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.

Comments

[daddysboy]

"The overriding reason we are in Iraq is because President Bush believes the war makes America safer." Why is this stated as if it's a foregone conclusion? I believe that was the announced reason for invading Iraq in the first place, but that was because everyone was led to believe that there was a military reason for such a mission. The readjusted reasons for staying in Iraq have proven just as baseless. How can anyone know what the reasons are for our continued occupation of Iraq given this history? America isn't safer as a direct result of American military actions in the middle east and in Iraq in particular and I believe the White House is fully aware of this. The "benchmarks" were the final word on success or failure in Iraq and Patraeus was to speak to that. Since we obviously failed as measured by these benchmarks no amount of mitigation from the "September report" is acceptable no matter what the newly stated reasons for being there are. In a sense, I completely agree with your point regarding Patraeus; I just think his report is irrelevant not because American safety is a concern, but more because oil industry prosperity is a concern.

[lisakaz]

This is an excellent point. We need to change the terms of the debate. "Limited" success or not, the Bu$hit claim needs to be put alongside several issues:

1) Whether America is safer from its presence in Iraq

2) Whether America's military (with or without the "surge" troops) can endure this long campaign, regardless of results.

3) If any results are worth the cost in blood and treasure

4) Whether it is in AMERICA'S LONG TERM INTEREST (not the military industrial complex, not Israel, not Big Oil) to spend endless blood and treasure

If ANY of these questions are "no" then we need to GET OUT NOW! I suspect more than one, if not all of them, are "no," hence my position is clear.

[Oldekirk]

Only impeachment of this the worst President we ever had will do.
You can not change the mind of a person with a low IQ with logic and I doubt we ever have had a President with a lower IQ than George W.Bush.

[mgloraine]

Senator, I believe the general's testimony IS relevant, although not for the reasons the general would suggest.

More than anything else, the military's statistics show that, just as in Viet Nam, the military can achieve its objectives time after time, winning battle after battle, even as the overall mission fails and the war is lost.

This is not specifically a fault of the military since they continue to execute the ordered tactics with skill and precision to the best of their ability. But just as in Viet Nam, military domination of a country can control people's actions to an extent, but will never win the "hearts and minds" of the people. Most people resent being held at gunpoint. While they may smile and appear cooperative at times, that's usually to keep from being killed. Those who escape with their lives will never forget being threatened by foreign invaders - Americans.

So the relevance of the general's testimony is that, taken in conjunction with all other available data regarding Iraq, it shows that increased military involvement such as the surge does not substantially improve the prospect of a long term success for the US policy which instigated the occupation.

The longevity and stability of the US-installed "constitution" and government in the occupied country are directly linked to the presence of US troops, so it should be understood by all in advance that Iraq will probably trash the present scheme and start over the minute we leave, whether that's in 2008 or 2028. With that in mind, it makes more sense to leave sooner rather than later. The probable continuation of the US-installed government should NOT be made a pre-condition of US withdrawal, as that is not likely to be achieved EVER.

We MUST remember what we (should) have learned from Viet Nam and from the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan: military success will not prevent a policy failure.

[dfyoga]

I have one more thing to add. Why is there no mention of the death toll of innocent Iraq citizens that are being killed. Is their skin not as white as ours? Is their blood not as relevant? I do not get it. Why don't we hear about their death toll in the news or on TV. Are their lives irrelevant?
How amazing is this war and this congress and this media?
Help me figure out the stupidity and arrogance of a country and a government that does not count the dead bodies of those slain in the name of freedom. I did not know that death was democracy. I must have taken the wrong history classes. Did Jesus believe in killing for democracy or oil?
Diane

[fatcat too]

Dear Yoga

You'll hear mention of the Iraqi civilian toll if you turn off Fox news and the increasingly spineless CNN and check the English language press in other countries. The UK press has been actively critical of the cost to Iraqi civilians and the mendacity of image-management in war reports. Check the BBC, the Guardian, the Independent and columnists like Andrew Cockburn.

They all have a web presence. Even Al Jazeera can be found online in English.

[Levittown]

Bush must send 5,000 troops home for Christmas to prove that he understands where we are at. Anything less at this time shows that the entire war is a sham. To abuse the men at war by ignoring them and their families make him less a leader and more a puppet of the Cheney-Saudi agenda. The Democrats cannot allow Bush to dictate to them by fear. Money for neccessary armamments can always be found without giving him anymore. Let the American people know that he is a fear mongerer and not a wartime mis-leader.

