Questioning Petraeus: Squandered Opportunities, Longwinded Monologues

About halfway through the September 11 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing with General David Petraeus and Iraq Ambassador Ryan Crocker, Senator Barbara Boxer of California got her allotted seven minutes to ask questions.

She began by informing Petraeus and Crocker "I represent 37 million people" and that she spends much of her time informing her constituents of "my own views." She then told the witnesses that "this war is the biggest foreign policy mistake ever" and detailed why.

Boxer's "question" went on for 1275 words, and used up her entire seven minutes. She wrapped up by saying:

"My question is -- and I know I've run out of time, so I will have to take it in writing, but it's a very important one. Don Rumsfeld said no more than six months would this war last. How long will it take now that we've spent $20 billion and we've trained 350,000 Iraqis in counterinsurgency? When, General Petraeus, can they take over their own defense? Call me old-fashioned -- you have a country, you defend it."

No information was elicited. Nevertheless, Boxer issued a press release headlined "SEN. BOXER ASKS GEN. PETRAEUS TO TAKE OFF ROSE-COLORED GLASSES AND FACE REALITIES IN IRAQ" and posted prominently on the front page of her website a link to a video of her "question" under the heading, "Senator Boxer Asks General Petraeus to Face Realities in Iraq."

In theory, the purpose of a congressional hearing is to find out information to guide policy-making. In reality, as those who have suffered through such sessions know, the purpose all-too-often is for politicians to tell witness and television cameras what they think, with little or no acquisition of information.

Cross examination at congressional hearings requires extensive research and careful planning, especially when dealing with sophisticated witnesses who are skilled at remaining technically truthful while revealing little.

Some members of the Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee did press for answers, using short, tough questions.

The questioning by the four Democratic presidential candidates in the Senate -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Chris Dodd -- produced mixed results.

Story continues below

advertisement

Perhaps the most discomfiting was Obama who, after talking for 1,181 words and using up all his time, asked a question that had already been raised more than once:

SEN. OBAMA: And if we're there at the same place a year from now, can you please describe for me any circumstances in which you would make a different recommendation and suggest it is now time for us to start withdrawing our troops? Any scenario? Any set of benchmarks that have not been met?

AMB. CROCKER: Senator, I described for Senator Sununu a little bit ago some of the things that I think are going to be very important as we move ahead.

SEN. OBAMA: Can you repeat those? And I know I'm out of time.

Hillary Clinton combined a long, 858-word statement with two modestly revealing questions. One required Petraeus to reaffirm his position that he would be "hard-pressed" to call for the continued presence of a large troop contingent if there were no change in Iraq a year from now; the other allowed Crocker to reiterate a policy of trying to engage other nations in and outside the Middle East region to find solutions to the Iraq war.

Dodd, in turn, quoted a wounded soldier in Walter Reed Hospital who said "'Look, the civilian population,...they know where the IEDs are, they know where the ammo dumps are; they won't share that information with us'... [Are] his views commonly held views about the cooperation from the Iraqi population?"
Petraeus replied, "you can walk around the map, and you could say, looking at it, literally, this is where they'll help you, this is where they won't. The fact is that we are getting a lot more help. I mean, that's the only explanation for the fact that we now have 4,400 weapons caches."

Biden, who is known for a tendency to talk, and talk, long into the night, in fact asked a series of short, to-the-point questions, including:

SEN. BIDEN: Is it not true that the fundamental purpose of the surge, the primary purpose -- political settlement -- has not been met at this point?

AMB. CROCKER: Sir, clearly we do not have a national level of political settlement. It also, I think, is no way reasonable to expect that a surge that reached its full strength just in the middle of June --

And

SEN. BIDEN: If in fact the circumstances on the ground are exactly what they are today in March of next year, will you recommend the continuation of somewhere between 130,000 and 160,000 American troops being shot at, killed and maimed every day there?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Mr. Chairman, I -- that's a pretty big hypothetical --

SEN. BIDEN: Well, I don't think it's hypothetical if they're to stay.

GEN. PETRAEUS: I would be very hard-pressed to recommend that at that point in time.

At the same time, Biden, unlike the other Democratic presidential candidates, had one big advantage: as chairman, he alone could make an opening statement before cameras that did not count against his 7 minute question time. He did so for 1,681 words.

