The man who owns 2008 (Nope, not Obama. It's Petraeus)

News & Observer ^ | Dec. 31, 2008 | Rick Martinez

[saganite]

Barack Obama is a lock as the Man of the Year. His election to the presidency is the story of the year. If popularity is the measure, those choices are hard to contest.

However, if significance is the yardstick, then the 2008 crown goes to Gen. David Petraeus, former commander of coalition forces in Iraq and current head of CENTCOM. Not only is his defeat of the Iraqi insurgency the story of the year, how he achieved it is the most underreported story of the year.

I didn't come to this conclusion by comparing achievements. I compared the consequences of failure had either man fallen short of his stated goal.

If Obama had lost the presidency, the milestone of electing a black man to the White House would only have been delayed, possibly by just four years. Had Petraeus failed to rescue the coalition from the precipice of defeat, the catastrophic repercussions would have been numerous and far-reaching.

They include a probable civil war that would have claimed thousands of Iraqi lives. Iran would have emerged unchecked as the Middle East's most dominant power. And defeat would have defined American foreign and military policy for decades to come, just as it did after the fall of Saigon in 1975.

Thanks to Petraeus, Iraq isn't a major problem for the new president. The security and political gains provided by the surge are practically irreversible. Al-Qaida in Iraq is operationally dead. Muqtada al-Sadr has shown himself militarily impotent and politically incompetent. Sunni militias, including the famed Sons of Iraq, are now transferring from coalition to Iraqi army control. By tomorrow, 76 percent of Sons of Iraq members will be under Iraqi jurisdiction in four key provinces, including Diyala.

The only real threat to the continued evolution of Iraqi democracy would be a premature withdrawal of U.S forces. President-elect Obama needs to talk to retired Gen. Eric Shinseki, his nominee to head Veterans Affairs, about the perils of having too few troops on the ground to accomplish the job.

A strong, democratic Iraq will be vital to Obama in confronting Iran. Today, Iran doesn't face a credible military threat. The U.S. lacks the manpower or bases to do much beyond launching air strikes. The same holds true for Israel. Ironically, the only real military deterrent to Iran's interests, including acquiring or using nuclear weapons, could be Iraq.

Retired Gen. Jack Keane recently told the American Enterprise Institute that in short order the Iraqi military will be able to handle its own internal security and can turn its attention to defending the nation from outside threats. Historically, Iran has been one of those threats. I doubt that will change.

A strong, democratic Iraq could also provide an economic counterbalance to the oil influence exerted by Saudi Arabia. Ranking right up there with the discovery that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction was the surprise that he had neglected Iraq's oil infrastructure and allowed it to deteriorate into considerable disrepair. With the inevitable modernization and investment that have just begun, some oil analysts are predicting that, given today's exploration and extraction technology, Iraq's oil reserves could rival and possibly exceed those of the Saudis.

When these advantages materialize, we will be indebted to Petraeus. However, the most significant lesson to be learned from his and his troops' success in 2008 might be the hardest for the Obama administration to learn, given the nomination of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. That lesson is that unilateral military action is far more effective than multilateral diplomacy.

Africans are dying in the Sudan because of the ineffectiveness of multilateral diplomacy. Iran strengthened its nuclear capability while at the same time negotiating containment with the European Union. A lack of commitment by NATO countries allowed Afghanistan to spiral down to the verge of becoming a lawless state.

Guess who has been called in to rescue Afghanistan? It's not the blue helmets of the United Nations.

It's the cowboys of the U.S. military and my choice for 2008 Man of the Year, CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus.

[tarheelswamprat]

It's the cowboys of the U.S. military and my choice for 2008 Man of the Year, CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus.

From time to time I find myself pondering the parallels of our own time with that of Rome. I fear that General Petraeus is probably our own Flavius Aetius...

[WOSG]

“The more I look at Obama the more I see a man unable to make real decisions on partial information. “

Obama has not made a single serious difficult decision in his life, save the decision to actually run for President, which was hardly a risky move for young man in a safe senate seat. He has no executive experience worthy of note.

I too doubt his executive abilities, but time will tell:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2157137/posts?page=5

Lincoln was consequential, but he did a good thing - save the union. Bush wont rise to that, but Bush did rise to an amazing thing - he alone persevered in Iraq when the rest fo DC save a few souls (like McCain) were ready to throw in the towel. That alone merits a mark a greatness. Greatness that will not be credited by those who wrote the Iraq war as a fiasco.

Liberals love to make BHO be the next JFK, FDR, or LBJ. Comparisons with LBJ and FDR are not flattering. FDR was also consequential, but lengthening the great depression was a demerit not a good thing. Both men were disasters to America.