Webb And Petraeus Square Off Over Iran Diplomacy (VIDEO)

Spencer Ackerman, writing for the Washington Independent highlights two key portions of today's confirmation hearings for Generals David Petraeus and Ray Odierno, fueled by tenacious questioning from Democratic Senator Jim Webb, who continues to be a firm source of well-informed, yet softly stated pushback to the administration's foreign policy follies.

Webb went back and forth with Odierno, working to pin him down on what the "endpoint" of the military mission in Iraq was supposed to resemble and what conditions could precipitate the end of our occupation. Via Windy:

Webb isn't satisfied. But what does U.S. military mission in iraq look like, even if those conditions are met? "It'll adjust over time. We'll have less and less responsibility for drect combat... Over time, we'll change to advisory missions." But how long will that take? "It's unknown... I think that's a policy decision, how long we'd want to have contact with the Iraqi government in future."

But what's the endpoint? Say U.S. meets all these conditions. Should there be a continued U.S. presence there? "That's a discussion... for policy." Webb won't let it go! What do you think, Gen. Odierno? Will there be a need for the U.S. military in Iraq if those conditions are met? "I do not." Finally.

Now that's how an adult asks a question.

Then he turned to Petraeus, skeptically critiquing the general's use of the word "malign" as a means of describing "Iranian influence," and asked the general, "Would you agree that historically one of the realities we have do deal with is some sort of Iranian influence in the region?" Petraeus agreed, offering the caveat that he's hope such influence would be "constructive."

WEBB: General Petraeus, there's some language in response to questions that were submitted to you for the record that go to Iran that I would like to get some clairifcation or give you the oipportunity to clarfify. You use the word malign as an adjective, as someone who's written nine books, I'm trying to struggle with how this fits in to what you're saying here. You say we will continue to expose you the extent of Iran's malign activity in Iraq, and then you say on the next page, our efforts in regard to Iran must involve generating international cooperation and building consensus to counter malign Iranian influence, and then you speak about its...there are consequences for its illegitimate influence in the region. Can you clarify for us...how are you using those words?

PETRAEUS: I can, Senator. What I'm talking about there I am characterizing that influence, it is malign and it is lethal and it is illegitimate. The arming, training, funding, and directing of militia extremists who have killed our soldiers...is very malign indeed it's the same situation with what they're doing...

WEBB: In the interest of time, here, because you've given those answers, would you agree that historically one of the realities we have do deal with is some sort of Iranian influence in the region? I'm not talking about the specific military incidents. I am talking about the reality of dealing with the region.

PETRAEUS: I have always stated, in fact, that there will be Iranian influence and that the hope is that the Iranian influence is constructive...

Webb turned on that and began laying out the case that such "constructive" influence was more likely to be achieved through diplomatic contact with Iran, "We would hope," Webb said, "that we would be able to see some creative leadership in terms of how to bring a different set of diplomatic circumstances into play." Using his command of history, Webb drew a fitting comparison with China (like Iran, "rogue...with nukes, with an American war on its border"), who were similarly engaged in "malign" influence of the war in Vietnam. Petraeus managed to run out the clock without offering much in terms of substance in response, but after a week of the Bush administration painting any sort of diplomacy as appeasement, Webb got a vital argument to the contrary on the record.

Comments

[glaze]

I agree with those posters who would want Senator Webb as a top choice for VP, but I believe he has already declined the suggestion.
However, maybe he has NOT been asked about Sec of Defence, State, Homeland Maturity, etc.

[shep1900]

I wish he had run for the nomination. For me, he is a much more appealing candidate than either of the two remaining Democrats--and I think he would have been a much stronger bet to win in November.

[aceholiday]

why all this 'god loves troops' bunk? wheres the proof? a statement from god perhaps? tell him to give me a call and ill ask him myself. surely he has the number

[pigsatthetrough]

Senator Webb certainly asked some interesting questions. However, I would only be concerned with questions related to military operations and expectations when related to the existing theatre. However Iran is viewed within that scenario could be detailed by the General. When it comes to questions related to diplomatic policy, politics, or any other government question, since when does a democratic country turn to its generals for advice? The hearings with the Generals was all about grandstanding, with the exceptional questions once in a while coming from Webb and a few others.

[tipiglen6]

Follow the money!
http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/

[waynesmyer]

But! But! As any fool can tell, we got's to keep troops in Iraq forever, or we won't be able to steal their oil! Gee! What a bunch of dummies! "WHAT'S GOOD FOR HALLIBURTON AND GENERAL BULLMOOSE IS GOOD FOR AMERIKA" your beloved and truly "vice" War Profitnator, Fuck-Thee Cheney
"and you know what you can do to yourself is you disagree! Right? CHENEY IS MY NAME AND MONEY IS MY GAME!

