Bush-Petraeus Contradicts Baker-Hamilton

General David Petraeus' congressional testimony this week directly contradicted the findings of last year's Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group. While the bipartisan study group unanimously recommended that the US change its role from combat operations to training and anti-terrorist commando raids almost a year ago, General Petraeus still calls such a strategy premature, and warns against "handing over tasks to the Iraqi security forces before their capability and local conditions warrant." In his testimony this week, the general merely offered a slightly updated version of the logic the Bush Administration has used to keep American troops in Iraq for the past four and a half years: "We'll stand down when they stand up."

Yet the Iraq Study Group rightly concluded that America would need to stand down by the spring of 2008 whether or not Iraq was standing up, noting that "America's other security needs and the future of our military can not be made hostage to the actions or inactions of the Iraqi government." Almost one year ago, they recommended that if Iraq was not making substantial progress on national reconciliation, security, and governance, then the US should reduce not only its military support, but also its political and economic support for the government.

The contradiction between General Petraeus and the diplomats is not so surprising; the general is offering his tactical analysis looking at the military facts on the ground, and the Iraq Study Group offered a strategic analysis based upon the long term interests of our country. The President and Congress need to now come to the same strategic conclusion: a firm timeline to end America's combat role and redeploy our combat troops, no permanent bases, and direct negotiations with all countries in the region including Iran and Syria - without preconditions.

Waiting and waiting for the central government to act is not a plan, since there is no central government. Even Ambassador Crocker was forced to admit during testimony this week that the "government, in many respects, is dysfunctional, and members of the government know it." Our military has been working with the local Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar and our aid is being directed to Anbar - a policy of "go directly to Anbar without passing Baghdad." Prime Minister Maliki probably needed Mapquest to find Anbar when President Bush decided to meet him there last week.

Meanwhile, Hunt Oil is not waiting for an oil partition plan - they are contracting directly with the Kurds as if they were a separate government. Move over Sykes and Picot (the WWI diplomats who manufactured Iraq's current borders) and enter Gelb and Biden (who suggested last year that these borders are manufactured and not worth fighting to defend). Like it or not, Iraq is already in "soft partition" mode, and it's time for us to get out of the way and do everything we can to make sure that other countries in the region do the same.

So, thank you General Petraeus for your military analysis of the ground game, but it's time to pressure Congress to finally rally behind the strategic findings of the Iraq Study Group - and pass a timeline to end America's combat operations in Iraq. We need to put in place the parameters and give our generals and the Iraqi government(s) time to plan accordingly.

On Thursday night, the President will again ask Congress and the American people to stay the course, whatever the cost in American blood and treasure, whatever the foregone opportunities around the world for America to take the lead again.

Join me and tell Congress to stand firm: no open ended commitment to keep our troops fighting in Iraq, and set a clear timeline to end our combat operations in Iraq.

A clear timeline for redeployment of our combat troops still offers our best hope for a stable outcome in Iraq - and our best opportunity to repair our military, repair our relations with allies around the world, and make America safer, stronger, and more secure.

(Originally posted at NedLamont.com.)

Comments

[tEDDIEbear]

The Liar's Liars

Petraeus and Crocker, simply put, mouthed the words of the Bush administration. Nothing will change until the Congress cuts off funding. No money - no war! ! !

[Independent voter]

1) It never mattered what Patraeus had to say. Bush has / can / will do whatever the hell he wants and there is nothing that anyone can do to stop him.

2) Patraeus is the guy who was responsible for training the Iraqi's. Four+ years and these morons are still not ready? Gimme a break.

3) Baker-Hamilton was pure canard dressed up to look like Bush was actually thinking before last year's election. It was a stall - just like the whimsical Patraeus report.

[peterg76]

Did Bush ever actually read Baker-Hamilton? I mean, were there any witnesses?

(My suspicion is 'no' to both.)

[grandmanuk]

The WAR in Iraq was won when our troops defeated the Iraqi army. We are currently involved in a support/occupation mission. A support/occupation mission cannot be won or lost.

It is time to bring both partisan parties to the table to begin negotiations to end our mission, which is in America's best interests.

[peterg76]

Actually, most occupation missions end in a loss. Vietnam, for example...

