Tuesday, April 8, 2008

'No Light at the End of the Tunnel'

It was a long day for everyone involved. Even as a mere spectator, fatigue kicked in early on. The first testimony was delivered before the Senate Committee on Armed Forces , chaired by Sen. Levin, D-Mich., and began at 9:30 am ET. After 4+ hours of grueling testimony and Q&A, Patraeus and Crocker had a roughly 25 minute break before appearing before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Again, the second testimony lasted over 4 hours, ending at roughly 6:45 pm ET.

Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker opened with their testimony, noting the successes of the surge. Following the firestorm of sectarian violence that plagued last summer (some of the worst months since the beginning of the war), the violence in Iraq has dropped as a result of last fall's 'surge.' Even amidst the military successes of the surge, roughly 40 American troops died per month during the period of the surge (not to mention the steady and much higher rate of Iraqi casualties). Gen. Petraeus noted repeatedly that the success in Iraq was "fragile, and reversible." After giving a breifing on the conditions in Iraq, Patraeus made his recommendation: a "pause" on troop withdrawals and followed by a reevaluation of the conditions in Iraq (the play it by ear strategy). Next Amb. Crocker delivered his remarks, reiterating many of the points touched on by Petraeus, but adding his intention to step-up diplomatic efforts. Then, the questioning began.

Sen. Levin opened the Q&A session. A senior Senator with a striking resemblance to Ben Franklin and the wits to match it, Levin didn't waste anytime getting to the crux of the matter (and neither did a protestor who was carried out by Capitol Hill police, repeatedly chanting, "Bring them home! Bring them home!"):



Right out of the gate, Gen. Petraeus set the tone for the day's responses: ambiguity. Petraeus and Crocker both seemed to suffer from two types of shortsightedness: 1) Their focus was largely on the success of the surge, recapping the last 6 months in Iraq, and they offered little to no insight as to what Iraq will look like going forward; what does "success" mean? And what conditions must be met for the US to begin significant troop withdrawals. 2) They look at Iraq in a vacuum with respect to the United States' limited resources and military priorities around the world. When asked pointedly about where Al-Qaeda posses a larger threat, in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region or Iraq, both Petraeus and Crocker eventually acknowledged that border region to be of greater military significance.

All three presidential candidates received the opportunity to question Petraeus and Crocker. Sen. McCain asserted that a rapid withdrawal of US troops would be “a failure of moral and political leadership.” While the Republican nominee referred to calls for withdrawal as "reckless and irresponsible," McCain had another reckless and irresponsible moment himself; once again dropping the ol' Shia-Sunni gaffe.

McCain's strongest supporters, Sen. Graham, R-S.C., and Sen. Lieberman, I-Conn., joined in the cheerleading of the surge's success. Many criticized the surge, acknowledging the military successes, but noting its severe failure to bring about any form of significant political reconciliation. Sen. Lieberman responded: "Let's be honest about this. The Iraqi political leadership has achieved a lot more reconciliation and progress since last September than the American political leadership has."

Follwing suit with Sen. McCain, Sen. Clinton used well over half of the alloted 7 minute questioning period as a political soapbox; effectively hijacking the opportunity to question the leading military general and diplomat to Iraq for her own political purposes.

Perhaps one of the most candid moments in all of the testimony came during Sen. Evan Bayh's, D-Ind., question session. When asked about the future of Iraq, Gen. Patreaus acknowledged, "We haven't seen any lights at the end of the tunnel." Watch the exchange here:



Appearing before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the only presidential contender yet to speak was Sen. Obama. Sen. Obama did not waste any time on an opening monologue, but he did take full advantage of Chairman Biden's lax time restraints.

The most impressive line of questioning came from the foreign policy guru, former presidential contender, and Chairman himself, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del.:


When all was said and done, it was clear: even those most in favor of prolonging our occupation of Iraq see "no light at the end of the tunnel." McCain, Petraeus, Crocker, Bush, and Cheney; not one of them can spell out the specific conditions that must be met in order begin significant troop withdrawal. Subsequently, not one of them can speculate on how long we will remain in Iraq.

At a time when we are losing ground in the battle against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, facing the largest budget deficit in decades, have troops serving 3rd, 4th, and even 5th tours of duty in Iraq with over 4,040 already dead, thousands more wounded, and NO END IN SIGHT, it boggles my mind how anyone can support the continuation of this hopeless mistake of a War.

(Not to mention, it already appears as if the "fragile" success is on the verge of "reversal.")

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thank you mje for getting us to the bottom line so succinctly. Great summary. Much appreciated. Thanks

Unknown said...

^^^agreed...Biden owns Crockers ass...he looked like a deer in the headlights

JW Frogen said...

Interesting take on the Patraeus testimony.

I, of course, disagree.

There is an end game, Bush has made that clear from day one.

When the “democratically” elected government of Iraq can defend itself from terrorists and anti democratic forces without significan US military support.

The surge has indeed brought this much closer. There is the dramatic reconciliation with the Sunni, the Anbar awakening, and now the Shia dominated government has moved against Shia Para-militaries, including Sadr. Revealing they feel much stronger since the surge, less fearful of Iran. Sadr’s response is revelatory. In just a few weeks of attack he negotiates, even offers some form of process to disband. (Though the latter will only happen if the threat of military force is maintained against him.)

He must feel weak when confronted with the strengthening Iraqi national forces.

To leave now, with this much progress would leave a failed state, Sunni Shia civil war, Iran as hegemony in the region, and far more aggressive exporting terror, in particular in relation to Israel.

It would force the Sunni to re-approach Al Qaeda, and it would re-invigorate Al Qaeda fighters everywhere with the clarion call that the US was driven out of the most important country in the region.

This would make the job in Afghanistan more difficult (no serious person believes the Democrats would take the reduced force structure from Iraq and apply it to Afghanistan, they do not have the stomach to fight anywhere.)

JW Frogen said...

Interesting take on the Patraeus testimony.

I, of course, disagree.

There is an end game, Bush has made that clear from day one.

When the “democratically” elected government of Iraq can defend itself from terrorists and anti democratic forces without significan US military support.

The surge has indeed brought this much closer. There is the dramatic reconciliation with the Sunni, the Anbar awakening, and now the Shia dominated government has moved against Shia Para-militaries, including Sadr. Revealing they feel much stronger since the surge, less fearful of Iran. Sadr’s response is revelatory. In just a few weeks of attack he negotiates, even offers some form of process to disband. (Though the latter will only happen if the threat of military force is maintained against him.)

He must feel weak when confronted with the strengthening Iraqi national forces.

To leave now, with this much progress would leave a failed state, Sunni Shia civil war, Iran as hegemony in the region, and far more aggressive exporting terror, in particular in relation to Israel.

It would force the Sunni to re-approach Al Qaeda, and it would re-invigorate Al Qaeda fighters everywhere with the clarion call that the US was driven out of the most important country in the region.

This would make the job in Afghanistan more difficult (no serious person believes the Democrats would take the reduced force structure from Iraq and apply it to Afghanistan, they do not have the stomach to fight anywhere.)