Questions For Petraeus

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

• Share
• Print View
• Comments

General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will be back in front of Congress next week (scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday), to give their half-yearly report on what is going on in Iraq. So today, as a public service, I'd like to provide the questions I feel would be a good idea to ask the two of them. Democratic committee members, please feel free to use any or all of these yourselves.

Of course, Petraeus and Crocker will be attempting to put a big smiley face on Iraq once again, and they must be kicking themselves for being blindsided by Maliki's recent Basra fiasco. If only Maliki had waited two or three weeks, they could have testified that everything was hunky-dory in Iraq, and then gotten out of Washington unscathed.

But since it didn't happen that way, the questions will be much more intense. Congressional Democrats need to ask probing questions, and then (most importantly) press Petraeus and Crocker for details. Followup questions need to be asked if a straight answer is not forthcoming.

So without further ado, here is my list of questions that need to be asked to Petraeus and Crocker next week:

It has been reported that solving the standoff with Muqtada al-Sadr in Najaf a few years ago meant cutting a deal with him. The United States reportedly paid over 300 million dollars to Sadr at that time. How much total money has America paid to Moqtada al-Sadr or any organization he controls? Are we still paying Sadr any money?

How much money has been paid to the "Sunni Awakening" groups so far?

How much more money is budgeted for paying these Awakening groups? When will these payments end, or will they continue on into the foreseeable future? What do you think will happen when we stop paying these groups?

How many of these Sunnis have been accepted into the Iraq Army or national police forces? Or is Maliki blocking their path to becoming part of the national government's legitimate forces?

Would you call the money we are paying these groups "protection money" or "bribes" paid so that they don't attack American forces? If the money stopped tomorrow, how many of them do you think would begin attacking our forces once again? Is this really a sustainable long-term strategy?

How much of the decrease in violence in Iraq can be attributed to the "surge" and how much to Moqtada al-Sadr's cease-fire? Was the Basra situation a glimpse of what will inevitably happen if he ends this cease-fire?

What is your professional military opinion of the Iraqi Army? How close are they to being able to take over their own security? Are we months away from that happening, years away, decades away, or will it never happen?

Why was the Iraqi Army fought to a standstill in Basra, when the militias reportedly only had mortars and rocket-propelled grenades in addition to automatic weapons? Are we giving them enough heavy equipment for them to succeed, or are they outgunned by the Mahdi Army?

Please detail exactly what American troops' participation was in the recent activity in Basra. Be specific. Were we in on the operation from the beginning? Were we on the front lines, or merely backup and support? How much air power was used? Were British foot soldiers used during the operation? The operation was presented to the world as being controlled by the Iraqis, but how much help did we (and the British), in reality, give them?

Did the Iraqi Army attack any other Shi'ite militias than the Mahdi Army? Did they take on the Badr Brigade or any other militia as well, or was the entire operation against Sadr and the Mahdi Army?

It has been widely reported that Sadr is saying Maliki's push in Basra was purely political -- to quash a rival political party before this fall's Iraqi elections. Is there any truth to this? If so, why are American troops being used in this fashion? How does this fit into the overall American military mission in Iraq?

Do you honestly think the situation in Basra today is better, the same, or worse than it was a month ago? Have any militias been "routed" or are they still in control of pretty much the same territory?

Can you comment on the reports of the Iraqi police force abandoning their uniforms and going over to one militia or another? There were news reports of police forces joining the Badr Brigade and also the Mahdi Army during the fight. Are these reports accurate? What percentage of the Iraqi police force do you estimate to be nothing more than militia members getting a paycheck from the central government, while being trained to be more effective fighters for the militias?

Was giving Maliki a green light for the Basra offensive any sort of quid pro quo offered by Vice President Cheney during his recent visit, in order to secure passage of the Iraqi law which will ensure local elections in Iraq by October 1st? To the best of your knowledge, was any deal of this nature ever discussed with you?

What exact deal did Maliki make with Sadr to end the fighting? Please be specific and address Mahdi Army prisoners released or to be released by Maliki.

It has been reported that Iran brokered the deal between Maliki and Sadr, on Iranian soil. Is this true?

Is Iran supporting the Mahdi Army? Is Iran supporting the Badr Brigade? What other militias is Iran supporting in Iraq?

Given the fact that Iran brokered this deal, and that the Badr Brigade seems to be the side Maliki took in this fight, and given that the Badr Brigade is heavily supported by Iran, did this entire exercise in Basra strengthen or weaken Iran's influence in Iraq and in the region?

While much attention has been paid to Iran aiding Iraqi Shi'ite militia groups, are other countries involved in such support to any militia group in Iraq? Is Saudi Arabia in any way funding Sunni militias in Iraq?

If violence on the scale of Basra erupts in the next few months, will you continue to withdraw the "surge" forces on schedule? Do you think that since the Iraqis know this drawdown schedule as well, that they are just biding their time and violence will get worse in the next few months? If violence in Iraq does get completely out of control, will you ask for more troops at that point?

Do you think this sort of internal fighting between various Iraqi groups is inevitable when America leaves Iraq -- no matter when that may be? Or do you see some other future?

Would you support making the recent National Intelligence Estimate update on Iraq public? Do you feel that the American public deserves to see an analysis of the current situation there, or do you think this information should be withheld from the public for some reason?

How many American troops will be in Iraq at the end of this year, in your estimate?

How long will American combat troops be in Iraq, in your estimate?

