Questioning Leadership in Iraq

It has been over four years since the U.S. offensive began in Iraq and still the challenges continue. Despite a constant American presence in the country and dramatic changes in military leadership (Franks, Abizaid, Sanchez, Casey, and now Patraeus), progress remains sluggish. At home, mounting disapproval of the war and rising pressure on U.S. politicians have signaled a need to outline a new strategy in Iraq. At the same time, many are hesitant to criticize the role of General David Patraeus in the ongoing conflict, especially the Bush administration. He has been both glorified and over-hyped by his peers and the media alike, perhaps because he has effectively regained control of the northern part of the country and is aiming at quelling violence in the south. However, a selected few have disagreed with the mainstream. They have asked if Patraeus is the best solution to the war. One of these individuals is Andrew Bacevich, professor of history and international relations at Boston University. In a recent article published in The New Republic, Bacevich highlights that while Petraeus may appear to bring definition to Operation Iraqi Freedom, his current strategy remains flawed. Bacevich notes the conflicting nature of Patraeus’ methods. One example embraced by the general is the impossible process of reconciliation in which the U.S. supports various factions in Iraq - Bacevich calls this agenda a formula for disaster akin to arming the Crips against their notorious gang enemy the Bloods. The article suggests that his timeline for the conflict may have skewed his ability to connect Washington. Ultimately, Bacevich explores Patraeus and his game plan in Iraq and questions the strategy of a leader in whom many have put their hopes.