An Iraqi View on Patraeus

Petraeus told the truth but Crocker did not
By Fatih Abdulsalam
Azzaman, September 12, 2007
I am really impressed by the briefing Lt. Gen. David Petraeus gave to the U.S. Congress this week. The reason for my admiration and appreciation of his report is the accurate description he gave of the current conditions in Iraq.
Petraeus was frank, direct and to the point when he stressed three major repercussions for a swift U.S. pullout. He said:
1. If we withdraw Iraq’s government, police and army will collapse.
2. If we withdraw Iran will occupy Iraq.
3. If we withdraw the al-Qaeda with will fill the vacuum.
The U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker was not straightforward in his briefing. His testimony bordered on lying. His role was comparable to that of a false witness.
Petraeus was honest unlike the notorious former defense minister, Donald Rumsfeld and U.S. commander, Gen. Abuzaid, who overlooked the dangers an invading army might face in a new country.
While I underscore my appreciation of Petraeus’s report, I realize that there are many inside and outside Iraq who would harshly criticize such an attitude. But I could care less because we needed someone to tell the truth about what will happen if the U.S. suddenly decided to pull out.
Now I know these remarks might not appeal to the national Iraqi resistance, some neighboring countries, some militia groups and perhaps the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
Petraeus’s words summarize the whole of Iraq’s story. They say what exactly what is bound to happen in case U.S. troops are not there.
But Petraeus and his backers in the White House or the Congress must realize in the first place that the catastrophic consequences of a U.S. withdrawal were not there before the U.S. invasion.
Prior to the invasion, there was no Qaeda in Iraq; it was not possible for Iran to invade Iraq; and nobody imagined Iraq’s government, army and police would collapse.
But Ambassador Crocker was simply playing a double role as he wanted to fool both Iraqis and Americans. He was talking as if he was in a public relations party.
Crocker made mention of non-existent successes in diplomacy, ignoring facts on the ground and how neighboring states such as Turkey and Iran were even bombing border villages and towns.
Crocker was something like a false witness on the current situation in the country. He wanted to make the congressmen believe that there is no oppression of freedoms in Iraq and that the current suppression of individual and civil and human liberties is even worse than the time of former leader Saddam Hussein.
He even implicitly denied that sectarian killings were still going in the streets of Baghdad in an organized manner, backed by the Interior Ministry and government-sponsored militias.
All these are not at the legacies of the former regime, Mr. Crocker.
The choice of Crocker as an ambassador in Baghdad was yet another blunder by the U.S. administration as the country passes through really hard times. The U.S. should know that blunders like these might be lethal.
Crocker has revealed his cards at the right moment for the Iraqis and at the worst moment for the Americans.
LinkHere