Petraeus Hearings --- More Obama than McCain?

So these hearings were a tame operation by comparison with the two previous Petraeus Crocker hearings.  Still, some very important points.

Three key points:

1.  Afghan/Pakistan border region, not Iraq, is the greatest threat:  General Petraeus agrees with Admiral Mullen and with our intelligence commnity that the next likely terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland will come from Pakistan and the Federally Administred Tribal Areas.  So just to sum up.  Our intelligence Community, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and future CENTCOM commander all agree that Pakistan is the greatest danger, but conservatives continue to insist that Iraq is the central front.

2.  Petraeus agrees with Gates, not Bush and McCain, on talking to Iran:  In his written responses General Petraeus agreed with Secretary Gates that we need a comprehensive approach to Iran that includes real diplomacy and engages on all issues.

3.  Odierno acknowledges that there is no need for a permanent presence in Iraq:  Despite John McCain's claims that we can have an indefinite Korea-like presence in Iraq, when asked by Jim Webb about the need for a permanent presence Odierno stated that it would be unnecessary.   

4.  McCain missing in action:  As the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, you'd think John McCain would show up.  But instead he is in California campaigning and fundraising.  When Petraeus was last confirmed for Iraq Commander, McCain was off in Davos Switzerland.

Some other important pieces:

1.  There is a possibility that General Petraeus will recommend further troop reductions after the pause in August.  Numbers and certainty are unclear.

2.  The Iraqi provincial elections, which are central to bringing about reconcilliation are being delayed from October until at least November.

3.  There is still no clear indication whether the Sons of Iraq will actually be integrated into the current government and security forces.  There are no good benchmarks on progress on that front and for the most part Petraeus and Odierno remained quite vague when asked about this problem. 

4.  Petraeus essentially acknowledges that we need more troops in Afghanistan but that Iraq is impeding that effort and agrees with Army Vice Chief of Staff General Cody that we have little "strategic flexibility" in terms of troop levels. 

Comments

[KarateKid]

So much for McCain's "experience". His campaign is struggling even though he has had a free ride. When the Democratic primaries end, in 10 days, the heat will be turned up on him and let's see if grandpa can hold up. George F. Will calls him a peripatetic pinball. This is from a conservative Republican. Imagine what is in store from him from the Democrats.

[ApolloSpeaks]

WHY KHAMENEI WON'T MEET WITH OBAMA.

While the Ayatollah Khamenei is the Supreme Leader of Iran, with more powers than his predecessor, not once in his 19 year reign has he met with a non-Moslem foreign leader. Meeting with non-Moslem leaders is exclusively left to the president of Iran. That is Khamenei's policy following the example of Khomeine-the Islamic Republic's founder, In other words, McCain is correct in identifying Iran's president as the highest Iranian official that a non-Moslem US president can meet with.

Those who fantasize that a President Obama would somehow be the exception to this 28 year rule need to know that McCain would stand a better chance of being that exception. Why? Because according to Islamic Law Obama (a Christian) having had a Moslem father is an apostate from Islam. With the Iranian parliament close to passing a law (proposed by Ahmadenijad) making apostasy from Islam punishable by death, it is inconceivable that Khamenie would compromise the authority and dignity of his office by meeting with a non-Moslem apostate President, let alone an ordinary non-Moslem like John McCain.

[rgblue]

And thanks for playing "grasping at straws".

[PioneerKing]

Tell me again why the main stream media insists on touting McCain as expereinced on national security and foreign policy?
The more coverage McCain gets the less his 28 years in Washington seem to have given him an advantage over Sen. Obama's acumen of national security and foreign policy.
Without Lieberman and Graham at McCain's side McCain makes G. W. Bush look like a Mensa heavyweight champion.
When McCain and Obama debate McCain will be using an ear piece to get fed information. It looked like they tried it out when McCain gave his speech abobut what things would look like after his first term in office. Just review the video - something was up because McCain looked lost at time and the cadence of the speech was so disjointed.

[LiberTLover]

I guess that's what they do for Bush as well since he appears incapable of completing an entire sentence on his own.

My opinion is that doing the same thing over and over and doing it WRONG, means you have experience, just not the type of experince that actually helps anyone. And haven't we seen exactly where that has led us?

Further, since McCain boasts so much experience I think the media should start looking at what this alleged experience is, and what he has accomplished that he can make such claims. And if he wants to go after Obama for not being in the military, then his own service record should be on the table for scrutiny. Starting with finishing 849th out of 899 students.