[AfricanLived]

please, Obama choose Webb for VP... he would rock it.

[sa]

who is that a-hole over petreaus's
right shoulder, who doesn't blink,
like he hasn't a thought in his head?

is that supposed to be the symbolism
of "toughness"?

to me it looks like a braindead, maybe satanic figure.

the military is full of reapers - death people,
who are already dead, seeking other dead people.

p.s. (whisper) i see dead people.

[Mattjoe]

How could the Repug fear/ war machine possibly support diplomacy in the midst of manipulating the masses into another "case for war" fabrication? (regardless of how self-evident other top Military brass of the country makes it)

I am hopeful that the real source of real Republican fear is hinged on the fact that an Obama administration represents a potential clean house and significant break (I'm a realist/ idealist) in this latest streak of corporate and lobbyist collusion (all sects) amongst vast pockets of gluttonous, neoconservative fossils.

But you watch.....somehow, the incumbent and culpable media, is adept at blatantly asserting the electorate must ignore the facts, however evident.

And they do.

Astonishing.

[tipiglen6]

It isn't as though Iran doesn't have as much valid "strategic interest" in the region as we have, is it?

Go Jimbo!
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
(Dorood is Farsi for 'hello/peace')

[Mike Rainy]

Webb would make a really smart choice for VP. To break with the past we need leaders who are not afraid to think and to speak their minds. Obama/Webb20081

[Bluedog12]

Kicking ass and taking names in no particular order. Meanwhile back at the Pentagon there are many smiling faces. Thanks Lt. Webb. Semper Fidelis.

[armyman72]

Webb for V.P.

[Krikkit]

Webb's statement on the Appalachian problem was a good venue to showcase his domestic and local viability, and now this confirmation hearing is doing the same for his foreign policy savvy. They are definitely floating him as a potential running mate. Brilliant.

[Moose49]

Ditto. The man cuts through bullshit like no one else.

[realpolitic]

Petraeus and Bush share the same circular reasoning philosophy. Iran is acting with malign intent in the region, therefore they continue to scold them and threaten them. Although the primary concern of the administration is that Iran is supplying the Iraqi's with explosive devices, much like we did with the Afghans when they fought the Soviets and like the Chinese did with the North Vietnamese when we fought there. As Webb pointed out, we negotiated with the Chinese anyway. Webb logically points out to change the behavior of Iran we should negotiate with them. Secretary of Defense Gates has advocated such a policy. However, Bush and Petraeus are too busy demonizing Iran and likely want conflict. Sadly, Petraeus does not realize that by demonizing Iran the administration is not likely to change their behavior in the region.

[Krikkit]

Your analysis is a bit lopsided, realpolitic. Patraeus is a military man concerned with the military realities on the ground. The fact that he can speak to the wider reality of diplomacy in the region only demonstrates that he realizes his role within the larger scheme of things. He is not denouncing Iran, but pointing out the adverse (malign) effect the Iranian's tactics are having in Iraq. From our point of view of wanting to stabilize Iraq, that influence is indeed malign.

From a Realist point of view (a school of international politics) such a move to provide arms to Iraqi fighters is one that maximizes Iran's power in the region, and any diplimatic efforts must acknowledge that reality before any push is made to get them to stop doing it Our diplomats will point out that such continued tactics by the Iranians will result in further isolation from the world community, and the Iranians will demand concessions in return for ending their arms support. Ultimately, the outcome will depend on Iran's perception of maximizing its position based on a whole host of critieria, not the least of which will be its domestic economic woes.

Iran can afford to give up shipping arms to Iran because its inflluence in the region is now secured, thanks to the majority led Iraqi government. But it cannot afford to do so without some exchange of concessions from the US. These tactics are leverage, in other words, in the broader regional scheme of things.

[anthonylee]

"tactics by the Iranians will result in further isolation from the world community" . . . . has been our only attempted "leverage" diplomatically with Iran to date; fact of the matter is that it's not working . . . and what exactly does "further isolation" look like (anything more becomes a human rights issue)? Like Webb stated China's Communist Government was completely isolated from the "World Community" for several decades (US Policy), and no militaristic or "status quo" punishment did anything to change China's Culture, to move it into the regional and presumptive world power that China is becoming today.

