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

[Newfycrat]

Mr. Dodd, I appreciate your comments. I am wondering though why the democrats are letting the headlines read that "30,000 troops may be leaving by spring" as part of a "reduction" strategy, when they *have* to leave because their numbers are unsustainable - and they have known and spoken about this all along. Only Markos from Kos seems to be pointing this out. He completely silenced Matthews on Hardball yesterday with this, like Matthews hadn't thought of it before. The tape of this is up on youtube. I so wish the democrats would be as assertive as you are being. With 60% of the country supporting a withdrawal, it cannot be that hard of a PR job. Don't let the republicans claim any reduction of the "surge" means the strategy is working when they had to do this reduction anyway!

[laocoon]

It also is like a store raising the price so it can reduce the price and advertise the old price as a sale. If all the surged troops are withdrawn then you are back to the troop levels at the time of the election when the american people seem to have voted to at least make significant withdrawals. One would hope someone in the news points this out but it seems they will be complicit in ignoring the transparent con

[gardengoddess]

While politically driven, chappelforpres, the huge defense-related corporations definitely pushed the Iraq invasion agenda.

So what can we do about it? Complaining isn't the answer. The answer lies in perceived public opinion of those corporations. Why aren't we writing, calling, e-mailing GE for example? They're the biggest defense contractor in the country, making billions of dollars on the occupation of Iraq. Why aren't we letting them know that we won't buy any of their products, that we'll talk to all our relatives and friends and try to convince them to not buy any GE products, that we'll write letters to the newspapers about all the money GE is making on the war, etc. The one thing faceless corporate greed can't handle is a bad public opinion.

[chappelforpres]

Who really is setting the misguided, simplistic and self-destructive agenda of American foreign policy over the last decade?

Will this nation ever come to grips with the fact that self-serving idealogical, political and faceless corporate greed have undermined our credibility and our democratic freedoms, while systematically eroding our economic competitiveness?

[Boadicea]

"Will this nation ever come to grips with the fact that self-serving idealogical, political and faceless corporate greed have undermined our credibility and our democratic freedoms, while systematically eroding our economic competitiveness?"

Probably not in our lifetime, unfortunately.

[Legalpenman]

Bravo, Chris Dodd! Where the Democrats as a group are stumbling is in their willingness to accept the Bush Administration's framing of these issues as purely tactical. Thus we have candidates and legislators squabbling about when and whether to pull out the troops rather than focused on the flawed strategy. Let's hear someone reframing the notion of the "war on terror" on terms that have some substance and talking about alternative strategies to restore our credibility and protect our interests in the Islamic world.

[Taan]

The American behemoth has been headless since 2000, without true leadership and direction. The evidence is huge, stark and continues to mount. Every time the Democrats make a positive move, the Republicans scream "political ploy", a tactic which the latter themselves have used endlessly the last seven years. Because the Oval Office is simply a huge void, everything that extends from it can only flop about, malfunction and wither away from lack of life, vitality and true purpose.
Removil oil from the Iraq equation and the "war on terror" would find U.S. forces headed for the exit pronto.

[Samson1]

I suggest that the senior Democratic leader in the House and in the Senate Each announce that they will not bring a bill to the floor containing funds for the Iraq war until and unless the whitehouse and the their republican counterparts negotiate a. a strategy (that currently does not exist) b. a plan for withdrawal c. a 12 month funding program including adequate benefits for serving service men and woment and veterans. You don't have 60 votes for cloture and you don't have the votes to override a veto, but you don't have to bring it to a vote at all. If you tell the people what you are doing and why, they will stand with you. If Bush doesn't like it, he can bring them home or he can abandon the troops, and that is what you should say.

[deZerTomB]

Don't worry, it's only blood and money, your grandchildren will gladly pay, well they won't have a choice actually.

The boy george who cried wolf is actually an emperor with no clothes.

