Is Petraeus' Testimony Relevant to the Debate on Iraq?
Today, the much-anticipated testimony on the status of our combat mission in Iraq was delivered to the U.S. Senate by Ambassador Ryan Crocker and General David H. Petraeus, President Bush's top commander in Iraq. Yet for me, the anticipation surrounding the testimony rings hollow given the abject failure of the "surge" tactic to achieve political reconciliation or even a reduction in overall violence. But even more fundamentally, I question the relevance of a report on the merits of a particular tactic when the underlying strategy - that there is any military solution to the civil war in Iraq - has failed. As such, the debate we should be having is not whether this tactic is having limited success or not, but rather whether our involvement in this civil war is making our country safer.
The "surge" has failed to meet its stated goals. For all the White House talk about improvements in Iraqi security, we have just witnessed the bloodiest summer yet in Iraq. Are the 30,000 additional American troops helping clear some insurgent-run neighborhoods in Iraq? Absolutely. But these insurgents just move elsewhere in the country. As one soldier told me at Walter Reed after the surge began an hour-and-a-half after our soldiers leave following a month's work, the insurgents return. In an interview on CNN this summer, General Petraeus also confirmed that American forces had to return to some neighborhoods that had already been cleared. Little wonder one opinion poll conducted jointly by the BBC, ABC News and NHK of Iraqis revealed that approximately 70% of Iraqis believe security has actually deteriorated in the area covered by the US military surge of the past six months. This "whack-a-mole" strategy has led to the bloodiest summer of the war.
General Petraeus said at the outset of the "surge" that the point was to allow the Iraqi government some breathing room to come to some sort of political reconciliation. But this hasn't happened - as many as 7 in 10 Iraqis believe the surge has made political accommodation more difficult. It would appear the Iraqis are right; according to a recently released report on Iraq by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office, Iraq has failed to meet all but three of 18 congressionally mandated benchmarks for political and military progress. Iraq's government has been a disaster - and as Petraeus himself admits, the "surge" hasn't helped matters.
The "surge" is not a strategy, it is a tactic. And the strategy has failed because we are not safer. The overriding reason we are in Iraq is because President Bush believes the war makes America safer. There's no reason to believe it is. The same BBC/ABC/NHK survey suggests that nearly 60% of Iraqis see attacks on US-led forces as justified - 93% among Sunni Muslims, who make up almost all of al Anbar Province where the Administration touts so much progress. Meanwhile, America's reputation in the world is tarnished and America's ability to combat international terrorism impaired - the result of our continued involvement in Iraq. And as we expend hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq and stretch our military thin, the Taliban is reemerging in Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden is still at large. Safer? Hardly.
By every measure, the surge has failed - to secure Iraq, to help forge political reconciliation there, or make America safer.
The debate we should be having is not on how we change tactics, but how we change policy. It is clear to me, and as today's testimony reinforces, that half-measures will not change the policy of this White House. We need to send a clear message to the President and the Iraqis that it is time for a change of course. That is why I have stated that I will not support any measure that does not include a firm, enforceable deadline for redeployment. I urge other leaders in the party to join me.
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
Mommadonna;
It takes MORE than 51 Senators to end the war in Iraq, or to end any and all of the ruinous activities of the Bush/Cheney gang.
For beginners, to get anything passed in the Senate, the Democrats would need at least 10 (ten) Republicans to vote with them; that is assuming that Lieberman will vote with the Dems.
Then, keeping in maind that Bush will veto anything that comes from the Senate, it means that the Democrats would need at least 17 (seventeen) Republicans to vote with them, to override the veto.
The bottom-line is this: the longer we hang on to this outdated, corrupted so-called
"two-party" system of ours, the deeper in the doodoo the U.S. will get. The time for a third and a fourth party is long overdue.
It is a pity that a renouned General has become a pawn for the White House. It reminds us back when General Colin Powell stood aside when the President decided to invade Iraq.
General Petraus neglected to mention that the Iraq Government has never mad one of the 18 committments that agreed to do, but instead, went on vacation. He doesen't mention the necessity of re-taking areas that he had previously taken. No doers he address how many deaths and wounded have resulted from this war.Of course, he didn't say that there are Shites fighting Shites and Sunis fighting Sunis, and the fact that our soldiers are not even safe from Iraq police. No one seems to know whom they are fighting, and on what side they are fighting for. They only know they are dying, but not why? Even General Pace, Chm. Joints of Staff, says we shoud start getting out soon, not next July.