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

Comments

[iratior]

Here is a sentence from a recent article written by Robert H. Reid in the Huffington Post:. "Still, Crocker said he was encouraged that the Iraqi government was willing to take on Shiite militias, some of which maintain close ties to major political parties in the national leadership." This leads me to want the Ambassador to be asked the following questions. 1. What militias has the government ;previiously "taken on"? 2. What religions were they? 3. If they were all Sunni, what does that say about the Iraqi government's willingness to enforce the laws in an even-handed manner? 4. What, if anything, was done to discourage the Iraqi government from practicing such discrimination? 5. Is it possible that such discrimination contributed to the insurgency? 6. Why do you think that the Iraqi government should be given military support regardless of its discrimination?

[shamanbart]

Send these questions to Sen. Hagel and whoever else may be on the hearing committee and see if they ask any of them.

I doubt you'd get a straight answer from 1 of those questions.

[SamThornton]

Let me guess how the General will respond to any question:

"We've turned the corner in Iraq. The next 6 months will be critical. We can't afford to back down now. Our magnificent troops are getting the job done. They are all heroes. Support the troops. Did I mention we need another 6 months?"

[DemandTruth]

Yeah, I misspelled his name. A bunch. Sorry - I am ashamed (I thought it looked weird).

[DemandTruth]

HuffPost's Pick

Very very good. Very very nice. Those questions would really put Patreus's hedging skills to the test.

However, since you didn't include any long-winded speeches praising Patreus or reminiscing on past experiences with Patreus or name-dropping of Patreus's associates that could sufficiently eat up the questioners' time, I doubt any Congressmembers would use your list.

[cam]

Great questions, but I doubt you'd get an informative answer to any of them.

[outnow]

Every move we make in Iraq will backfire. The locals in Iraq have been in the Cradle of Civilization for 5,000 years. They understand that there is a huge amount of oil and water in the Land of the Two Rivers. The U.S. has made a graveyard of the Cradle of Civilization. You cannot "win" a war crime. The "shock and awe" campaign will never win the "hearts and minds" of those in the Middle East. The Unity of Islam and the Pan-Arab movement is better brought into harmony with the Western World. The Arab world is not just a blip on a radar screen in a neocon's wet dream or on an oil company's bottom line in a financial statement. In every occupation by a colonial power in history the locals have been able to throw out the occupiers. There are also problems with the Kurds who want independence and the oil in the Northern Towns. There are problems in Baghdad, problems in Basra.

What can Crocker and Petraeus say? How can they spin this? Bush must decide what the policy is. It looks like "divide and rule" for oil is the order of the day. That has been the history of the involvement of the Europeans and Americans in Iraq. So long as the oil is still there, the U.S. will not leave Iraq. There will be one justification after another. Islam was created to resist occupation of the Arab Lands.

[Stirner]

Here's a question: "Is the present conflict in the Middle East justified either by the U.S. Constitution or our national interests?" Be specific.

[Montanamotor]

Or. for that matter, by a UN-resolution? Because, if not - which it in fact isn't - than the US-led attack on Iraq is

1. PER DEFINITION A WAR CRIME.

2. ANY military acts afainst iraqi citizens are per definition WAR CRIMES.

3. EVERY SOLDIER taking part in that illegal war is PER SE a WAR CRIMINAL.

The UN-high court for crimes against humanity will have to work 24/7 for the next 30 years, to conduct all outstanding trials.

This is no joke. This will inevitably happen. It's compulsory international law.

[Rescisco]

Excellent! And after all the questions are answered, we will have not an iota of truthfulness out of the administration and not an inch of progress toward ending the madness. The hearing will be a facade of legislative oversight and will be followed by skillful inaction.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

See Chris Weigant's Profile

To all -

Mother Jones has posted a similar article, from real (although sometimes unnamed) national security experts. Some of the questions they pose are the same, some are different. Anyway, I wanted to provide the link for comparison to what I wrote:

http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/04/questions-for-general-petraeus-hearing.html

Thanks to all for commenting, some excellent replies today...

-CW

[standforpeace]

What a horrible time to be a leader in the United States military. Every part of the training and emphasis is on honor and then you are asked to carry the water for an administration totally lacking in that virtue. I'm absolutely convinced that there is no way to stand next to Bush, Cheney or any of that bunch without getting covered in slime. Petraeus is going to have to make some decisions about how far he will go to cover this administration's ass. Perhaps he will take the only honorable path open to high level military leaders in these troubled times -- tell the truth and expect to be retired a bit early.

[SShaw490]

Just ask Colin Powell about that. He'd have been the most ideal Secretary of Defense in America for Obama if he hadn't gone to bed with dogs and woken up with fleas.

[bronceye]

The answer to all questions will be-The surge is working and we need lots more money for at least 6 mos. to reassess the success of the surge. After that-answer repeated again just like shampoo instructions. Bullshit, money, repeat.

[standforpeace]

That's funny. True but still funny as hell. Thanks!

[iratior]

I suggest asking the following questions: From the way Nouri al-Maliki has acted, it seems as though he is attempting to crush the Mahdi army. Have you any knowledge of who may have advised him to make the attempt? Is it possible that Vice President Cheney advised him to make the attempt? Is it possible the Vice President knew such an attempt was going to be made, yet declined to advise Mr. al_Maliki against it?...The purpose of the surge was supposed to be to provide security while the Iraqis reached political accords. Would you say that al-Maliki's actions have helped or hindered the achievement of such accords? If they hindered the development of such accords, why didn't the administration try to stop it? Is the administration disappointed with Mr. al-Maliki?

[grendl]

The splurge is working.

[Novista]

Many excellent questions. I wonder how few will be asked ...

We already know from the Pentagon that the surge proves even the latest kabuki is a success.

Orwell missed one axiom:

* Failure is success.

[Gibbons]

This is excellent I have been saying for some time that the surge is working thanks to al Sadr and not Petraeus. The only way this administration can get anything done is through buying off the enemy. When the Sunni make their move we should get behind them and support their dictator which is the only type of government that can rule Iraq.