[THINKB4USPEAK]

Unfortunately, some producer of sharp sticks and throwable rocks in pre-history realized there were profits to be made in war.
So he incensed one guy against another to sell one a rock, the other a stick. That is the birth of the military-industrial complex, and look at where it is now. (Mama must be so proud.) War is undesirable, to say the least, but sometimes unavoidable. But recent US efforts in this field have been, well, stupid. You need to specify the enemy(not "Islamic terrorist"), Form a plan of attack specific to that enemy, and execute that plan with minimal force, to conserve your reserves. Don't bomb a mud hut with a million dollar smart bomb-send one guy with a bullet. Don't drum up bogus threats when real ones exist. When you go to war, go with a plan, and the resources to support that plan. MOST IMPORTANTLY, do not go to war as the aggressor, because the one who starts the fight usually loses.

[GPAYTON]

CAN WE STOP CALLING THEM CONSERVATIVES? THEY ARE CLEARLY NOT CONSERVATIVE.
THE LABEL NO LONGER APPLIES. THEY ARE NOT FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE...... NO WAY!!!!!
THEY HAVE SPENT US INTO DEBT. AND PRE-EMPTIVE WAR IS NOT CONSERVATIVE, EITHER.
IT IS TRUE, THAT MOST OF THE GOP ADVOCATES OUR BEING MERCENARIES FOR ISRAEL...
AND POLICING THE WORLD.... WHICH IS INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISM.... WHEN DID THAT
BECOME A CONSERVATIVE POLICY??...... SOCIALISM???? BUSH IS SENDING HUNDREDS
OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS AROUND THE WORLD.... I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE
CONSIDERED A CONSERVATIVE POLICY. WE CAN NOT AFFORD THIS EXTRAVAGANCE.....
BAD ENOUGH THAT WE CONTRIBUTE TO THE U.N.... THAT'S PLENTY OF FOREIGN AID.
CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME.... WHEN ANOTHER COUNTRY IS IN TROUBLE, WE ARE RIGHT
THERE.... AND YET, HAVE HOMELESS VETS, HERE AT HOME.... AND KATRINA WAS MIS-
MANAGED.... OUR INFRASTRUCTURE IS NEGLECTED.... I COULD GO ON.... BUT YOU GET
MY DRIFT. WRITE-IN A VOTE FOR RON PAUL IN NOVEMBER.

[Johnjlws]

What is most remarkable¦

When you see this testimony¦

When you realize this war is being fought based off poor intelligence used in conjunction with just flat out lies¦

When you still have people like Cheney running around whispering about WMDs¦

When we"ve destroyed tens of thousands of human lives¦

When we"ve spent billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars while gas prices go through the roof, bridges collapse, people go hungry, teachers go without pay increases and veterans come home to third-world country medical care and joblessness and homelessness¦

When you have a candidate in McCain that can"t figure out who is who in Iraq and doesn"t seem to realize there"s a difference in Iran¦

When you have a candidate in McCain who not only voted for the resolution that allowed Bush to go into Iraq, but supports this travesty to this day¦

When you have a candidate in McCain who also voted for a more or less exact same measure giving Bush the exact same opportunity to invade Iran¦

What is most remarkable¦

is you have a candidate in McCain and he"s still viewed as a candidate.

I"d vote for a toadstool before I"d continue this travesty.

[hipocampelofantocame]

The real reason that some people are for Mr. McCain is that they fear
the income tax increases that will occur with increased Federal spending
under the Democrats. I switched parties to support and vote for Mr.Obama,
and will just have to take the financial hit in the general interest of our
country. I spent five years overseas in the old "brown shoe" army, and
that didn't wreck me. I learned a lot.

[daddysboy]

Take the financial hit? Our country has ALREADY BEEN HIT. Look at what our federal government has spent OUR money on in the last eight years. Are you actually saying that it is possible to be MORE financially reckless? The Democrat party members could DOUBLE the current amounts being spent on domestic humanitarian aid and this would not even be a drop in the bucket of money that bush has given to himself and his friends. Wake up fans of the republican party; it isn't about 'no new taxes' anymore; we don't have any money left. It is now about 'create new opportunities for all' in the hopes that there are still enough smart people left in America to revive our economy and our government.