No add the amount of money that has been spent, or disappeared there. We only know that so much of our domestic issues are wanting.
It is, indeed, a pity that the rest of the world sees us as fools, where, once we were savoirs.
"IT ONLY TAKES 51 SENATORS TO END THE WAR IN IRAQ"
"IT ONLY TAKES 51 SENATORS TO END THE WAR IN IRAQ"
"IT ONLY TAKES 51 SENATORS TO END THE WAR IN IRAQ"
"IT ONLY TAKES 51 SENATORS TO END THE WAR IN IRAQ"
As one of the few statemen this country every produced once said "I cannot believe what I just heard, and I don't".
The bottom line for all Americans is that having a realatively safe Green Zone, where all the American diplomats and visiting press must, by necessity, be kept safe, doesn't make very many OTHER spots automatically safe, let alone the entire country. Add another "safe" spot or two around the entire country of Iraq doesn't make it safe and it doesn't make the surge a success.
I'm sick and tired of Bush playing politics with the lives of our young men and women in uniform. If Bush thinks it's so safe, he should dress incognito as a sergeant major and go spend a few weeks himself embedded in a marine or army unit. And when that's over, take another tour and another and another.
Bush is just a big blow-hard using the lives of others to advance his agenda. Oh! God, I can't wait untill his ass is on the sidelines.
Senator, it was your party who insisted he testify, then your party that decided he had lied before he opened his mouth.
"The surge is not a strategy, it is a tactic."
Going MEDIEVAL in IRAQ is NOT making us safer. ON THE CONTRARY! Bin Laden, The Forgotten, has the patience of a saint. HIS STRATEGY of attacks involves LENGTHY PLANNING ... UNLIKE our dirty, nasty, bad, naughty boy Bush's UNPLANNED RUSH to ATTACK IRAQ (AND SOON IRAN?)...as Republican Presidential Candidate McCain cheers & chants "BOMB, BOMB, BOMB...BOMB, BOMB IRAN"!
MUSLIMS are MURDERED & MAIMED, while Petreaus HESITATES to be HONEST... hemming & hawing & hedging questions, mumbling something about IRAQ being "Al-Queda Central"...IF that's TRUE, he's got HIMSELF & his BUSH BUDDIES to BLAME!!!
This "Global War On Terrorism" in IRAQ is THE PRESIDENT'S WAR, HIS crusade, HIS carnage, HIS legacy!!! Do NOT allow HIM to PASS THE BUCK. ABSOLUTELY NO MORE BLOOD MONEY...ABSOLUTELY NO MORE COMPROMISES!!! PROTECT THE TROOPS!!! BRING THEM HOME! ...NOW!!!
Stay safe, healthy and happy,
Love, Loretta
"The debate we should be having is not whether this tactic is having limited success or not, but rather whether our involvement in this civil war is making our country safer."
Iraqis have CENTURIES-OLD RIVALRY & REVENGE to RESOLVE. Our involvement in this CIVIL WAR is NOT making our country safer! Our troops are INCITING, ESCALATING, AIDING & ABETTING ETHNIC CLEANSING & AL-QAEDA RECRUITMENT. REDUCING our troops to TERRORISTS & TARGET PRACTICE is RUINING their REPUTATIONS! GET THEM OUT OF THERE!!! NOW!!!
The "Petreaus" Report OFTEN went OCD on IRAN & SYRIA. And yet PAKISTAN is the relocated HOMELAND of the MASTERMIND of our 911 ATTACKS, and HEADQUARTERS of Bin Laden's new & improved Al-Qaeda recruitment center & training grounds. And SAUDI ARABIA is the HOMELAND of MOST of our 911 ATTACKERS!!!
"The BBC/ABC/NHK survey suggests that nearly 60% of Iraqis see attacks on US-led forces as justified - 93% among Sunni Muslims, who make up almost all of al Anbar Province where the Administration touts so much progress. As many as 7 in 10 Iraqis believe the surge has made political accommodation more difficult."
"Al-Qaeda" has FOLLOWED America to IRAQ!!! ("We are fighting them THERE, in IRAQ, so they don't follow us, or fight us, at HOME"???) WE have DESTROYED their lifestyles, livelihoods, LIVES! WE have WIDENED their WARRING WOUNDS! Is it any WONDER WHY Iraqis WON'T WELCOME our "LIBERATION"?!