[dfyoga]

What I don't understand is why we don't use the money that is being thrown into Iraq to clean up our streets so that we are safer in our own land. What about all the neighborhoods in the USA that are unsafe for children to walk to school.
What I don't understand is why the US government (Bush and Cheney) don't understand that charity should start at home. Since when is Bush or Cheney so concerned about people that are not donors to their campaigns. This is not a compassionate group. They can let couples lose their homes when they can't pay their medical bills, yet they are so concerned about a bunch of dark skinned people in Iraq. Give me a break.
This to me is the biggest sin of our century. Are Americans that stupid or vapid that they don't see what is going on? Hello Haliburton....

[Boyarina]

Bush and Cheney could not give a flea's fart about the American people or any other people. All they care for is amassing enormous fortunes and obtaining absolute power.

[martygrn]

For all those who say get out of Iraq now, I submit the following:

Let's see, WWII ended how many years ago? We defeated Hitler in Germany and removed him from power and then we left and left the German people to their own devices, right? Well, it seems to me our military STILL has a major presence on Germany. Therefore, some 50+ YEARS after then end of WWII, we are still present in Germany. How about pulling out of Britain, or Japan, or Italy, or ....

Point being, to those who say get out of Iraq now, the same argument MUST be made for the countries WE STILL OCCUPY this many years after WWII. For those who will argue that those countries are independent and simply need ask us to leave and we will, 2 things.

#1-England has asked us many times to decrease our presence there, and we have not yet. As well as the fact that our treaty with England states that we will not have nukes stored in England and I can tell you for an absolute fact, having been in the USAF, that there are stockpiles of nukes in England...in direct violation of our agreement placing our bases there.

#2-As far as I know, the Iraqi government has not asked that we leave.

For those who say get out of Iraq now, look at history.

[JimReed]

"some 50+ YEARS after then end of WWII, we are still present in Germany."

In WWII Germany was the agressor. In this war America is the agressor. Look at history.

[martygrn]

I was referring to the END of the war, not how it started. In addition, how exactly did Germany attack the US to start WWII? Japan attacked us, but I honestly do not remember Germany attacking us.

[Meatloaf]

You're comparing apples to oranges my friend.

First of all "we" did not defeat Germany. The U.S., England, Russia, and yes even France combined with the rest of the allied forces defeated Germany. The Marshall plan combined with the German's already strong sense of a national self made the rebuilding of Germany possible. Iraq is no Germany. It is strongly divided along religious lines and even further along tribal lines. Iraq as a nation didn't even exist 75 years ago.

Furthermore, we haven't been in Germany as an "occupying force" for over 50 years, we are there as an ally as part of NATO. The same can be said for almost every other nation where we have troops. That we violate treaties as we see fit isn't something to be proud of. It's actually a rather nasty blemish on us, our history and any chance we have of making the world a better place in which to live. It robs us of any credibilty at the bargaining table when we bring China, Russia, or any other nation to task for their violation of human rights when we're spiriting people off to other countries to torture them. Nevermind what it opens our own troops to should they be captured by hostile forces. Might does not make right.

Iraq may not have asked us to leave, but I'm relatively certain they didn't ask us to invade either. And please don't try to suggest that we're enforcing U.N. mandates when the invasion was opposed by the U.N.

The fact that we broke Iraq leaves me feeling that we are somehow responsible for helping to rebuild the region, but as even Petraeus has made clear, there is no military solution so we need to remove our men and women from the front lines and re-engage on the diplomatic front. Not only with Iraq, but with Iran, Syria, and the U.N. We need to get everyone we can involved because even though we broke it, a peaceable solution is in the entire world's best interests.

[Boyarina]

No, you did *not* defeat Hitler in Germany - the Soviet Union did. As for your continued military presence there, it is deeply resented by the German people. The same applies in every country in which the USA maintains military bases - that is part of the reason why the USA is universally reviled.

[Boyarina]

America didn't defeat Hitler in Germany, the Soviet Union did.

