General Petraeus: "We Haven't Turned Any Corners. We Haven't Seen Any Lights At The End Of The Tunnel"

The top American Commander in Iraq told two separate Congressional committees Tuesday that the progress touted by the Bush Administration was "fragile and reversible," the New York Times reports:

The commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, refused under persistent questioning from Senate Democrats to say under what conditions he would favor new troop reductions, adding that he would not take the matter up until 45 days after a current drawdown is complete in July. His recommendation would leave just under 140,000 American troops in Iraq well into the fall.

The hearings lacked the suspense of last September's debate, when the focus was on measurable benchmarks and heightened expectations of speedy troop withdrawals.

But they thrust the war to the center of the presidential campaign, as General Petraeus faced questioning from the two Democrats and one Republican still vying for the White House. He told them that progress in Iraq had been "significant and uneven."

The general's tone was notably sober, and despite an intensified American military campaign over the past 15 months, he acknowledged: "We haven't turned any corners. We haven't seen any lights at the end of the tunnel."

Keep reading.

---

Click here for complete and updated coverage of Tueday's Iraq War hearings.

---

Click Here For Videos Of The Hearings

Comments

[kid5rivers]

I disagre! Many corners have been turned. It's just that around each one of them there awaited some Iraqi "insurgents" ready to deal lethal blows at the American force.
Same thing, mutatis mutandis, applies to the light at the end of the tunnel thingy.

[the Etruscan]

Yes. And the fact that most Sunni's no longer view al Qaeda as the of lesser of two evils, compared to the Americans, is a significant corner turned (needless to say, secular Baathists have always been natural enemies of the likes of al Qaeda--it was always a marriage of convenience).

It just irks me to hear ppl lump the surge (aka counterinsurgency strategy) together with Rumsfeld's campaign of blind, knee-jerk reactions. Petraeus is doing the opposite of that, atoning for Rumsfeld's sins. All they're doing, in the long run, is allowing Bush to use Petraeus to salvage a truly FUBAR record.

[the Etruscan]

Sure, I'm confidant that personal and sectarian vendettas will evaporate like the morning dew the minute US forces pull their thumb out of the dyke. Yes, I know civil wars are historically the worst kind, for cruelty and venality, but somehow the Iraqis will transcend human nature and work out their differences equitably, without resorting to force, even in a power vacuum. In any event, I'm not responsible for whatever happens over there, Bush is.

[NU81]

I remember that when Bush was thinking about invading Iraq that politically active actress saying something like this on TV over and over again: "If America does this unilaterally, we are doomed. We're DOOMED." Everyone thought she was so radical and no one paid attention to her; after all, she's just an actress, not a person, not intelligent. How ironic.

[VSamuels]

The Bush administration's policy in Iraq has essentially never changed from its initial policy of 'Stay the Course.' They have put alot of new names and explanations on this policy, but they are doing the same thing they have always done, with a unique twist of actually bringing in more troops and keeping the ones there longer. When one watched Petraeus yesterday, one saw someone who has agreed to accept the job of carrying out a policy that has basically no chance of succeeding.

When Patraeus could not answer or frame for both the republican and Democrat leaders what constituted the circumstances where we could leave, it was clear he was told not to answer such a question because, this administration does not ever intend to leave. Patraeus has already seen what occurs to folks in the Bush administration who actually have the temerity to answer with straight answers. This was a boon for the MSM, but it was another loser for the American people who might have expected this current administration of really trying to end this conflict.

Bush and Cheney are the ones who should have been in the hot seat, not their surrogates who are sent there to cover up and mask their lies.

[wmbear]

OH, I SEE A LIGHT A THE END OF THE TUNNEL! It's an oncoming train and what we're about to get is therefore a train wreck....

[Newmoney]

The US must allow Iraq go through a civil war otherwise they will never understand the meaning of a sovereign nation.

The troops should not be interfering with any fight between shiites and sunnis.

They should allow them kill themselves for AT LEAST A WEEK before interfering.

[bobo209]

Last month, the House amended the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to expand the government’s ability to monitor our private communications. This measure, if it becomes law, will result in more warrantless government surveillance of innocent American citizens.
The Emerging Surveillance State..fre­eedumb n moceryy people..

[ErikW65]

Sen. Dodd: patriotic defender of the Constitution. Sen. Reid: pusillanimous Constitutional derelict

[bobo209]

Tell me lies tell more lies..He needs new set of glasses..l­ight my fire.what a fraud..

A confidential draft agreement covering the future of US forces in Iraq, passed to the Guardian, shows that provision is being made for an open-ended military presence in the country.ha­llelujahSe­cret US Plan for Military Future in Iraq

The draft strategic framework agreement between the US and Iraqi governments, dated March 7 and marked "secret" and "sensitive", is intended to replace the existing UN mandate and authorises the US to "conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security" without time limit.

The authorisation is described as "temporary" and the agreement says the US "does not desire permanent bases or a permanent military presence in Iraq". But the absence of a time limit or restrictions on the US and other coalition forces - including the British - in the country means it is likely to be strongly opposed in Iraq and the US.

Iraqi critics point out that the agreement contains no limits on numbers of US forces, the weapons they are able to deploy, their legal status or powers over Iraqi citizens, going far beyond long-term US security agreements with other countries. The agreement is intended to govern the status of the US military and other members of the multinational force.hehe­heh

[ErikW65]

Sen. Clinton got at this when she asked Gen. Petraeus about the "long term" arrangements that he was making for Basra proir to Maliki's backfiring ultimatum, and whether the SOFA treaty would be brought to Congress (as the US Constitution requires.)

