General Petraeus Confirmation Hearings Begin

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

ANNE FLAHERTY | May 22, 2008 08:59 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

Gen. David Petraeus testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, May 22, 2008, before the Senate Armed Services committee nomination hearing for his reappointment to the grade of general and to be commander of the U.S. Central Command. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

WASHINGTON — Gen. David Petraeus said Thursday he is likely to recommend further troop reductions in Iraq but won't promise more details until fall _ timing that plunges the four-star Army general into the heart of this year's presidential elections.

The fall assessment would come at a critical time in both American and Iraqi politics. U.S. voters likely will be deciding between a GOP candidate committed to keeping troops in Iraq as long as Petraeus and other ground commanders say is necessary, and a Democratic challenger who supports the immediate withdrawal of forces.

At the same time, Iraq will be headed into its much-anticipated provincial elections, which U.S. officials have described as a crucial step in building national reconciliation by increasing participation by the Sunni minority.

Petraeus said conditions on the ground will still dictate his decision. But by September, when he is slated to assume control of U.S. Central Command, "my sense is that I will be able to make a recommendation at that time for some further reductions," he said.

Petraeus cautioned that he was not implying that that means a particular brigade or major combat formation. "But I do believe there will be certain assets that, as we are already looking at the picture right now, we'll be able to recommend can be either redeployed or not deployed to the theater in the fall," he said.

In a speech at Fort Bragg, N.C., President Bush said progress in Iraq was undeniable and that "we are on our way to victory." He also said he looked forward to hearing what his generals would recommend, and he didn't tip his hand as to what he wants to hear.

"My message to our commanders is you will have all the troops, you will have all the resources you need to win in Iraq," Bush said at the Army base, where he was speaking to 17,000 paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division.

In recent months, Petraeus has helped to tame growing opposition to the war in Congress by providing measured assessments of progress and warning that an exodus of U.S. troops would result in chaos.

His unflappable style was on display again Thursday in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to confirm him for the Central Command post. The hearing was considerably less contentious than his past appearances on Capitol Hill and even came with an endorsement by the panel's chairman, Sen. Carl Levin, and Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Also receiving a warm reception was Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, expected to replace Petraeus as the top commander in Iraq. Odierno previously served 15 months in Iraq as Petraeus' deputy.

"Regardless how long the administration may choose to remain engaged in the strife in that country, our troops are better off with the leadership these two distinguished soldiers provide," said Levin, D-Mich.

Clinton, D-N.Y., thanked the generals for their "incredible leadership."

Petraeus has previously been reluctant to say when his next assessment of troop levels might be. This spring he recommended _ and Bush agreed _ to withdraw by July the 30,000 extra troops sent to Iraq last year as part of a major security push to blunt increasing sectarian violence.

In testimony last month, Petraeus said he needed a 45-day period of evaluation and then an indefinite period of assessment before he would recommend any further pullouts, holding his ground against Democrats demanding to know whether more withdrawals were possible before Bush leaves office in January.

Levin said Petraeus' more recent pledge to review troop levels by September was "good news to most of us."

On a less-optimistic note, Petraeus said it is unlikely that Iraqi security forces will take the lead in all provinces this year, as was recently predicted by the Defense Department. Petraeus said events in the past month and a half _ an allusion to the spike in violence in Basra _ have pushed that goal to 2009.

Provincial elections also are likely to be delayed by one month this fall, taking place in November instead of October, he said.

Odierno told the committee he did not anticipate a need to boost troop levels, even temporarily, in advance of the elections.

"I will never say never, but my assessment now is, with the progress we're making, the progress we're seeing in the Iraqi security forces, and what I'm seeing is the security environment on the ground, currently I do not believe we will need an increase," Odierno said.

Petraeus would replace Navy Adm. William Fallon as the senior commander of troops in the Middle East, which includes such troubled hotspots as Iran, Pakistan, Lebanon, parts of Africa and Afghanistan.

If confirmed, he said, one of his first trips would be to Pakistan, where U.S. officials say al-Qaida fighters are regrouping along the Afghan border.

"I think that the key need is to assess whether the overall concept that is guiding (operations) on the Pakistani side in particular, or course, is adequate or not," Petraeus said.

Clinton said she was concerned that not enough attention was being paid to the terrorist threat there, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world, including Africa.

"It has been the forgotten front lines in the war against terrorism. And we have allowed what was an initial success to, if not deteriorate, certainly stagnate," she said.

