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

[NWGuy]

The question whether if Bush's war in Iraq is making the US safer is only one of several questions that need to be asked (and answered!):

Besides making KBR and Halliburton richer, how is Bush's war in Iraq benefitting the US? What is the advantage to the country as a whole of pursuing this course of action? Is it only a question of perceived 'safety' or is the question of any 'benefit' irrelevent? Why is having a democratic Iraq, regardless if they want it or not, so important? To whom? How will a democratic Iraq benefit this or the next generation? Is that value, whatever it is, worth the lost lives, arms, legs, and eyes of those that paid for it?

Is the cost - $12 billion/month, 4000 military deaths, 20,000+ maimed, untold Iraqi civilian deaths and wounded - worth what can be realistically expected to come out of this? (Sorry, folks, but this amount of cost is NOT worth just some dubious sense of accomplishment or 'honor' to the military or to the politicians that started it.)

Can our country afford this level of cost? With a deteriorating infrastructure needing rebuilding, an economy dependent on foreign manufacturing with a huge trade deficit to boot, increasing demand for health care with the baby boomers hitting retirement age, and embarrasingly low standings in the world in terms of education, maternal and child health, and life expectancy, $12 billion per month could go a long way. As that money has to come from some place, what is being cut or eliminated to pay for it?

I'm not hearing many of these questions being asked?

[ghg]

Senator Dodd--You have had my vote since I moved to CT in 1979. I am proud of the intelligence and rationale that you bring to your position..­.......a position that directly affects me and the people I love. I must say that if Senator Lieberman ever tries to be elected to anything in my state again he will be so soundly defeated that he will have to finally look at what it is that really moves him to make the ludicrous statements that have come from his mouth. This incursion into Iraq (I won't even call it a "war") is a vile stain on what I and the people I respect stand for. Thank you for working hard, and now harder according to news reports, to get us out of the disgraceful and disgusting situation for ourselves and for the millions of people who's lives we've disrupted so maliciously.

[SEQUOIABISON]

You know I admire you a great deal senator Dodd and I would not be unhappy if you won the white house.

Over the years you have shown yourself to be a man of integrity and a true progressive.

I will definitely support you if you make it to the finals but through the primaries I will be encouraging Dennis Kucinich to win the big prize however hopeless it might seem at this point.

[tapdat]

It's worse than you think.

Not only did the Bush administration use state of the art manipulation techniques to sell this invasion and occupation to a frightened nation;
Not only did they woefully mismanage the occupation, inspiring and arming the resistance and giving Al Quaeda a receptive population to recruit from; Not only has this administration gotten us tangled in a war with no success possible and no exit available; not only have they violated the spirit and letter of the Constitution and Bill Of Rights; Not only have they used intimidation on critics and promoted fear in the people as instruments of control...

But they have done all this without being held accountable. They have done all this without inspiring fierce action to stop them. They have made America a frightened nation. And they have successfully managed to turn the mainstream press and political opposition into cowards, more fearful of the short term consequences of speaking the truth than the long term consequences of failing to.

[NovatoBon]

Kudos to Senator Dodd for having the courage to say Enough is Enough! I hope other Dems will follow his leadership and stand up for the troops. The Surge has not accomplished the reconcilliation necessary for peace. There is no indication that the situation will change without the motivation of knowing that we are pulling out. I salute Senator Dodd for being willing to discontinue the funding of this disastrous policy. He is a Patriot of the highest order and the public knows it, regardless of the inevitable right wing smear job ahead. Carry your head high sir! And THANK YOU.

[mommadona]

Senator Dodd,

Does this mean that the Congress is ready to do their duty and end the funding for this?

Does this mean the Congress is ready to do it's assigned responsibility and do their job?

It is that simple.
Even a citizen understands that.

[stlrfan]

Stop the bleeding, cut off the money.

[LizM]

Senator Dodd,

Does this mean that you, and your colleagues in the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, are now ready to support Senator Biden's Iraq strategy as the only viable way forward to force a radical change the President's Iraq policy?

[BuzzMKimba]

The prospects of rival tribes and religious factions being reconciled must be even more remote now that we are partnering with the Sunni's in Anbar province and George Bush, on his recent visit, decided to parley with Sunni leaders there and not the government in Bagdad. How does this look to their rivals the Shiites? It looks like we're taking sides and propping up the old regime.

[laocoon]

You may be right in your analysis but it misses the real point. I. the surge is achieving the real goal. the enemy, being the antiwar forces, have retreated. Sen. Dodd may be holding his ground but other antiwar troops have yielded ground to the surge. II. the surge is a strategy and we are safer. the good guys, the prowar side, is safer than after the election. the war was at risk now it is assured of another 6 months to a year at minimum. So you miss the point.Surg­e worked, war is safe.

[darcy]

"The overriding reason we are in Iraq is because President Bush believes the war makes America safer."

How can you say that, Senator Dodd? bush doesn't care a rat's ass about American security. He's enriching his friends, those evil vampires sucking the wealth from America.

[beef33]

you got that one right.