[arrogantsob]

The main obstacle is greed. As long as people make lots of money from war, there is little use for peace. We know which American companies are cashing in as well as what politicians are getting rich from this war, but did you know that there are Iraqis stealing billions of dollars. They have no interest in stopping this war. Normaly, Americans would scream for an end to the war if they were paying to enrich these war profiteers. Unfortunately Bush is not charging the war to the present generation of Americans but to their grandchildren and unborn great grandchildren and Americans are as a rule are too dumb to figure out that we are destroying our future by these actions. So we go on living the good life, as it is, while our future generations are bled dry by greedy American war profiteers and Iraqi corrupt officials. I suggest we demand that our politicians vote to pay for this war through direct taxes and not borrowing. That will wake up the country since they will have tangible proof of the drain this war is on our lives.

[vipersdad]

Mr. Lamont -

I could not agree with you more. In the well over 4 years since the Iraqi military was re-instated, they have floundered in their efforts to become a functional security force.

All we have to do is look at other examples of unprepared armed forces in history to see what a motivated government and people can do. After Dec. 7, 1941, the US Military was able to grow from a relatively small and antiquated fighting force to arguably the best the world had ever seen. By 1945, the US Armed forces were unmatched. Millions of men had been trained and equipped.

In that same amount of time, we and the Iraqis have done almost nothing by comparison.

With this stark contrast, we can only assume that the big difference is in the will of the people. I have to assume that if by now the Iraqi military wanted to be prepared, they would be. They have had adequate time, and certainly money to get the job done....
They just don't appear to want it badly enough.

So how many of our finest need to die for something they don't even want?

Footnote - I think we've spent well more money than the value of the oil in the ground in Iraq with disastrous consequences. Perhaps a better strategy would have been to spend a fraction of the money and put a solar system on every rooftop in America.

[Herrington]

Of the many things that are dubious about the war, strategically and tactically, I would like to bring up the utter futility of trying to get the Iraqi security forces shaped into a force loyal to the central government. Make no mistake, when Petraeus uses the phrase "before their capability and local conditions warrant
", what he means is trustworthiness. Combat worthiness is one thing and is readily accomplished under tutelage of our military trainers. What is vastly more difficult is to separate out sectarian loyalists from the national loyalist, if there are any, under training conditions.

Only the test of battle will reliably reveal allegiances. An all Sunni unit will have no problem fighting and all Shia militia. A mixed unit will have defections in the field depending on the adversary, making it unreliable by western military standards.

A better approach might be to actually form units on sectarian lines. For every Sunni unit, a Kurdish and a Shia unit, under a national command structure only at the very top. Let each unit police its own ranks for infiltration by another sect, using whatever means they feel necessary, hands off. Sets the stage for an all out civil war you say? Yes it does, but counters it by taking the random violence off the streets, acknowledging rather than suppressing sectarian groups and can focus each unit on supporting infrastructure building and defense within their ethnic group. A risky proposition, but what else has worked and it does not alter the outcome of a civil war, because the units will organize along sectarian lines to fight it anyway.

While we diddle around the question of withdrawal, this might be worth a try. Just a random though as I grow momentarily tired of ranting about how we got there and what their fate should be.

[Rowland]

Al Gore, speaking of the objective, recently said [about our goal]: "To get our troops out of there as soon as possible while simultaneously observing the moral duty that all of us share " including those of us who opposed this war in the first instance " to remove our troops in a way that doesn"t do further avoidable damage to the people who live there."

Congress needs to first begin a debate on a resolution on the question of abandoning the goal of forcing the Iraqi Parliament to pass the Iraq Hydrocarbon Law and the expected Production Sharing Agreements that would greatly favor American oil companies. They can easily have a national consensus about that.

Democratic candidates must begin demanding that the United States tilt in favor of the Sunnis to handle the oil revenues of Iraq. They, the Sunni, would then have to work out the sharing arrangements with the Shia and Kurds to get the oil out of the ground.

The matter of reconstruction, reparations and infrastructure building must be in the hands of the Shia and Kurds. Their goal must be to build a true nation there that will homogenize the people and end sectarian tensions.

By bifurcating efforts we can expect a self-interest balance among the warring factions.

The United States must then withdraw to guard the six oil pipelines and the banking in and out of the country so that the oil money flows through the Sunnis. We have seen that the Shia cannot resolve to treat the Sunnis fairly and this will otherwise perpetuate the civil war contrary to the method suggested by Gore.