[wedgie]

By attacking Iraq, Bush has bogged us down in a country whose potential threat was throughly contained prior to the war. He has destabilized the region, and created a massive job fair for Al Queda, Hezzbolah and all other previously marginalized radical political sects.
ALSO;
1) Bush has exhausted our military resources
2) drained our treasury
3) and destroying our foreign alliances
4) While allowing the Taliban to run free in Afghanistan.
5) Did I mention Pakistan is going to fall apart (They have nukes)
6) And that crazy bastard in North Korea has been given a walk for seven years?

THAT IS WHY WE ARE MUCH LESS SAFE.

**

[scooperss]

We haven't seen any lights at the end of the tunnel."

But by God, we're gonna keep sending soldiers in to look for it.

[ron071]

Bush/Cheney finally found the military yes man they have long been seeking. His reward will be soon forthcoming. The dividing line between the military and politics has now been accomplished by the same folks who wiped out many of of other constitutional lines of separation. Bush can't leave office too soon. If his chosen successor ( McCain ) is elected if will have to be another Florida or Ohio fix.

[ErikW65]

Petraeus will get the same Medal of Freedom that George "Slam Dunk" Tenet received for his part in enabling Bush.

[fourex]

General Petraeus: "We Haven't Turned Any Corners. We Haven't Seen Any Lights At The End Of The Tunnel"

General, you won't see any lights with your head up his ass, Adm Fallon.

[realpolitic]

As Senator Kennedy said, we were told last year we could not leave because there was too much violence and now we are told we can not leave because violence is down. Bring the troops home!

[nyboomer]

Iraq is a lose-lose situation and we are both sides of that equation.

[ErikW65]

Since winning in Iraq would alow us to withdraw, but Petraeus and Crocker don't see any circumstances in which it would be possible to remove our "Troopers," aren't they the ones who only see defeat in Iraq?

Maybe that's why Gen. Odom has said that "victory is not an option" in Iraq. Even the people in charge in Iraq don't see a path to it.

[curmudgeon3]

General Betray-Us is convincingly playing the role of the "good soldier", representing the leadership that remains after all others with a conscience, intelligence, or both have been terminated by the Bubble Boy and Darth Cheney.
His mission: To continue kicking the can down the road until the current administration's term has expired (assuming that this actually occurs). In that way, the Chimpy and his groupies can claim that they were winning when he left office and that any final "loss" will be the fault of his successor.
Final note about not having seen any lights at the end of the tunnel -- If Betray-Us were to remove his blinders, the "lights at the end of the tunnel" would be clearly visible and if he were to remove his earplugs, he would hear the unmistakable sound of an oncoming train, which leaves two options: 1) Wait and become a hood ornament for the lead locomotive or 2) Get out of the tunnel. Perhaps the citizens of this country and lemmings share far more in common than previously thought.

[EspritDeVoltaire]

Au contraire, I've thought the citizenry, as well as Congress, and lemmings were virtually indistinguishable ever since the war drums started beating in 2002. Just look at the trolls here at HuffPo, they all appear to have craniums the size of rodents don't they?

[wedgie]

THE DECISION to INVADE IRAQ will go down in HISTORY as the BIGGEST STRATEGIC MISTAKE in the HISTORY OF US WARFARE.

**

[nyboomer]

Wait till the Iran adventure begins and reassess. That one will the end of the GOP.

[Neocon187]

So long as it's not the republicans who write the US warfare history.

"Most of writing history is covering up the truth."
-Nathan Fillion, from the movie Serenity.

[MadeinAmericaProud]

History is being written everyday. You can google it, Youtube it Myspace it, Facebook it Ask Jeeves it, Ask it, yohoo it Huffpost their achieves too. Even if the extreme right wing right all of these site will keep them in line to a degree. Just ask Mrs. Clinton (the old baby boomer who is ready day one)the reminder of her sniper fire trip. The history reminder helped her remember she didn't do so well.

[Troubledgoodangel]

Iraqi adventure is not "warfare." Let's call apples apples! The U.S. Army is acting out a the role of ducks, sitting for the marksman to shoot them. This is a situation where special forces and commandos are required, not an army ... except if the army goes for a bloody victory. It appears that the Shiite ayatollahs count on that the Americans have no stomach for such a victory, and that they would rather keep posing as sitting ducks ad infinitum! America cannot sit idle for ever! If therefore my analysis is correct, then the Iraqi government must be pressed on three benchmarks: the disarmament of the Mahdi "marksmen"; the massive rebuilding of infrastructure with petroleum profits, and the oil-sharing measure, for reconciliation! When I say "pressing," I mean a massive pressure and ultimatums to the government of al-Maliki, not cat -and -mouse kind of game!

[connorin]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080409/D8VUB9AO3.html

It appears that its the DEMS that want to flip flop...you always said no blood for oil...well­, we haven't getting getting oil out of Iraq...but now it appears the DEMS want to make sure that the Iraqis pay for our blood with their oil...so at your next protest, be sure you have a sign saying we demand oil for blood, just like the DEMS in Congress asked for!

[realpolitic]

Yes, ignore the violence and chaos that is Iraq and concentrate on a reasonable question if whether at this point we should not be reimbursed for our efforts. That is the truest kind of selective outrage. Does Fox News teach you guys these silly tactics?

[Neocon187]

Wait minute: it was the Bush and his cronies who first claimed that the Iraq invasion wouldn't cost anything because they would use the Iraqis' oil to pay for it. So after $1 Trillion and counting, you're comming up with this lame attempt to make it into the democratic party's fault?

If ignorance isn't strength: why are there republicans?