[Gary50]

It's worse than you say Senator Dodd, but thanks for your thoughts. The war has played into the hands of the fundamentalists in Iran and in Al qaeda. It has strengthened them and debilitated us, making the Bush administration the answer to Bin Laden's dreams. The correct path from here is to withdraw as soon as possible and to impeach Bush and Cheney and send them to the Hague for war crimes. I know this wont happen but if there was any justice in this world the neo-cons, the whole evil cabal of them, would be breaking rocks for the rest of their miserable lives. I am angry at these criminals and I am tired of the civility shown to Bush, Cheney and their supporters and enablers in the government and the media.

[apduncan1]

Heck... if you see your children's guts hanging from a tree thanks to the tender mercies of the US Armed forces you'd be mad too.

[WilliamTravis]

I think all of this is reflects very poorly on our democracy. Completely disregarding the illegality of the war and occupation, how badly it was handled and managed, how false the pretenses were for invading etc., this Iraq adventure has shown how easily a small group of people with one particular vision for America can use the VAST economic and military resources of this country to that end without almost any ACTUAL opposition. Frankly, yes, Petraeus's report is relevant to the debate, but the debate doesn't seem even slightly relevant to the policy. For all of the millions of Americans who disagree with our Iraq policy or the war in general - in thousands of different ways, and for thousands of different reasons - there seems to be only one politically actionable option. To ask quietly and politely, via their representatives, if the policy is working. A FEW republicans seem to have been willing in the last decade to buck an ineffectually representative system and get what they wanted from it, and now our only viable opposition party, a watered down toothless conglomeration, is left without much recourse.

[apduncan1]

The opposition party is in the pocket of lobbyist representing everybody but us: the taxpayers.

There is no debate here, it is a dog and pony show.

[JimReed]

Senator Dodd,

Any honest discussion of our Iraq policy must start with oil. If you debate goals and security and benchmarks, you are wasting our time running in circles. The conservatives are driven by money, and they wouldn't waste billions or trillions and trash the American military structure if there wasn't a dollar to be made. Are we in Iraq because we want to profit from their oil? Are we building forts to protect our oil companies for decades into the future while they drill? And most importantly, we need a national debate on if this is the direction we think we should be going. You are in a position of power. You don't need the votes, so you can level with the American people. Please, we need help. Put these issues out there and force them on your fellow congressmen.

[apduncan1]

Amen.

We have allowed the political discourse to be led by a group of pathological liars on both sides of the aisles.

The Irak occupation is to protect the oil industry in the USA; if Sadam had invited Eurpean engineering firms to reconstruct Irak and paid that reconstruction in Euros earned from the sale of Irak's oil... it would have been pandemonium. Our currency cannot take that blow.

The bases are for another purpose too: the next order will be to take the southern flank of the old USSR and the oil fields of Baku.

[Hadok]

Yes, it is precisely about oil. What is at stake here is the availability of gasoline for our automobiles, fuel for farm tractors so that food production can continue, and heat for our homes. Does anybody remember the Arab oil embargo of 1973? Don't think it can't happen again -- and the next time it could last forever.

We pull out of Iraq. Iraq comes under the domination of Iran or the Taliban and fellow travellers. Saudi Arabia will be the next to fall to the Islamic extremists. Don't think it can't happen - the Shah disappeared practically overnight.

Bin Laden et al will be in control of most of the world's oil production and reserves. They can easily embargo oil shipments to the USA. America will be brought to its knees, without a shot being fired on American soil.

The fundamentalist Islamic nations who will control most of the oil in the world can make ample revenue selling to China, India, etc. They are not interested in wealth - they only want to prostate the United States and they will sit on their oil if that is what it takes. They are not driven by money - they are driven by zealotry.

Our only recourse will be to capitulate to their demands. Yes, let's seek a political solution with Bin Laden, Syria, and the Iranian mullahs. We will have to give in to some of their demands. Let them have Israel? Hey, it's either the Israleis or us, right?

"Energy independence" is a myth. Our leaders in Washington are so fixated on whether we withdraw our troops now or next year that they refuse to address the larger issue -- America is absolutely dependant on middle east oil. We could walk away from Viet Nam - there was nothing there we needed. We cannot walk away from the middle east.

Yes, it is precisely about oil. We should scream it from the rooftops without shame. Or be prepared to see this nation brought down in our lifetime.

[JimReed]

"Bin Laden et al will be in control of most of the world's oil production and reserves. They can easily embargo oil shipments to the USA. America will be brought to its knees, without a shot being fired on American soil."

That doesn't give us the right to steal.

[JimReed]

Hadok,

You are saying we have alieanated the rest of the world to the point where we are afraid all the oil producing nations might refuse to sell us oil, so we need to conqure a nation or two so that we can take what we need, and justify it by saying it is needed for our security, and demonize the nations or people that we attack by calling anyone who opposes us a terrorist. Being brought to our knees would be preferable to destroying our soul for another couple decades of the high life for those pulling the strings.

[Boyarina]

So, the profligate lifestyle of Americans (who devour 25% of the world's resources yet who constitute barely 5% of the world's population) is worth the slaughter of millions of innocent men, women and children in other countries? How unspeakably callous. Mind you, America has thrived on the death industry since WWII, and Americans still wonder why they are universally reviled...

[BeamMeUpScotty]

The World According to Bush is if we aren't attacked - we're safer because of what Republicans have done. I wouldn't put it past these losers to allow an attack to occur just to keep the war chests full. Yes, Bush really is that awful a person.