The United States must then turn over the tasks the new strategy entails to the UN and get out.

[dadw5boys]

The USA NEEDS TO HANG SOLAR PANELS FROM EVERY COMMERICAL BUILDING AND HOME TO CREATE A HUGH SOLAR POWER GENERATION GRID!
THEN THE USA CAN TELL THE SAUDI'S TO GO TO HELL!

[Rowland]

That too...

[PADDYWHACK]

Mr.Lamont how did you lose to that homicidal nebbish?.When his allies in the WH are done there will be two smoking piles of sh## where Iraq and Iran used to be.A prideful demonstration of our power.History will judge us all and not know that so many Americans opposed him due to the castrati who represent us.We have judged others by their leaders and will be seen as complicit,strength is being able to achieve your aims by persuasion,the use of the big stick only makes us look like immature bullies.I wish you well in you political future and if I were in Conn.would vote for you.

[GJMandinka]

Great post. Methinks Connecticut blew it.
We should make no mistake about the ramifications of pulling back from Iraq. No matter how we do it, those folks have a civil war to fight and that's what they're probably gonna do with gusto when we're gone-or even partially gone. It's not likely to be pretty and the government they eventually wind up with may look a lot like the last one (fully equipped with a powerful strongman)--or a spiffy new Theocracy a la Iran.
That being said, it really looks like a phased-withdrawl is about the best we can do at this point. Too many mistakes were made. Iraq is too splintered, too well armed and their 'democratic' government far too weak to unify the country or restore order. If we don't do something similar to what was recommended by the study group soon, I'm doubtful that any shred of democracy will survive the civil conflict.
...and if you think for a minute that our Pro-war Republican pals are going fail make the connection between our withdrawl and the spasm of violence that will certainly follow, think again. It's going to be hard to explain to the good people that the administration's bungling left us and Iraq, little choice.

[FlowerGirl]

Thanks. We could use your truth in our Senate.
Why do those worthless wimps refuse to act? Bush must be impeached before he launches more war.

[Mack20]

So why doesn't your liberl congress go ahead and impeach him? It will never happen. Eat your heart out!

[DLB]

The only way the democrats could have gotten the necessary republican votes to change course in Iraq would have been to convince the republicans that they don't think that General Petraeus was a mouth piece for the Administration. But since it is already a fact that they do, the democrats have already lost any chance of changing course. And they can thank moveon.org for making that even more clear with that ridiculous ad in the NYT. Way to go!!

[dadw5boys]

Your way off the Demo's are letting BUSH OWN HIS WAR! They are also letting BUSHIT'S OWN IT TOO.

[DLB]

"Your way off the Demo's are letting BUSH OWN HIS WAR! They are also letting BUSHIT'S OWN IT TOO."

Oh, so the democrats aren't trying to get a course change in Iraq? They're not trying reduce or remove the troops? They're going to let Bush do whatever he wants in Iraq without a word of complaint?

BTW, I looked at the vote. Democrats also voted to authorize force in Iraq. It's their war too.

[TexasDem0]

Just remember that everyone who told the truth to BushCo was fired. Everyone who gleefully jumped on the delusion express bandwagon was promoted.

I wonder if Gen. Petraeus puts honesty and decency and morality over career. He cannot be promoted to a higher rank, only to a higher position. He can retire now with a substantial pension. If he does, his job will go to yet another BushCo cheerleader.

[jettexx2000]

yes indeed, the good general (puppett) answers to his boss, bush, not his real boss, the people!..typical of this administration to roll out a pre-programmed hobby horse to re-confirm the only intentions this administration ever had..to continue the war, at all costs!..sad, when the country means less to high ranking officials than the party-line..bush needs the war, to continue raiding the pantry..so, despite the facts on the ground, the administration rambles recklessly on further and farther into a failed policy, because they don't care what happens, as long as the disaster they created, gets handed off to the dems..they will have made obscene wealth just like the railroad robber barons of old by then, so, why bother?..lies and more lies, and the people just roll their eyes instead of heads of state!!..

[GuyRC]

General David Petraeus' congressional testimony was written by a republican after consultation with a large group of other republicans. The fact that these republicans were wearing military uniforms doesn't alter their thinking in the least.