Ten Questions for General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker

When Gen. Petreaus and Amb. Crocker appear before both houses of Congress tomorrow and Thursday, Democrats should ideally position themselves through these hearings to achieve the following overarching goals:

-- Debunk the fiction that the military surge has achieved sustainable military or political objectives.

-- Undermine Sen. McCain's argument that staying the course is a patriotic duty.

-- Demonstrate to the American people that the recent Iraqi government defeat at the hands of the Mahdi Army was indeed the "defining moment" that Bush claimed it was.

-- Offer a credible Democratic approach to stay the course that logically will achieve more in the long run for American security in the Middle East than what more of the same can possibly achieve.

With this in mind, and if I were staffing the hearings, here is the list of questions I would be proposing to our Democratic inquisitors:

1. Prime Minister Maliki launched an offensive to defeat the Mahdi Army in Basra. He was forced, despite U.S. logistical and air support, to sue for a ceasefire. President Bush declared during the fighting that this was a "defining moment" for Iraq. Why shouldn't the American people view this "defining moment" as exactly what it was: a defeat for us, the Iraqi government and a victory for radical Shiite militias?

2. If the U.S. military cannot adequately defend the Green Zone from missile attack from Shiite militias, why should the American people believe that the surge has achieved tangible, and not momentary lulls in violence?

3. General Petraeus, you are proposing that the current level of military forces remain static longer than planned. Isn't this proof that the amount of troops in Iraq will never be enough to adequately reduce the level of violence against U.S. and Iraqi forces?

4. Define "victory" within the context of the current Iraqi political and military environment? Why should this not be a recipe for disaster given the inability of the Iraqi military to meet its training goals and objectives?

5. America has now suffered the loss of over 4,000 soldiers and tens of thousands wounded. How willing, General Petreaus, are you prepared to stretch the military's capability to sustain troop levels at even the 100,000 level beyond the summer and what are your specific goals and objectives?

6. If the next American president planned a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops within 16 months of assuming office and within the context of such a withdrawal, was able to negotiate a responsible regional initiative to pacify Iraq, why wouldn't this approach achieve "victory" by creating an environment on which the future was not dependent on either U.S. troops or intra-Shiite reconciliation?

7. Incubating Iraqi political reconciliation was supposed to be one of the byproducts of the surge. Yet, the Iraqi government is as dysfunctional and disunited as ever -- and our forces are now caught not just between Sunni and Shiite, but between one radical Shiite faction and another. If we are not fighting principally Al Qaeda, but one Shiite faction against another, isn't this just "mission creep" with no end in sight?

8. How much will this war cost the American taxpayer in 2008? Has the Iraqi government contributed any oil revenue to offset the cost of this war to the American taxpayer? Please explain where Iraq's oil revenue is going?

8. The Iraqi government continues to embrace anti U.S. policies and U.S. adversaries. Isn't it an insult to those killed and injured in Iraq that Prime Minister Maliki rolls out a red carpet to Iranian President Ahmadenijad whose Revolutionary Guards, by your own account, is sending arms and funds into Iraq to kill and injure U.S. troops?

9. Admiral Fallon, the former head of Central Command (CENTCOM) recently resigned (actually was forced to resign). Please explain what was Admiral Fallon's assessment of your recommendations with respect to troop levels and the overall goals and objectives that the strategy was designed to achieve in Iraq?

10. If Al Qaeda's threat has been substantially reduced, why shouldn't we more expeditiously draw down our forces in Iraq to facilitate a transfer of American forces to Afghanistan where the real struggle against Al Qaeda must be waged?

I have a question for every one of our killed and injured, as well as for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have lost their lives due, in part, to the malfeasance of the Bush/Cheney policy in Iraq... but no question and no answer can adequately do justice for all of the losses.

A McCain-inspired "staying the course" is nothing more than a direct route to defeat and disaster for the United States. If John McCain was able to argue to the media's content that he orchestrated a new approach to Iraq that is more of the same, than surely Democrats have it within their power to convince the American people that the better approach is not more of the same given events in Iraq in recent weeks.

Comments

[Waubay]

The congressmen that oppose this war need to go back to the original authorization that states the purpose of the invasion was to search for weapons of mass destruction. This is what Congress approved. If they are no longer searching for weapons of mass destruction then they no longer have the authorization of Congress to be there.

[mcostello]

The ambassador states that staying the course is a direct route to defeat and disaster:
Defeat and disaster have already occured. The financial cost of this war, combined with moronic economic policy might well be the downfall of the American Experiment. And the damage is already done.

Well, elect a moron to the presidency, this is what we deserve.