 
Comments
177
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next › Last » (4 pages total)

Did Gen. Petraeus comment on the possible impact of the recent series of fatwah issued by al-Sistani stating that it is fine to take up arms against the occupation forces. This brings his view in line with al-Sadr and should spell bad news for American forces in Iraq and have a negative impact on any troop withdrawal schedule. Frankly, we have heard too many light at the end of the tunnel claims already. Petraeus sounded like a politician rather than a General and that doesn't sit well with me.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:16 PM on 05/23/2008
photo

" I'll bet we're making "incredible progress" in Iraq, right, even though we will never leave and it's costing us $3 billion a week? You know how I know that? A little chimpanzee told me.
-------
Bush, November 2005: "Iraq is making incredible political progress."

Bush, October 2005: "Iraqis are making inspiring progress."

Bush, September 2005: "Iraq has made incredible political progress."

Bush, April 2005: "I believe we're making good progress in Iraq."

Bush, March 2005: "We're making progress."

Bush, September 2004: "We're making steady progress."

Bush, July 2003: "We're making progress. It's slowly but surely making progress."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:52 AM on 05/23/2008
photo

Ongoing changes "are gradually, but markedly improving the quality of Iraqi security forces," said Gen. David Petraeus, talking of "...areas where we see considerable success."
That was on June 28, 2004, and Petraeus was lying then just as he is lying now.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:50 AM on 05/23/2008
photo

We have known for years that "troop withdrawals" would be announced just in time for the fall 2008 election to give a lying PR boost the Republicans. What a filthy little shill Petraeus is.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:42 AM on 05/23/2008

In his testimony 5/22 General Petraeus correctly referred to the war in Iraq as "guerilla warfare". History reveals urban guerilla battles can"t be won by traditional military force alone. Instead, eliminating local support is the best means for successful control, since guerillas must depend on the cooperation of local populations to provide supplies and concealment. General Petraeus has directed some local counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq to accomplish this goal, but the U.S. lacks the necessary manpower to maintain these few successes. With its limited manpower and its time restraints, the only realistic alternative for the U.S. to eliminate popular support for the insurgents is by returning to the original intimidating shock and awe program through intense and unrelenting bombing of critical strongholds such as al Qaeda in Mosul and the Shiite militia of Sadr city in Baghdad, whilst continuing harassment on the ground. Air supremacy is the one advantage the Americans have in Iraq, and the Pentagon strategists made a serious mistake when they reduced U.S. troops to ground fighting. History also tells us that wars of attrition like Iraq are always won by the side with the greatest reserve manpower. Both the U.S. and Iraqi armies are finite in number and in time, whereas Muslim radicals have an inexhaustible supply of militants. If the United States really wants to win the war in Iraq, it must return to its original strategy, the chronic optimism of General Petraeus notwithstanding.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:58 AM on 05/23/2008
- loki I'm a Fan of loki permalink
photo

I hate to say it, but I am sure the Dumborats will confirm this puppet of the Decider. They are afraid they will be called unpatriotic. And the MIC really wants him because he follows orders. And for the MIC orders means , orders of weapons and such, or basically , raiding the tax payers coffers and filling theirs. Patraeus, and war, is good for business. So of course that is good for politicians on every side of the isle.
A whoring we will go, A whoring we will go, Hi Doe $$ on capital hill a whoring we will go.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:46 PM on 05/22/2008

Well, if you think any official, especially a general, is purposefully lying to the nation and you have no proof, well then, you are unpatriotic.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:34 AM on 05/23/2008

Umm, you know if a General (or any servicemember) is following orders, thats a good thing. As long as the order is lawful, then how exactly is he in the wrong? The General was given a mission and he's expected to carry out that mission.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:00 AM on 05/23/2008

Levin and Clinton: It is dispiriting to hear these two gush over Petraeus and Odierno's 'leadership.'
Hillary is a cheerleader, just like Bush. At least McCain is the authentic War Party candidate. Though that's not an enviable thing to be, at all.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:17 PM on 05/22/2008

For his abuse, iNo American should be in any doubt. The world is desperate for a change of tone and course from the US of George Bush. Nothing short of a revolution will do iprisonment and killing of children, this president should stand trial for war crimes.

To continue to portray Israel as uniquely vulnerable stretches credulity. Yes, crude Palestinian rockets can reach into Israel. But Israel's existence is well-established. It is one of the world's best-armed countries, with a massive nuclear arsenal and unwavering U.S. support. A growing number of Israeli intellectuals believe their state may soon implode by force of its contradictions and failures.