You give way too much credit to US influence and our ability to make Iran concede anything . . simply put, we have no leverage (at present) over Iran - even in the "broader regional scheme of things"! The longer we attempt to "punish" Iran, we diminish our ability to influence Iran conversely. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait and economic interests in the World Community, which causes them to play by "US rules" - they like Iran are learning that our economic interests need them more than - they need us.

Look where your "World Economic Isolation Theory" got us with Korea's goal of nuclear defense/offense.

[realpolitic]

Krikkit --Unfortunately, Petraeus is not always just a military man, as a recent Huff Post article pointed out. Petraeus was happy to take time out from his busy schedule to lobby a panel of former generals who were appearing on Meet the Press to talk about the Iraq war. He apparently was successful at convincing them that all was well and Iraqi troops were being trained on schedule.

http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/05/22/petraeus-propaganda/

Former Centcom Commander Admiral Fallon, who was fired for thinking an attack on Iran would be next to criminal, described Petraeus as "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" for his tendencies at sycophancy. So, while Petraeus has done a fine job at redefining our mission in Iraq to pursue a counter-insurgency strategy and reducing violence in the process, he is also a political animal who is all too willing to please his boss.

If the Iranians want concessions to slow or stop arms shipment to Iraq, then let's listen to them. At an army briefing recently, our military leaders did not identify any weapons from Iran. Much of that may be hype, too, but it is difficult to say at the moment.

Of course, the Iranians are worried about their domestic economy and other realities. We can take this concern into account with any talks. It is still appropriate to talk. Fallon was correct and Petraeus is unwilling to acknowledge larger realities, which he must now do as the new commander of Centcom.

[realpolitic]

Republicans and Our Enemies
By JOSEPH BIDEN

"The Bush-McCain saber rattling is the most self-defeating policy imaginable. It achieves nothing. But it forces Iranians who despise the regime to rally behind their leaders. And it spurs instability in the region, which adds to the price of oil, with the proceeds going right from American wallets into Tehran's pockets.

Instead of regime change, we should focus on conduct change. We should make it very clear to Iran what it risks in terms of isolation if it continues to pursue a nuclear program but also what it stands to gain if it does right.

Nixon didn't demand that China end military support to the Vietnamese killing Americans before meeting with Mao. Reagan didn't insist that the Soviets freeze their nuclear arsenal before sitting down with Gorbachev. Even Bush " whose initial disengagement allowed dangers to proliferate " didn't demand that Libya relinquish its nuclear program, that North Korea give up its plutonium, or that Iran stop aiding those attacking our soldiers in Iraq before authorizing talks.

Sen. Obama is right the U.S. should be willing to engage Iran on its nuclear program without "preconditions" " without insisting that Iran first freeze the program, which is the very subject of negotiations. He has been clear that he would not become personally involved until necessary preparations had been made and unless he was convinced his engagement would advance our interests."


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121150000249615875.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

[Manx]

Webb has this talent for cutting right to the heart of a matter like a surgeon - and he doesn't back down. He would be a great campaigner as VP for Obama. Like McCain, he has an impressive military background but unlike McBush, he's intelligent,articulate, eloquent and a great debater. He would bolster Obama's national security credentials and attract many Republican votes for the Democrats. Let's hear it for Webb!

[avraamjack]

.
IT !
.

[aofh]

I think Webb would better serve the country and Obama in the Senate. We need people there with the qualities you've mentioned and a high profile to take it to the likes of Petraeus, Big Oil execs, Insurance execs, etc. The VP is a lower profile role that can be used to quietly build national support for second tier programs.

[RoloTomassi]

I agree; I think he'd make a great VP, but I don't know that democrats can afford to lose his leadership in the Senate, as he is certainly capable of doing some outstanding work there.

[Krikkit]

The VP slot is all about the electoral votes. Jim Webb is enormously popular in VA, which has been a Red state for a long while now. If putting him on the ticket will swing Virginia to to Obama, with it's 13 electoral votes, then he's our man. His savvy debating skills and foreign policy experience are all plusses, of course.

Kerry lost in 2004 just shy of winning, down by a mere 15 electoral votes. Obama will take Kerry's map, plus one Red western state (likely Colorado) or more. That along with Virginia via Webb as VP will put him over the top and elect him President of the United States.

[realpolitic]

Webb has terrific integrity and is concise and smart. He is a great advocate for our exhausted troops. He would be great on an Obama ticket, but is serving a terrific role in the senate, as well.

[FirstShirt]

Yeah, integrity. He was a Secretary of the Navy in a republican adminstration and went dem when he knew he couldn't get elected as a republican.

[DavieB36]

Obama/Webb '08