[ibsteve2u]

I think I saw 90% of the questions Ambassador Ginsberg poses raised in turn with Petreaus and Crocker.

I didn't see them give any substantive answers, of course; factual and transparent answers isn't something this Administration permits their puppets to give.

Not that I blame the puppets in particular; it is highly unlikely that this Administration gives THEM factual and transparent answers - or even orders that don't contain an element of "plausible deniability".

[mjjcpa]

Keep rooting for the enemy.

[LITU]

I DON'T root for the enemy, because I don't root for this administration. Look around, traitor, the enemy is within, and you are an enabler.

[research]

Fascism?

[LITU]

A great read, and more trustworthy than Petraeus.

http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2008/RosenTestimony080402p.pdf

[WmC]

My questions: Doesn't the fact that Iran's intervention quelled the violence in Basra suggest the presence of US troops is essentially irrelevant to the stated goal of reducing the levels of violence? Doesn't the Basra ceasefire suggest that Iraq might be able to get along just fine without us as occupiers?

[research]

There is only one question:

Isn't the Iraq Invasion and occupation a war Crime that we should end as soon as possible?

[RTOTrainer]

What law has been broken?

[bigdaddyvike]

Uh, that would be the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation. For starters. Then you can waterboard on over to the the Geneva Conventions

[LITU]

To answer your ridiculous question, see link, then use that tool at the end of your fingers for more evidence of illegality.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/iraqwar.html

[jqcitizen]

Going into Viet Nam turned out to be a huge mistake that started out as assistance against communist invasion from the north, with Chinese support. It did not end well.

Bombing the hell out of Baghdad for the reasons given was pure NUTS. Maybe the citizens of South Viet Nam have forgiven the mistakes made but wonder if the US will ever be considered anything less than an aggressor in the Middle East.

Right now it looks like a huge mistake. Will we ever learn?

[LITU]

I recognize that people of your less-than-moral mindset will wave off any argument against your hubristic position, nevertheless...

“Iraq war illegal, says Annan

Kofi Annan

Watch Kofi Annan
The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.”

What’s interesting is that the only nations denouncing Annan were the U.S., Britain, and Australia, the warrior states.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm

part 1

[LITU]

part 2

Was The Iraq War Legal, Or Illegal, Under International Law?

"Advantage is a better soldier than rashness." -Montjoy in Wm. Shakespeare's Henry V, 3.6.120

Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D.

09/17/04 "ICH" -- During a BBC radio interview on Wednesday, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan created a controversy by reiterating his long-held position that the Iraq War was illegal because it breached the United Nations Charter. [1] On Thursday, the imperial leaders of the "Coalition of the Willing" retaliated by vehemently arguing that their Iraq War was, to the contrary, legal. [2]

Obviously, this dispute raises a legal question: "Whose opinion is correct, and whose is incorrect?" Additionally, we should be asking ourselves: "Who decides? (i.e., 'Whose jurisprudential opinion shall be dispositive for purposes of resolving this dispute?')"

It seems eminently reasonable -- even for the disputants -- to conclude that the optimal source of guidance on this question of international law would have to be the world's foremost experts in the field of international law. Hence, the UN's chief and the coalition's leaders need to know how the world's top international law experts would resolve their jurisprudential dispute. And we, the people, need to know who's right and who's wrong here.

[CarlOlson]

The American public has suffered in the hundreds of billions of dollars due to the skyrocketed price of oil every since the occupation of Iraq in March 2003. The U. S. government has been actively supporting the oil cartel OPEC via the occupation in Iraq.

Ever since March 2003, the US/Iraqi delegate in OPEC has always voted for the price-raising oil production cutbacks. In Iraq, the US has cut back oil production below what Hussein produced.

Time for Congress to investigate--and ask the questions to the General and Ambassador. Time for Presidential candidates to pledge to end the support of OPEC in Iraq.

[websmith]

Gen. Petreaus is in his position because he has the ability to flirt with Congress and the MSM special interest groups and leave Cheney and Bush unscathed. His job is not to win the war. It is to support the floundering war strategies imposed on him. So, give him credit. The so called military strategies are political strategies in disguise.

The men who would be men have been removed from our country's service. Our military has been weakened by the removal of its brilliant leaders who knew that the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Casey strategies wouldn't work and said so. These people have no idea how to fight a war and they won't let those who do win it. The only thing that matters to Cheney is that the plan laid out in his cherished PNAC is implemented.

The wrong man is facing Congress and they will get no true answers no matter how tough the questions. It is a waste of time.