[tandrmcdonald]

One with no brain either.
Gramma Rose

[maniarwild]

It is the same old story, and we never seem to learn the lesson. Everytime the US gets involved in attempting to "fix" the politics of another country, we consistently bet on the loser.
In my lifetime, we installed the Shah over an elected government, we opposed the contras in Nicaraqua, Viet Nam, Iraq and many others done under the cover of regime change or to "bring freedom" (as we know it). What may work for us may not work for all countries. Then again to understand this would require those in power to actually know and understand the country, their culture and history. This is most likely asking too much from our leaders and clearly, far too complex for the intelligence of Dubya and his lapdogs.
Worse yet, next on the agenda of failure is likely to be Pakistan, who by the way has the N bomb.
Speculate on the reaction in the US if Canada (Afganistan) and Mexico (Iraq) were occupied by Iran. At a minimum, the US would be training, supporting and arming both countries. The world's largest arms dealer (US) would assert our right to do so, yet other countries have no such right. Actions and policy like this continues to fuel the fire representing arrogance and the "rules are different" for the US.
If we started today with a whole new policy toward other countries, we may be able to change how we are viewed on the world stage, the bad news is that if any such change began
it would still take a mimimum of 3 generations before the perception of the US in the Middle
East MAY begain to change

[RACaplan]

This morning I heard Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Ca) extoll the position that Congress doesn't have the votes to end this war. It is sad that any Democrat in Congress still feels powerless to stop this war. They have majorities in both houses. All they have to do is not fund President Bush's request for funds. This is what checks and balances is all about.

Senators Dodd, Obama, Biden,Clinton and Rep. Kucinich have to demonstrate some leadership now. If they wish to be considered as capable of leading this country in the oval office, they need to lead the effort in Congress to stop the funding absent a directive to draw down. Afterall, any arms that are twisted by these three candidates are being twisted by the probable next POTUS. Do these twistees want to disapoint the next President? If they can't deliver, America will look to Edwards who is not affraid to demand the non-funding of the war.

[Yasmine]

I HOPE THAT NEXT TIME A US PRESIDENT ASKS FOR AUTHORIZATION TO GO TO WAR, THE PEOPLE'S REPRESENTATIVES IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE WILL THINK BEFORE RUSHING TO SIGN ON.

THAT SAID, WE BETTER FIX IRAQ. WE ARE STUCK MORALLY.

[oncall]

Please stop using all caps.

[joebaggadonuts]

Thank you Senator.

[cadawa]

Senator Dodd,
The debate on Iraq has been deliberately distorted by calling it a war. It's a crime against peace, the most serious war crime there is.
Now do you know what to do?

[Yasmine]

WELL SAID......­.......BUT WE THE PEOPLE SHOULD REALIZE THAT MANY OF THE SENATORS (on the democratic side )WHO SIGNED ON WAS BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO CREATE A ....HAWKISH RESUME FOR THEIR RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.
SO, WE THE PEOPLE SHOULD DECIDE TO CHANGE THAT.
IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT WE GET THE LEADERS THAT WE DESERVE.

[Boyarina]

Please don't yell - allcaps is painful for the eyes so it detracts people from reading your posts and considerably diminishes your credibility.

[RACaplan]

This morning I heard Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Ca) extoll the position that Congress doesn't have the votes to end this war. It is sad that any Democrat in Congress still feels powerless to stop this war. They have majorities in both houses. All they have to do is not fund President Bush's request for funds. This is what checks and balances is all about.

Senators Dodd, Obama and Clinton have to demonstrate some leadership now. If they wish to be considered as capable of leading this country in the oval office, they need to lead the effort in Congress to stop the funding absent a directive to draw down. Afterall, any arms that are twisted by these three candidates are being twisted by the probable next POTUS. Do these twistees want to disapoint the next President? If they can't deliver, America will look to Edwards who is not affraid to demand the non-funding of the war.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Non-funding of the war?

Dems in Congress bemoaning their MAJORITY and MANDATE?

What about impeachment?

Nothing less will suffice to redeem such sacrifice.