Of course, the number of questions asked does not guarantee that either the queries or the responses add much to the debate. Some of the slowest softballs of the hearing were pitched by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama):

SEN. SESSIONS: Well, I think that's important. There's no one area of that country that's exactly like another area.

GEN. PETRAEUS: That's correct.

SEN. SESSIONS: Each one has to be treated differently. Does it not?

GEN. PETRAEUS: That is correct, sir.

SEN. SESSIONS: And you had that complexity in mind as you developed this strategy. I think it does give us cause for belief that we can make progress. General Petraeus, when your came before us in January before you went to Iraq, you had told me previously that no matter what happened, you would tell the Congress the truth. I asked you that that morning, and you committed to tell the American people the truth as you see it. Have you to the best of your ability told this Congress the truth about the situation in Iraq today?

GEN. PETRAEUS: I have, yes, sir.

SEN. SESSIONS: And General Petraeus, in your opinion, is a circumstance in which -- in your opinion, is this effort in Iraq such that we cannot be successful, that we would be putting more effort in a losing cause if we continue it? Or in your opinion, do we have a realistic chance to be successful in this very important endeavor?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Sir, I believe we have a realistic chance of achieving our objectives in Iraq.

If Sessions put them chest high over the center of the plate, Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia held the ball motionless right in front of the witnesses so that it was impossible to miss:

SEN. ISAKSON: So this is really a recommendation for a way forward to reduce American involvement in combat, increase the involvement of the Iraqi troops, and have an oversight, an overwatch if you will, of those operations by American troops. Is that correct?

GEN. PETRAEUS: That is correct, sir.

SEN. ISAKSON: And the -- and you can't put a timetable on it, because none of us ever can. But certainly we're in reach or in sight of some of those significant goals that were established five years ago that would then trigger the ability to make some of those reductions.

GEN. PETRAEUS: That's correct.

Senator John Warner (R-Va.), who is now on the fence in terms of supporting or opposing the administration, used short, pointed questions to elicit the most striking response of the hearing:

SEN. WARNER: Are you able to say at this time, if we continue what you have laid before the Congress here as a strategy, do you feel that that is making America safer?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq.

SEN. WARNER: Does that make America safer?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Sir, I don't know actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind.

Comments

[conwisdom]

You are spot on. There are windbags on both sides. The whole point of the exercise in not about questions: they are on camera and are playing to the constituents back home. They have staff help. Why don't the senators get together and assign a set of questions about aspects of the topic to elicit information. That will be fair to those appearing before the Senate. One can ask about casualties, another about troop welfare, yet a third on US-Iraq forces co-operation on the ground, etc

The House with its 5 min rule ensures that nothing serious ever gets asked and answered.

Why not designate three on each side and give them the allotted time so that sunbstantial issues can be discussed, followed up, clarified.

No: windbags will not allow that. There are enough on both sides that the hearings will continue to be a Washington joke.

[readerOfTeaLeaves]

More likely, outdated rules from earlier centuries won't allow it. A good questioner can get around the rules, but it requires good preparation -- which requires time.

[BuckarooBanzai]

As anyone who has ever organized a large business meeting knows, this is the result of piss-poor planning and no strategy.

This one should have been easy. Don't go after the man, go after the facts. Don't call Patreus (Bush) a liar, prove he's a liar with tough short questions.

Why didn't the Dems prepare? Why won't the Dems develop a coherent strategy for dealing with Bush and co.? and stick to it?

Unfortunately the simplest answer is that the Washington Dems deep down don't want to end this war. They just want pin it on the Republicans, take power, and continue on the same course.

[readerOfTeaLeaves]

Bingo!

Excellent comment.
On a very fine, much needed topic.

[fearwig]

As for Petraeus: He's a soldier. He's the President's man, by definition, and while he won't purjure himself (unless necessary), he will manipulate the facts to meet the end he sees as right.

Why is anyone in Congress expecting objective testimony from this man? Why are you holding him up to that standard? MoveOn was shamefully juvenile--not quite incorrect, just stupid. Petraeus has done his job as he sees it, it just so happens that we were damned fools enough to pretend to expect some kind of valuable information from an automaton.

[wayoutleft]

you think questions like this are some kind of mistake? they are all designed to get the brass frog show over asap with the least fuss possible. the whole premis is that the military, not congress, is really making decisions, i.e., the GOP has destroyed civilian control over the military and the democrats are ratifying that. so the war is now permanent in all conceivable electoral outcomes.