I say Bush"s behavior is criminal because since 1949, under the Geneva Conventions signed and adopted by the US, and incorporated into US law under the Constitution"s supremacy clause, children under the age of 15 are classed as "protected persons," and even if captured while fighting against US forces are to be considered victims, not POWs. In 2002, the Bush administration signed an updated version of that treaty, raising the "protected person" age to all those "under 18."

Treaties don"t mean much to this president, to the vice president, or to the rest of the administration, but they should mean something to the rest of us.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:19 PM on 05/22/2008

Petraeus is struggling with being linked -- artificially -- with the Bush Administration. However, very few are aware of his background as a counterinsurgency expert who had been warning the big muscle boys of General Frank's Central Command that their conventional war tactics had gone far beyond their point of usefulness to a state where they were actually creating conditions for the emergence of an Iraqi insurgency. No one would listen but all the while he and Ordierno established the most peaceful province in Iraq following the invasion. After several years of military fiasco, including the total destruction of Faluja twice by Frank's and Sanchez's stupidly high-testosterone cowboy artillery and heavy air strikes -- all of which turned the entire population against us -- the Pentagon finally relented and recommended that we give the counterinsurgency expert with two PhDs a chance -- David Petraeus.

Petraeus fully recognizes that we have little hope -- the population has been driven to the insurgency's open arms by an over-muscled campaign of destruction by Franks and Sanchez -- but he is giving his all to begin the process of pacification. In a counterinsurgency campaign, the number one goal is to win the population. That is almost impossible now in the wake of Rumsfeld and his cowboy commanders. I haven't a clue why this difference has not been explained to the American people -- perhaps more laziness and complacency by the press.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:45 PM on 05/22/2008
photo

Why doesn't the General arrest the traitorous president for all his lies.

Wouldn't that be patriotic

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:28 PM on 05/22/2008

How can anyone trust a Bush-Cheney handpicked general ? This guy only cares about his own promotions. He's a traitor to his men.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:02 PM on 05/22/2008

Syria with Nukes? Before you know it this administration will be accusing Tuvalu of developing a nuke program. All this from the Administration that cried "wolf" over Iraq! I wouldn't believe any of these guys if they were telling the truth, because, you see, they can't.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:32 PM on 05/22/2008

The truth to them is something that is very relative and really gets in the way of their larger goals. They have no respect for the truth or for government either, for that matter.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:38 AM on 05/23/2008
photo

Nooooks! Syria's got noooks! And it'll only take us six months after we take out Iran, which'll take about six months, by the way, to eliminate Syria's noooks!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:12 PM on 05/22/2008

More smoke and mirrors; more abrogation of all truth. ,,, and I swear I am not shallow....but what kind of man who has risen to his stature---capable of deciding the life and death of hundred of thousands, forget the millions included in the ripple effect... is so personally insecure he wears fake hair?????
U think this is not significant????????

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:08 PM on 05/22/2008
photo

This was an illegal and immoral invasion and occupation. There would be no war if the aggressors had not invaded, destroyed and occupied. Were the deaths of all those innocent people worth this criminal act? I think not. There should be war crimes trials and punishment.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:47 PM on 05/22/2008
- KBAR I'm a Fan of KBAR permalink
photo

That is exactly what Jefferson Davis told Robert Edward Lee to sway him to take command.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:08 PM on 05/22/2008
photo

To add to your comment:

At the end of the Civil war Davis advocated continuing the southern fight as a guerrilla conflict. He was opposed by Lee who ultimately believed that surrender and reconciliation were better than guerrilla warfare. (as per wikipedia)

July 1863 - Gettysburg: and the assessment of General Longstreet who strongly lobbied Robert E. Lee to redeploy the rebel forces south of the Union lines rather than fighting them from a tactically poor low-ground position. In addition, just before the Pickett's Charge assault on the last day, Longstreet estimated the losses of the assault and mathematically knew (based on ground, distance, and the troop strength), that the charge would be bloody and unsuccessful. General Lee, many historians suggest, failed to fully take into account Longstreet's misgivings and plowed ahead with unfortunate (for the Confederates) and deadly results. To Lee's credit, at the end of the war he opted to not disband the rebel army into insurgent units because he knew that insurgent warfare meant infinite warfare.

Yep. Had the president and Sean Hannity been around during the Civil War, Longstreet would've been labeled a cut-and-runner and Lee would've been labeled a quitter.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Lee (Bush), doing what he wanted to do, instead of heeding calculated estimations of others "in the know", moved forward with disastrous results.

Even Lee (and Bush 41) knew the costs of fighting insurgent warfare (...something that eludes Bush 43).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:37 PM on 05/22/2008
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next › Last » (4 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in  or  Connect