[gardengoddess]

Okay, try doing some research and find out how Congress works. 1) While the Democrats have enough votes in the House to end the occupation of Iraq (THERE IS NO WAR!), the Senate Democrats don't have enough votes. Why? Because the Republicans will filibuster any bill put forth that has a timeframe for the withdrawal of troops. It takes 60 VOTES in the Senate to overcome a filibuster. The Democrats alone don't have that many. That means at least 12 Republicans have to vote with the Democrats to end a filibuster. IT'S THE REPUBLICANS WHO FILIBUSTER WHO ARE THE PROBLEM - not the Democrats? IT'S THE REPUBLICANS WHO DON'T HAVE THE GUTS TO GO AGAINST BUSH & CHENEY WHO ARE THE PROBLEM - not the Democrats.

Then - EVEN IF the Democrats can get enough Republicans to vote with them to kill a filibuster, Bush will veto any bill that has a timeframe for troop withdrawal. That means the bill is dead UNLESS enough Republicans vote with the Democrats to overturn the veto. That's 67 VOTES! IT'S THE REPUBLICANS who are the problem, NOT THE DEMOCRATS!

Once more of you get that through your heads, you can point fingers at, and hopefully take action about, the people who are the real problem. CALL THE REPUBLICANS! Especially the Republicans who are wavering on the occupation of Iraq: Hagel, Warner, Collins, Snowe, Lugar, AND THEN call some of those who are up for re-election.

IT'S THE REPUBLICANS WHO ARE BLOCKING ANY ATTEMPT TO BRING THE TROOPS HOME! It's not the Democrats.

[Libsrule]

All they have to do is just not fund the war. The Thug party can filibuster all it wants to but if the bill authorizing funds never makes it to the floor then it's the same as defunding the war.

[joebaggadonuts]

It doesn't matter if the R's filibuster a funding bill. Just don't pass it. The R's in California took California over the brink by refusing to adopt a budget, probably 6 weeks past the point of pain. It's the Administration's f-cking war, let them fund it. The D's _can_ NOT fund the war by refusing the requests for money to fund it.

Oh yeah Fox Noise will turn up the heat, you betcha. And the rest of the MSM will do a he said vs. he said routine identifying all the finger-pointers and finger-pointees. The American public will be treated to scares of government funding stopping. Hell, the Administration may even threaten to cut of Social Security checks and blame it on the Democrats not funding the Occupation/war in Iraq.

Now listen to me. All we have to do is hang together on this. It's the Administration and its enablers in Congress who refuse to accept a reasonable budget. Repeat it over and over and over. It has the ring of truth BECAUSE IT IS TRUE. Eventually this truth will come across and the R's will run and hide. Believe it. Say it. Do it.

[TheLastPenguin]

STOP THE FUNDING! BRING THE TROUPS HOME. A simple majority will do that. Meanwhile, 3776 Dead.

[PADDYWHACK]

Yes garden,but the GOP willbe gone next year,I am really mad at the Dems for making us wait till then before doing anything.

[Jazz42]

Gardengoddess.
Finally someone here are able to write something that make perfect sense. It is the Republican that are blocking the troops from coming home. It is their strategy come election time in 2008 to blame the Democratic party for not ending the occupation of Iraq.

[skindoggy]

Why are we even dancing with these boobs in the White House? It is clear they are in full stall mode to hand over this mess to the next Democrat president and shift the burden of chaos to that lucky individual. Once again, the hijacked republican party creates a huge pile of dog excrement, and somebody else will have to come along and take 8 years to clean it up. Senator Dodd is correct, the surge is a tactic... it is a Bush political stall tactic designed to slow the drumbeat for withdrawal.
Skindoggy

[Fairfloss]

So, it is your way or the highway, does that break it down to simple language?

There seems to be a lot of that going around.

General Petraeus is wasting his time and his energy. Your mind was made up before this hearing. Seems to be the case all around.

[ProfessorXYZ]

"Your mind was made up before this hearing."

Makes sense. Everything Petraeus was going to say was leaked by him and the whitehouse weeks in advance.

The truth is, Petraeus is the most biased source of information possible. It is in his personal best interest to keep things going with positive spin.

[daddysboy]

Well said.