[realist333]

This is an unfair appraisal of Gen. Petraeus. He is the most capable commander ever to take charge in Iraq.
Those who resigned because of the failure of the Bush Whitehouse and Rumsfeld Pentagon to plan the pacification of Iraq clearly saw the weaknesses but weren't forced to leave. Petraeus also saw those failures but chose to stay and try to correct the myopic strategy and clumsy tactics of his predecessors.
The incoming Democrat president will confront the same situation the present administration has been so ineptly managing. He -or she - will find in Gen. Petraeus a loyal commander who knows what is really going on and can offer good advice.

[RTOTrainer]

This is true. Even if they continue to abuse him and his position, because he IS a loyal officer.

[wiseapple]

I wonder if they have delineated what a unsucessful outcome would look like? If some event triggers an all-out civil war- Shia militia vs. Shia militia; Sunni tribe vs. Shia militia etc., what would our strategy become? Would we have to re-fight for all the major cities again? Would we hunker-down and let them fight it out? Or, would we get our troops out and let them arrive at a place where some group brings some degree of order to the country?

[pennyfortheguy]

Any mention of BlackWater's role in this? I haven't been listening as intently as I should.

[mychris52]

I have only one question and that is how do they define sucess in Iraq?

[pennyfortheguy]

It is an illusory concept to start with. Old standard; Mushroom cloud, a Battleship's deck. Then a long run on the History Channel. bought to you by Exxon/Mobil.

[deminmo]

Not even Petraeus would tell.

[AdultFilmLegend]

I'm tired of people carrying with them these honorifics for life, such as Ambassador and Governor. I can see "Mr. President" but that's about it. "Former ambassador" is OK, but it's silly to call him Ambassador now. According to his bio he hasn't worked in that capacity in several years. It's weird. When did all of that start? It seems like a recent thing.

[LITU]

Despite your fatigue, Ambassador Ginsberg raised some valid questions, none of which could be answered by this administration or its puppets.

[deminmo]

So far, a lot of Republican Senators have brought up the influence of
Iran, which was brought up also in September 2007, but now seems
to be a bigger problem. If you listen you will also hear that "at some point"
the Iraqi government will take over the security of Iraq, that the Iraqi
government will "at some point" start spending their money on the
needs of the country. At some point, we will be able to withdraw
troops. But like 6 months ago, no one has a plan.

If you look at the wider picture of Basra and what happened just
recently with up to 1000 individuals literally running away from the
fighting, and you hear the explaination from Gen. Petreaus that these
were young untried troops, you wonder if he realizes our troops are 18-
20 year olds with no active combat experience. And yet, after less than
a year of training, they are in the middle of battle.

If you also look at what is going on in Israel, Syria and with Iran in Iraq,
it all points to something bigger happening. Some foreign press reports
suggest a war with Iran shortly after the November elections. With all
the elements in place since last October, in reality I doubt it will be that
long. Especially with Bush due to speak on Thursday.

[argeec]

There should be no questions asked of Petraeus or Crocker.
They can answer only tactical questions and the important questions are strategic.
The US is in Iraq only for the supposed benefit of Israel, at an enormous cost to the US in blood, treasure, international standing and moral perpitude.
If congress wanted to act appropriately, the house would pass a bill that funds immediate withdrawal only and send it to the senate. If the senate cannot pass it, no further funding bill should be forthcoming. The military can then stay as long as it can divert funds from other sources.
This is the straightforward course and, but for the influence of AIPAC, maybe the one the democrats would follow.

[RTOTrainer]

General officers and Ambasodors are not engaged in strategy?

The costs to us in blood and treasure, compared to any other war we've ever fought, are minimal.

[RyanHartman]

Define us. There have only been 4000 US deaths, but there have been over a million Iraqis killed along with millions upon millions of new enemies made.
-Ryan

http://www.ryanhartman.wordpress.com

[hawkeye58]

I get so tired of people using the greater losses in other wars to minimalize the loss of over American 4000 lives in this unnecessary war . The fact that we wasted so many soldiers and so much money in Vietnam for absolutley nothing, does not justify this senseless war.

[argeec]

They are not responsible for world or even central command strategy.
My objections are not with the military, but with the civilian authorities.
And the cost in blood and treasure, in what IMO is the biggest foreign policy blunder in our history, is tragic. To lose so much for negative results is sad.

[Yat1954]

It's one of the two Great Blunders! The first and most well-known is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia!"

If you're familiar with "The Princess Bride" you know the other one.

[RTOTrainer]

And if you've seen the movie you also know that Vizinni was a sophist and was wrong on every point he made.

Perhaps not the best role model.

[indypete]

Damn, you're good!