"Senators and distinguished guests, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify in respect of progress in the Battle of Iraq. Before I do however, there are a few things I'd like to get off of my chest. Although your house of Congress confirmed me as commander by a unanimous vote, some of you have made it a point to undermine me as I lead our soldiers in battle. Even as we are fighting the battle, some of you have declared it lost. That was also the plain meaning of the House and Senate resolutions passed in March and April, as we were fighting the war. You have sought to undercut my own report to you with the guess work of the General Accountability Office, an office that lacks professional intelligence analysts and access to the data of our military.
"So I would like to begin by asking you to stop all of this. Our country is at war, and I am reporting to you that the enemy views the Congress of the United States as a theater. When the enemy heard that you intend to end our military strategy irrespective of the outcome of the surge I was sent to lead, the enemy became emboldened and persuaded that he could wait us out. Our future allies, whom we are bringing over to Iraq's side against the terrorists every day, will waver or defect if they think there is a chance you here in Congress will call the soldiers home before we finish clearing and holding the provinces and neighborhoods.
"I commend those of you who have come to see me in Baghdad and toured Anbar province with me to see the war for yourself. It's no accident that many of the lawmakers who have made it out to Iraq have tempered their rhetoric, and I appreciate your honesty. I also share your concerns about the efficacy of the current national government. But I can assure you that any chance of national reconciliation will require our sustained fight against an enemy that abhors little so much as it abhors the idea of national reconciliation. We will need now to commit to securing the country at least for another national election.
"What I cannot countenance is for you today to commend my skill and bravery in Anbar and Baghdad and then tomorrow to hold votes on how futile this struggle is. So let me make this choice easy for you. I believe we have a good chance to drive Al Qaeda and Iran's network from Iraq and stand up in due time a functioning democracy in Baghdad. I am prepared, even eager, to command our forces in this battle — but only on one condition: That you signal that you share my goal of victory. If you think I am mistaken and wish to continue your efforts to undermine me, then I cannot command. Absent that signal, I will resign, effective immediately, and take my case to the voters in a run for the presidency on a campaign to finish the work of winning the war and redeeming the sacrifice of so many Iraqis, allies, and our own GIs."
* * *
That's the speech we'd like to see General Petraeus deliver to Congress on the sixth anniversary of the September 11 attacks. No doubt he has another speech in mind. For he understands that he stands a better chance of getting the support he needs from Democratic leaders in Congress if he gives them a chance to save face and reverse course. That chance is for Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid to tell the Democratic Party base that their victory at the polls in 2006 forced the president to change strategies. Today our soldiers are patrolling streets whereas a year ago they were cooped up in the bases. Today Sunnis have a stake in destroying Al Qaeda.
The Democrats could even claim that General Petraeus would not be in command today had it not been for Democratic gains in the mid terms. Secretary Rumsfeld, after all, is a man who punished General Petraeus after his first tour in Iraq by sending him to Fort Leavenworth. No doubt this kind of line will infuriate the hard left who only eight years ago was holding mock war crimes tribunals of President Clinton for his decision to stop Slobodan Milosevic. But to continue to appease this fringe has infuriated many other Americans, such as the commanders in Iraq who are fighting everyday for that country and our own.
Guy Soldier
With all due respect, the author of the Sun editorial did not know what he was talking about when he said "Secretary Rumsfeld, after all, is a man who punished General Petraeus after his first tour in Iraq by sending him to Fort Leavenworth."
Then Major General (two-star) Petraeus, left out of a successful command goes to Ft. Leavenworth KS to earn his third star and rank of Lieutenant General - hardly punishment.
He then returns to Iraq to organize the training and equipping of Iraqi forces, then those under his command lose accountability of over 190,000 AK 47s and over a half-million protective vests and helmets which the general then says is due to "clerical error." (See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/07/AR2007080701726.html) Petraeus said to Fox News: "Some percentage" of weapons the U.S. military provided to the Iraqi army and Iraqi police units were not tracked by serial number because there were no procedures in place to do so within the Iraqi units.
Reassuringly, he said "We occasionally likened it to building the world's largest aircraft while in flight and while being shot at," the general said. "But we gradually started putting those procedures into place."
He then is promoted to wearing his fourth star and put in charge of the Multinational Force-Iraq.