From Fred Kaplan’s Slate column today on “What Congress needs to ask Petraeus and Crocker“:
A lot is being made of this quote, and as you can see above it is the only direct quote Kaplan produces. Biddle has argued against taking a middle path in Iraq, advocating either a push for victory or a complete withdrawal. So while Kaplan quotes him as saying that this is a “long-shot gamble,” it’s worth noting that Biddle thinks this is a gamble we should take. It’s also worth asking what exactly Biddle is talking about, since Kaplan offers no real context. I called Biddle and he explained that in order to achieve success, what he defines as “stability in the absence of large-scale violence,” the United States will need to maintain in Iraq “a credible force for a generation…until new leaders emerge.” This would be a peacekeeping force of roughly 100,000–Biddle said more would be preferable but unsustainable given the current end-strength of the U.S. military–which would be taking almost no casualties. The point of the force would be keep in check “a collection of very unstable rivalries with a capacity to open up violence.” “There will be spoilers,” he said, but by replicating the bottom-up success in Anbar, he does believe that success is possible. But he points to the short-term goal of achieving a nationwide ceasefire as the major hurdle to success–if that is achieved, than maintaining an effective American deterrent to renewed violence becomes a much more reasonable proposition. Kaplan makes it seem as though there is some dissonance between Biddle’s position and what he expects Petraeus to report to Congress, but I don’t see it. Maybe Petraeus would quibble with this or that point, but Biddle and Petraeus seem to be pretty much in line: both support the surge as a means to achieving a reduction in violence, both expect a drawdown if that is achieved (maybe to 100,000 troops?) and both expect that American forces will have to stay there for a long time to keep the peace. Do folks really believe that Petraeus will be saying something different–or that he will be lying if he does? Apparently some do–they’re wrong. Also, as an aside, Kaplan writes:
And later,
Just for the record, Ramadi is in Anbar.