[martygrn]

This is a very difficult question to quantify. Without any of these three nations, Hitler would have won WWII. Britain stood up to the Nazis for the first two years of the war and spent over a year on their own. Without this, Hitler would have conquered all of Europe and then turned on the Soviet Union and even Stalin's hordes would have lost. Without the Soviet Union, the German military would not have been bled white. Remember that the Allies never faced a full German corps, at full strength, with appropriate air support. And knowing this, look at how often the Germans managed to delay or stop allied advances. Without the US, the Soviet Union and Britain would not have had the war materials to have successfully fought the Germans. Lend lease allowed both of these countries to concentrate their producton on strictly war materials and machines. The other items, like clothes, food, transports (trucks, jeeps), etc. All of this was provided mainly by the US. Matter of fact towards the end of WWII most Soviet soldiers were marching on boots made in the US or UK, were fed by meat from the US. So who was the most effective? If I had to say it still would have been the US. Because of all the reasons listed above. FDR managed to find ways to support the war even tho the US would not be actively involved until mid 42

[Scipio]

Sen. Dodd has succinctly, incisively stated what amounts to the bottom line in the current Petraeus debate, but he ought to know that his party is going to cave when the chips are down. He says he will not support any continuation of the commitment unless deadlines are set. We've been through all this before and when any bill containing deadlines is sent to the White House, it comes back marked "VETOED." The Dems are too afraid of the electorate to actually cut off funding for the war, and Bush knows that, and in any case McComical and the other GOPS will never give Harry Reid and his party the votes they need to override such a veto. So it is business as usual on the Hill. Bush wants to pass the hot potato to the incoming Dem prex so he can say, "Just when I was winning, the Democrat [sic] Party called it quits."

[Jdaddieo]

We still don't have a plan as what to do next year. This war is like a boat without a captain adrift without a port in sight. I feel the only way to shut this war down is to start prosecuting the whores making the money. If they can't make/steal any more money then they have no reason to stay. That won't happen since most of these treasonous corperations have ties to just about everyone in DC and the few who don't don't have the ball's to rock the boat.

[deminmo]

If the US engages Iran in a war, a real war, not an occupation, the President has the option to use nuclear weapons without the consent of Congress. If that happens, he can also declare a "State of Emergency" and stop the election process dead. If 8 years isn't enough.... We need to focus more on where we are headed with Iran.

[AxelDC]

Petreas himself could not reassure Sen Warner (R-VA) that the Iraq War will make America safer. The closest he could get was saying that he hadn't really thought about it.

We are spending $500 billion on a war that Bush's handpicked general cannot say is worth it.

[PoliticAl2008]

Sir,

You're preaching to the choir. You need to get your message down to three highly compelling sentences OR offer the message in the form of a cartoon (aka The Simpsons or Family Guy) to reach the "other" people who still support this failed policy.

Once you wind them up, then maybe they'll let some of your Republican "friends" know that they, too, are unhappy and want things changed.

All the points made so far about corporate greed and alternate agendas that led to this fiasco are right on. But, they need to be put in "bright, shiny object" (entertaining) form to keep the attention of those with the attention span of a gnat.

Unless and Until the remaining supporters are truly outraged, we're stuck in Iraq and we're stuck with the "Decider" and his whole batch of weathermen-like predictors.

[Opus007]

Great post Senator Dodd. This policy change has to be made immediately. Your colleague Senator Lieberman not only wants to keep the war going - he wants to enlarge it while totally ignoring the sentiment of the American people. Let us not forget- it is OUR hard earned tax dollars funding this war and our loved ones dying every day in a war that the American people were deceived into.

[DocPoimen]

Chris Dodd said, "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."

If you ask that question be prepared to answer another, "Does abandoning our position in Iraq's "civil war" make us safer or less safe?" The answer is obvious. The only possible winners are the Iranians and fundamental Islam, since those who remain outside those folds are not ready to stand up against them.

Perhaps now is the time to clean house in Congress, who have a worse effectiveness rating that the President, who is a lame duck in a pre pre pre-election year. Dump the bunch and institute term limits immediately. Perhaps we can stop the rhetoric of Washington and get some solutions to national AND international problems.

[rijomi]

First, it was eight years in between domestic attacks on the U.S. (1993/2001) so when we get to 2009 I'll begin to believe that we are doing something right on the domestic front. Second, Petraeus is somewhat sincere in his mission and noted that he can't say that the Iraq situation makes us safer domestically. Lastly, a couple of points on Bush. Why do we keep a President who has no credibility and hides behind others? Why do we keep a President who only wants to extend a war so he doesn't look like a loser at the price of American lives? What price do we have to continue to pay so that the spoiled brat gets his way? Can we ask him to takes his ball and leave the schoolyard?