WHAT is "VICTORY"? HANGING Saddam? HE will seem like a SAINT, compared to HIS SUCCESSOR, compared to OUR TROOPS (who NOW fight WITH Saddam's LOYALISTS), and compared to THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION!!!
(Continued...)
Sen. Dodd I hope you are not like a lot of the Presidential hopefuls who say they do not agree, but do nothing beyond the statement. Go beyond the blog and make your stance known to Washington. We, the United States People need to see someone have the guts to go aginst the status quo.And are you going to demand that diplomacy be used first with Iran, or do you believe an air strike is the only measure to use to stop their having nuclear capabilities?
It becomes tedious to listen to this continual discussion of the the mid-eastern war. That is because this war is a religious war. Historically, religious wars are never-ending until all of the participants but one are dead of old age or something worse. Think of the multiple crusades. Think of Palestine. Consider Sunni versus Shia. Think of what the word "faith" means. [I think that faith means that one should believe something with out regard to truth.] Think of India and Pakistan.
I think that religion will lead to a nuclear war in the mideast unless Israel, as a, state leaves for some other part of the earth that will not object to its presence.
In short, I suspect the sectarian beliefs are insane beliefs.
I suggest that the U.S. get out of the middle-east and spend the money now being spent on this insane war on a project to find an energy strategy that does not require oil.
What a pity that the religious--of all stripes-- who prompt other people's children to incinerate themselves or stand in harm's way don't take a more direct route to glory for themselves. It might shorten the conflicts.
Can someone tell me WHEN the DIPLOMATIC surge will start????
I could of sworn, they were 'suppose to' be hand and hand.
WHERE IS RICE??
This question (diplomatic surge) needs to be repeated, loudly, every day. Thanks, Marinemomof3.
Where is Rice? Perhaps we should ask the hardworking and down-to-earth Constance Rice, Condi's less famous cousin, to point a flea toward the presidential ear, with the certainty that it will land in an undisclosed location on the Vice President. It's painfully clear that the Bush-Cheney axis of drivel has long since excluded State from its deliberations and wages "diplomacy" through the Pentagon. Look at the treatment of the Iraq study group, Rice's effort to open a window to sense as opposed to bogus intelligence.
Meanwhile, I hope you're keeping safe.
fatcat
Mr Dodd, the only way to get the troops out is to tie up the purse strings. I'm in favor of impeachment, but removing Bush alone would leave us with Cheney. Hindsight suggests we should have impeached Cheney, leaving the student of "My Pet Goat" on his own, and then cut the appropriations which otherwise continue to flow into the hands of Haliburton, assorted contractors, and militias. They've certainly not been spent at Walter Reed.
As it stands, we can expect this administration to do its level worst to ignore the need to engage diplomatically with Iran and focus on widening the war to Iran. Already the British in Basra have been asked to redeploy 250 to the border where a US base is under construction.
The Last Penguin makes the same point more concisely. Let's cut off Dick and his dummy from the public trough.
President Bush has no intention of changing policy in Iraq. The Democrats can pass all the non-binding resolutions they want, the GOP can have as many meetings and caucuses they can muster with the White House and both can rant in front of today's cameras in order to look morale and courageous. And none of this will result in any change other than the angle of White House spin on our national policy disasters.
The only entity that can remove our troops from Iraq is Congress.
As the President and GOP do not have enough votes to pass war funding by themselves, or anything else for that matter, the Democratic leadership MUST get over their fear that refusing to pass funding will look like they are not supporting the troops. Their continuing fear for their image insults the intelligence of the electorate and makes them no better than the President.
The GOP was punished in the last election for giving us this, now proven to be, baseless war. The next election could likely be the Democrat's turn in the barrel for not taking the needed steps to stop it. The Congress does not need to override a veto. It just needs to starve the President of funding.
The Constitution intentionally, and without question, gives Congress the power to stop this nightmare. It is well past the time for them to use it.
If the Executive Branch remains incompetent and unresponsive and the Legislative Branch remains unwilling and ineffective, then the People need to remove and replace them both as soon as possible.
C-SPAN interviewed alternating Dems and Repugs this morning about yesterday's hearings and they were talking two different languages. How or when will you all speak with one voice on policy--as much as humanly possible anyway.
Bush is lying, as usual. We are there because Iraq has a lot of oil. We all know that by now. Forget the games, please. Every action taken by U.S. forces in Iraq, except withdrawing, is yet another war crime.
Bush and Cheney belong in prison.
Loading comments…
Posted September 11, 2007 | 11:57 AM (EST)