[knighthowl]

It is in the best interest of the nation that our debt be paid down. It is only fair that the rich who have gained obscenely under Bush pay higher taxes. Unless you are in the top 5%, you will not suffer under Obama. If you are, you may be paying back what you gained under Bush, but the country as a whole will be far better off.

You, hipo, seem to realize that. What many of the super rich do not realize is that when the nation is doing well, everyone is better off even if the richest individuals have not gotten very much richer. That, or they don't care.

[spyda]

I would hope that all voters had a chance to read this article about Gen.Patraeus views about Iraq and how much he agrees with Sen.Obama someone who has opposed this war from the beginning and will put an honest effort to get our troops out of this war! Hillary is acting more like John McCain and George Bush the more that reality sets in! She should get out the way so that we can prepare for the general election and all of the Hillary voters need to wake up and get a reality check too!The more she lies and tell her supporters about Fla. and Mich. the more they agree with her and that itself is troubling.They would rather back a liar than back someone who would make a honest effort to help us get out of this mess!! They even agree about the gas tax relief that every credible analyst say isn't worth a dime and thats another Bush/McCain idea that she has jumped on the bandwagon to agree with! Even Rush Limbaugh and Carl Rove are laughing at her for listening to and even injecting their views about the Dem.primary process into her campaign speeches!!She is so desperate and its scary!!! And hell no she should not even be considered for VP selection at all!! Get ready Reps.! OBAMA'08

[mheister]

General Petraeus is by no means the first general to strain his words and assessments through a political colander. Westmoreland during Vietnam regularly fudged estimates of North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties. MacArthur played the his popularity card against Truman. While MacArthur got himself fired, and rightfully so, Truman paid a huge political price. From George Washington to Andrew Jackson to Ulysses S. Grant to Dwight David Eisenhower, war hero generals have played a very prominent in American politics. Even today, General Wesley Clarke is widely considered to be on Obama's short list for a vice-presidential running-mate.

What distinguishes Petraeus is he's been put front-and-center by a coop of chicken-hawks to take the political heat with the shielding tile of his uniform. GW Bush was wrong to do this, and representatives of both parties in the legislative branch were wrong to let Bush get away with it.

[robotfog]

we haven't had a war hero since eisenhower.

[Colaholic]

130,000 troops before the surge, 140,000 left now. My guess is 5- 10,000 more coming home this fall. So the surge will have gotten us right back where we started.

[deminmo]

Will Pakistan become the next Iran?
If there is no need for a permanent presence in Iraq
why is there no withdrawl time table?
So, Petraeus now opposes something that his "boss" holds
dear? Won't that hurt his job promotion?
Why are the Iraqi elections being moved to November?
Oh, and is Pakistan a threat because they won't be guided
by Bush?

[Dingoangst]

Hmmmm.... "troop reductions after the pause in August." Won't that be convenient, just before the presidential elections. Patraeus remains a politician not a general. Eisenhower would be ashamed. He should be fired the moment Obama takes over.

[wolfi101]

We're not diminishing our involvement in the region, we're increasing it:

40000 troops told they will be deploying:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/world/iraq/bal-te.troops20may20,0,6573372.story

And Israeli press is reporting Bush comments about plans for a war with Iran before he leaves office:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/05/21/18500566.php

[AnotherToerag]

Good to hear this from Patraeus!

Also, the article says Three Key Points - I notice seven points listed...

[Numbskull]

It actually said three key points...then listed four then added four more...top notch journalism. I still don't know why they insist on calling this the "political" section when all it really is is the Obama propigation or propoganda whichever.

Nice that Petraues was a stupid puppet a month ago bowing down to his royal fool Prez Bush, but now everyone embraces him as likeminded to the messiah.

McCain wasn' t their for (1) hearing. Obama has not participated at all during his freshman term. And he's supposed to handle oversight in Afghanistan. He even admitted he's not doing his job. Promote a guy to President who didn't even do anything during his freshman term but try for a promotion...ridiculous.

[philosopherkingtomas]

When Bush-McCain-Cheney attack Iran for Christmas, 2008; gas will go up to $7 a gallon and impeachment will begin....

[stephenswain]

Here's the deal: Bob Gates is a whole lot smarter than Rumsfeld proved to be. He is a proven intelligence professional with long, long experience getting his head around the challenges in Iraq. He is also smart enough to know that we cannot stay there too terribly much longer w/o significantly realigning our role and forces. Take a look at Gen. Petraeus' CV: He has an earned doctorate. This guy is SMART. Add to that this definition: "Insanity: Doing the same failing thing over and over and expecting a different outcome."