[fearwig]

If you notice a lack of substance, you have someone to blame besides the people you helped to elect. America is addicted to showman politicians, and the sad thing is that they're usually not even very good showmen. True conviction is being seen as a weakness, as some kind of stigma. Not only does this give us watery politicians; it waters down the politicians that started out great.

In other words: If we want to hear substantial arguments--real questions, that is, not essays--from our legislators in these settings, we need to let them know that we don't need them to tell us where they stand, we need them to *show* us where they stand. The state of American politics is such that I don't think they have any reason to believe this is so.

[Newsaroo]

Yup, these democrats are pathetic and liberals keep voting for them. So, what else is new?

[NoPCZone]

Petraeus is a political General and anyone expecting anything other than the party line was being foolish.

From the day Rummy stepped in at DoD, he took a very active hand in the selection of senior commanders and the promotion to Flag (General/Admiral) rank. He also took it out heavily upon the US Army, from Army CoS Shinseki on down.

His actions accomplished two things:
1- He made sure that those who drank the NeoCon Kool-Aid advanced at the expense of those who spoke their mind.
2- It sent a clear message that opposing the NeoCon agenda would cost an individual their career and any further advancement.

After all of this time virtually every senior commander has been promoted to or within the Flag ranks under Rummy's tenure. Every major command appointment was made during this time frame and under his process. That leaves our senior military leadership ranks full of yes-men and careerists afraid to speak up at the critical time.

What rarely gets mentioned in the press is that Petraeus was advanced in rank rapidly over a large contingent of more senior Generals. His assignment to a unified major command at 4 star rank without any command experience beyond that of a Divisional Commander is unusual. Read into that what you will. I see Al Haig all over again.

[MalgreLui]

I listen to a lot of CSPAN every day. There is so much ridiculous grandstanding in these hearings, by both sides. So little real work ever gets done.

[JimGroom]

They are all full of shit and the American people know it, but it makes no difference. The 'owners' of this country will do whatever they want and the rest of us will be stuck, as usual, with the results.

I, for one, will be voting for the Republican for president and Demos for everything else. The entire Bush plan is to get out of Dodge leaving the fuckup for the next president to solve. They assume that president will be a Democrat, in fact they are counting on it, and when that president gets out of Iraq they can spend the next couple of decades crying about the Demos let the nation down and did not give the 'surge' enough time.

If enough Demos vote for the Repug that canard will not come to pass, but the war will end and the fault will be placed where it belongs.
I know it sound stupid, but these days what does not?

[TheQuestion]

I have seen congressional hearings on TV and I really wish those people would learn how to ask a direct question. Nobody wants to hear them talk - we want to hear answers.

[watchingthings]

The best thing to do would be to forget Petreaus, Bush, Cheny, Condi,and go for a third party. Both Republicans and Democrats are working in tandem to keep Bush's war going. Congress just passed a bill to increase deficit spending. I hope that the Democrats have not [behind our backs] made a deal with the Republicans to start a war with IRAN.

[noamjunior]

until the dems have enough pull in congress to pass legislation over bush (they don't now)
your criticism is hollow

[imusintheevening]

Bloomberg/Hagel promoted by General Clark for Sec. of Defense coming soon to the campaign.

[starislon]

None of the cars, trucks, planes, candidates, or killing machines, will run without oil.

Is there an Amish party somewhere?

[ZsaZsa]

I would have kept it nice and simple:

General, how much death is enough for you and your boss? If 10,000 troops are killed, will you admit failure and pull out? Or will you wait until 20,000 are killed? Or 50,000? Or 100,000?

Is it possible that we could be fighting this war for the rest of our lives? How depressing does that sound to you?

[DasBoot]

How about a few questions like:

How do we expect to win the Iraqi hearts and minds if we have 180,000 private contractors in the country who are immune from prosecution by Iraqi authorities AND exempted from military rules of engagement?

Ambassador Crocker, do you recommend rescinding order no. 17 of the CPA and give the Iraqi government real autonomy?

[watchingthings]

General Petraeus, please tell us the truth. What you tell the people of the united states of america is the truth, or is it something you say so you can run for President on the Republican ticket in 10 years?