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

[gardengoddess]

An old adage says: "Nothing good ever comes as anything that starts out as a lie". That applies to a so-called "war" or a presidency.

The problem, Senator, that you and nearly everyone else has, is that you see the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq as a "war". It is no such thing. "War" in America in exist ONLY when Congress declares war. The President, the Vice President, PNAC, the Neo-Cons, can't do it; ONLY Congress can.

The only war in Iraq is a civil one between the Sunni and Shiite sects living there, goaded on by Muslim extremists who came to Iraq because of us.

No, it doesn't matter what Petraeus says. It doesn't matter what Crocker says. It doesn't matter what George Bush says. What matters is the Bush Administration, enabled by Congress, is financialliy raping the American taxpayer, destroying our military, creating the chaos in Iraq that has resulted in the murder - yes MURDER - of hundreds of thousands of people.

This administration, aided by Congress, has created a situation where citizens of a sovereign nation have been forced to flee their homes at the rate of about 50,000 a month! And these are the people America said we were going to "liberate"! We've done nothing but put them in a living hell of our creation. Shame on each and every one of us.

But all is not lost. Americans are no longer asleep at the wheel, Senator. This is OUR country, and we're going to drive this bus from now on, and anyone - ANYONE - in this administration or this Congress, who does not side with the majority of Americans is going to find themselves out of work.

[deminmo]

Gardengoddess, its a "war" on Terror. We have to fight them there so we don't have to fight them over here. We have to get more funding not just for Iraq but for the "Iran War" and the "Syria War" and so on. We can't at this point pull out all the troups. It will have to be a gradual process, probably within a year a few battalions could come home. Some have to stay to protect the oil interest. Anyway, by 2009 Iraq will be sharing oil and natural gas with Iran and Syria anyway.

[tandrmcdonald]

deminmo,
Did you drink your lunch again, Bubba?
Gramma Rose

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

First, thank-you Senator Dodd for years of pressing for state-of-the-art protection for the troops. That so many of your body armor amendments were OPPOSED by the Republicans should not be forgotten.

Second, what to do? At this point, only one thing: Impeach the sumbitches.

Senator Dodd, please call on Speaker Pelosi to bring Articles of Impeachment before the House. We'll duke it out in the Senate later. 21 of the 33 Senators up for re-election in 2008 are Republicans. Surely we can find 17 to put Constitution and country -- if not their own hides -- before further pointless sycophancy.

Impeach Bush. March on Washington Sat Sept 15.
http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer
http://www.pephost.org/site/PageServer?pagename=S15_homepage
http://www.iava.org/

[BlueBoomer]

ReasonIsMyReligion:
About a month or 6 weeks ago, JOE BIDEN was on NPR's Diane Rhem show...The question of impeachment came up. Paraphrasing, this is what he said:

HE WAS IN THE SENATE DURING THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS. From his FIRST-HAND experience, he indicated that the process essentially sucked the Senate dry... NO OTHER BUSINESS COULD BE CONDUCTED...And that case only involved the prez (Agnew had already resigned)...In the current situation, "doing" the prez wouldn't actually gain much since we'd still have Cheney, which is who BIDEN said that, if it were earlier in the term, should be the one to be impeached first...But pragmatically speaking, given the short-timer status of the current administration, along with the time it would take to actually remove them, and the time it would take away from any other business, any REAL benefits would not be outweighed by the costs. (NOT talking money, here). (Also, at that time, BIDEN did say that he WOULD favor impeaching Gonzales, since that would be much less of a time drain on the Senate.)

Look, given the sentiment in the country and his own inexplicably low poll/$ numbers, don't you think he'd push for impeachment if he thought it would be do-able or worth it???... Even if he knew it wouldn't pass, it would surely get him media attention and popular support. But he hasn't because he's not that kind of guy...HE HAS PRINCIPLES...

Which is why he's not swimming in corporate big-money like Hillary and Obama are, despite being from corporatio­n-friendly Delaware...
JOE BIDEN CAN'T BE BOUGHT...