Let us for God's sake give the Iraqis their country back. We've broken it more than it was. We need to admit the colossal nature of our mistake, do what we can to help them, and get out of Hit, Falluja, et cetera. Afghanistan is a different deal altogether. That will take a completely different strategy, with different tactics, different time-lines, and different expectations. There we cannot leave right now, or any time soon. Too bad. But the bad-guys there mean to export chaos and mayhem everywhere they can. That's a qualitatively different equation. Sorry.

[Obama08Supporter]

And people talk about being inexperienced. Hell, give me the one with the inexperience, because he has far better judgement that the reset of the fools. This has been how many times, he has gotten it right against the old warmonger?

Obama 2008

[DennyCrane]

Exactly. Experience means nothing if you make poor choices and have all the wrong priorities. Dick Cheney has tons of experience. Congressman, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Vice President, sounds like a great resume, doesn't it? But do any of us want him to be President? Oh wait, he already is.

[realiybased2]

Petraeus said Pakistan was definitely a serious situation and we need to use diplomacy their and should be addressed, that is the same thing that Obama has been saying for since he made the statement about diplomacy.

[madmaggie57]

At least Petraeus is starting to use some common sense. Talking to Iran-it's about time. Real problem on Pakistanian border-yes. Iraq isn't the center of gravity -yes. More troops on Afghanistan and less in Iraq-yes. If the Cent-Com commander keeps this up, I might even stop disliking him...

[americanwhocares]

Petreaus is very intelligent. He aloso has been the top military sycophant for Bush, but he knows that in January 2009 it will be Obama. He wants to keep his job. Time will tell.

[RAYINNJ]

It's about "judgement" folks - not so-called "experience"!

[jsarets]

Ultimate Fantasy Dream Ticket:

Obama/Patraeus

How does McCain run against that? He wouldn't get 33% of the popular vote!

[RickO]

No mystery why McCain was AWOL. He didn't want cameras focused on him while the generals contradict the entire premise of his candidacy and blow holes in his so-called foreign policy credentials. I suspect that will happen anyway but he's simply buying time to figure out how he's gonna explain it.

[janvoght]

what i take from this, is glaringly honest! barack obama, has the mindset, and insight necessary to bring our relationship with the world into closer balance, than both hillary clinton (&bill), and john mc cain's (republican support ie: bush-cheney) answer.
balancing this international dilema, will free up the energy and focus for the very real problems that effect the american people on an every day basis, (rising gas and food prices, addressing quality education, equity in our tax structure, attention to our infrastructure)
i do not need pages and pages of political history on this man, sen. barack obama to understand, that not only can he see a clear vision of good relations internationally as well as here at home, but he can bring the people together that he will need to accomplish those tough talks necessary to arrive at the vision. it is a vision of the 21st century, based on what will sustain not only this current generation, but their children and their children's children as well! what part of peace and prosperity would we not be able to enjoy, with a leadership willing to give that kind of REAL hope?

[robotfog]

yeah. The 21st century hasn't yet begun because the 20th century was extended by some pretty bad politicians. I'd like to see the 21st century get going soon.

[arkgrfx61]

please please PLEASE use this in your explanation to all those Hillary supporters. This is why Obamaniacs like us are so passionate.

[MourningDude]

If Iraq becomes a self-sufficient country, able to police its own territories without our help, then Bush was right about that possibility all along, wasn't he? If they are doing so well that a US presence is completely unnecessary, then Dems have been wrong for years.

I don't think I would be crowing about it if I were you.

[rleroygordon]

"If Iraq becomes a self-sufficient country,...." "If they are doing so well...."

If cats could bark and drool they'd be dogs.

In reality, Iraq is neither self-sufficient nor doing well. In addition, their government can neither guarantee nor ensure anyone's safety from thugs and gangsters and the bullying death-wish cowards who've been murdering the people since America's invasion in '03.

"If." Sorry, MD. Straw men don't cut it.

[robotfog]

if we had left them alone, they would have finally assassination saddam themselves. Then they would have started their civil war on their own. They never needed us to begin with.

[Daddio1]

If troop levels drop and the war machine slows down that means friends of Bush and Chaney make less money. Hmm, Maybe a President Obama could find a place for Patreus in Afghanistan. It sounds like the good General is as smart as Bush and McCain say he is. At this point I'm sure they are regretting that he doesn't agree with their war strategy.