iraq falsehoods would be instructive:
Fact: The surge is just beginning. All of the brigades Gen. Petraeus requested have only been in place since mid-June and already there are promising indicators. Since January, sectarian murders are substantially down, arms caches are being found at three times the rate of last year and young Sunnis and Shiites are joining the Iraqi security forces in record numbers.
Fact: Sen. Reid often quotes Gen. Petraeus to support his position that the war is "lost." But a fair survey of Gen. Petraeus's remarks confirms that he believes the U.S. military must set the conditions for political progress. The ultimate solution to Iraq's problem is political reconciliation, which can only come with the improvements in security the surge is designed to achieve.
Fact: Gen. Petraeus's mission is called the Baghdad Security Plan for a reason: Its limited aim is to pacify Iraq's capital and center of gravity, thereby shifting the country's balance of power. The strategy is for U.S. and Iraqi forces to clear multiple insurgent safe havens in and around Baghdad at once to prevent insurgents from relocating, then to maintain security by remaining within the communities and building trust with the locals who were being intimidated by Sunni insurgents and Shiite militiamen.
Fact: America's enemies are invested in our defeat in Iraq. Al Qaeda leaders like Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri say they want to "expel the Americans from Iraq" and establish a "caliphate" to "extend the jihad to the secular countries neighboring Iraq." These killers are intent on spreading their violent ideology, and believe stoking sectarian violence is the best way to achieve their goals. Al Qaeda may only make up 10% of the insurgency in Iraq, but what they lack in numbers, they make up for in lethality. Gen. Petraeus has said that "80 to 90% of suicide bombers are foreign fighters," and by neutralizing them, we could stomp out the low-level civil war.
In light of these facts, our country faces an important decision: listen to David Petraeus and the generals in Iraq, who believe we finally have a winning strategy that will take time to execute, or bow to the political demands of Republicans and Democrats in Congress who are more interested in avoiding defeat in their home districts than defeating al Qaeda & Co. in Iraq.
Gen. Petraeus promised a candid report in September. Until then, for the same senators who unanimously confirmed him and his counterinsurgency strategy in January to undercut his efforts is extremely irresponsible, and exposes how quickly war-time leadership can transform into election-season pandering.
Mr. Hegseth, a first lieutenant in the Army National Guard and executive director of VetsforFreedom.org1, served in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division from September 2005 to July 2006.