Have we become so jaded and cynical that we can't recognize principles when we see them?...Or do principles count only if they go along with our own personal preferences and desires?

TIMES ARE TOUGH AND REQUIRE TOUGH OBJECTIVE DECISIONS...THAT MEANS REAL LEADERS.

BIDEN/Rich­ardson...G­reat in '08!

[BlueBoomer]

BIDEN was in the Senate during the NIXON impeachment hearings...

[Opus007]

The senate is gridlocked anyway. It is not getting anything done- so why not take a stab at impeachment. The public has to flex their muscles somehow- by 2008 Bush, Cheney and Lieberman will have picked a fight with Iran.

[SensibleAmerican]

In all facets of our lives we come acros people who make it up as they go along. Normally these people get stuck in the hole they dig in. To get out of their hole is accept the fact they goofed up, so they keep digging deeper

First this administration convulated "the axis of evil" with 9/11, then came the WMDs, then spreading democracy in the Middle East, then Nation Building and once the Iraqis stand up, we stand down. This standing up and standing down does not depend on us but on the Iraqis. The way things are and taking history into consideration, the standing up may never happen. Chances are Iraq will turn into a mullah controlled theocracy

Now we can "surge" or "restrategize" or go blue in the faces discussing troop withdrawal, redeployment, pull out, staying the course ad infinitum, ad nauseum. The fact is that each day we spend in Iraq, we are shedding American and Iraqi blood in vain

By going on moving the goal post, this Country's administration is continuing to provide disservice to the very troops they claim to support

[snaggster]

No. His testimony is not relevant. The only relevant fact is that we were lied into an illegal occupation. Stop wasting time and get us out now.

[Mormondude]

"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 UN seems to think that sending thousands or tens of thousands of peacekeepers into civil wars in other countries helps to encourage peace. They have 15k troops in the Congo right now refereeing their civil war. NATO sent troops into Bosnia to referee their civil war in the 90's with YOUR blessing, Mr. Dodd.

http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3274&pr=press/Speeches/104_95/1214b.htm

"Yesterday, Mr. President, the Senate went on record as to whether this institution supports the President's decision to participate in the Bosnian peace initiative. In fact, I believe that we went on record on matters much broader and more significant than that. We went on record as to whether we in the United States Senate support peace in Bosnia or war? Whether we support the continuation of American leadership in the world or the abdication of that leadership? Whether we support a post-cold-war international order that is governed by the rule of law or the force of arms?"

So, Mr. Dodd, do you support peace in Iraq, or war? Do you support continued leadership of America in the world, or the abdication of that leadership?

If putting tens of thousands of troops into Bosnia to referee their civil war made sense then, and if it makes sense to keep 15k troops in the Congo to referee their civil war now, why doesn't it make sense to maintain a peacekeeping force in Iraq?

[dgdavidgreene]

Because it isn't working in Iraq.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

When UN peacekeepers in teh Congo get blown out of their jeeps to the tune of 3 dead and 20 wounded per day, drop me a line and I will be more than happy to consider the efficacy of their deployment.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Do 75% to 80% of the American people oppose our continued participation in the Congo or Bosnia?

I musta missed that Muppet News Flash.

[Changeizgood]

Because that is not Weapons of Mass Destruction
That is not ties to Al Queida, and Sadaam is dead and gone as our troops are experiencing while the stubborn Iraqi Bush REgime Government take vacation for a month. The people have to fight it out among them selves, like we did, for where they will be in the future.

[tandrmcdonald]

Mormondude,
Why doesn't it make sense? We aren't in Iraq as a peacekeeping force, you idiot. George Bush invaded the country that, as he said,
"Tried to kill my dad."
It's a grudge war, and it doesn't hurt that Cheney's Haliburton buddies are raking in billions, does it?
If you're such a big supporter of the peace-keeper initiative why don't you hop into your local Army recruiter's office and go keep some peace?
Last note, intelligent people aren't afraid to change their minds. It's the ignorant doofuses who "stay the course" (regardless of how many other people get killed) who are putting our country in the dumper and our military men and women in coffins.
Gramma Rose