As Expected, A Sobering Assessment

• Share
• Print View
• Comments

The Petraeus/Crocker testimony on Capitol Hill this week was quite grim. In comparison to their last testimonials in September 2007, they reported that almost nothing has changed. Is it their fault? Of course not. I have no desire to "armchair quarterback" the people who are tasked with making Iraq an enjoyable place to live. However, we can't ignore the fact that Iraq is showing no signs of improvement under the continued occupation of the U.S. military.

General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker didn't paint a happy picture of security and stability operations in Iraq. Neither of those gentlemen were touting that democracy is flourishing over the Iraqi desert nor did they say Iraq is doomed to become America's worst nightmare. For me, it was a lot of "yes but no."

My analysis of the hearings follows:

* Progress is slowly taking place, but it is reversible.

* Important measures have been taken toward political reconciliation, but not yet important enough to be implemented.

* The Iraqi government is strong, but needs our help to fight militias, tribes, insurgents, and extremist.

* Nouri al-Maliki's crackdown on Sadr's Shiite militias in Basra and Baghdad was viewed as a great achievement while simultaneously establishing that the feud seriously jeopardizes a democratic Iraqi election process.

* Al-Qaeda is in retreat, but still poses a serious threat.

* Syria provides strong support to Iraq's Sunni insurgency, but we need to engage them in a diplomatic effort while we threaten them at the same time.

* Iran arms, trains, and supports the Iraqi Shiite militias and death squads, but Maliki is an ally of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

* The presence of the U.S. military is required for an indefinite period of time to assist in Iraq's uncertain success, but eventually we will start drawing down our forces.

Anyone who watched the hearings could clearly see that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker seemed very hesitant in giving their progress reports. They provided substantial evidence of a total stalemate in regard to political and military progress combined with the resurgence of large-scale domestic violence. For "naysayers" like me, it was a rather sobering assessment of just how fragile the situation is in Iraq.

On the other hand, we have the "true believers." If you are easily influenced by the rhetoric of John McCain, Joe Leiberman, and Lindsay Graham you would think Baghdad is now an exotic tourist attraction with water parks to take the wife and kids for a summer vacation. So go ahead and make your travel arrangements.

From the information we received from the Petraeus/Crocker testimonies one can only assume that the debate on Capitol Hill regarding whether we "cut and run" or "stay the course" is gridlocked. Both sides will exploit and exaggerate the given information for their own political agendas.

The Republican Party, for the most part, has made it clear that they will carry out the orders of George W. Bush come "hell or high water." Their strategy of unification will make it possible for them to prevail on their war plan despite the fact that its overwhelmingly unpopular with the American people. If they detect any minuscule stipulation that is resistant to the current strategy in the war-funding legislation, they will filibuster it before it makes it's way over to Bush for a veto.

The Democratic party is much more complex and has chosen to play it safe. They have decided that control of Congress isn't enough to change course in Iraq. Instead, they will need the White House too. Unfortunately, this doesn't even amount to an insufficient strategy. It prematurely assumes that they have the 08' elections all wrapped up -- but it is quite the contrary.

How can the Democrats use the war issue against McCain and Republicans in Congress if their voting records are identical? It doesn't seem plausible to me. It actually puts them in a worse position because if they vote for "blank check" funding they'll also be on record acknowledging it was the wrong thing to do prior to voting for it. They vote the same way as the Republicans, but they complain about it. Not exactly trying to win over your disillusioned base now are you ? This timid approach/lack of remedy will undoubtedly cost Democrats the votes of not only the peace-movement, but also life long party loyalists.

Over 70% of the American people are against the continued war/occupation of Iraq. So why won't our elected leaders do something about it? Because in their minds they believe that the majority of us will not formulate our opposition to the war into comprehensive political will. This is the same mentality that allows Vice President Cheney to utter the word "so" when asked about opinion polls that indicate the American people's opposition to our presence in Iraq.

We must prove them all wrong.

I would like to quote Ambassador Ryan Crocker in his opening statement to the House Armed Services Committee's hearing on Iraq:

"Americans have invested a great deal in Iraq in blood, as well as treasure, and they have the right to ask whether this is worth it, whether it is now time to walk away and let the Iraqis fend for themselves."

For me, that says it all. I urge all concerned Americans to ask themselves these very questions presented by Ambassador Crocker. Once you have found an answer, please convey it your member of Congress.

Comments

[francoise]

I naively and optimistically thought, after the November 06 elections, that the American troops would be pulled out of Iraq.

Obviously I'm very disappointed.

Nevertheless I still cross my fingers for Obama to be elected.

Because he might not pull the troops out of Iraq as fast as we want.

But at least he's smart enough not to start a new disaster with Iran.

However no politician can be trusted. Our Sarko, as a candidate, said that the war in Afghanistan didn't need more military forces, but needed more reconstruction, more money, more NCOs, more political strategies. Now he's elected, and he's sending 800 french soldiers.

How not to become a selfish cynic who stays at home on election day ?
Well, I think we're passionate and hopeful dreamers, us ordinary human beings.

Thanks, John, keep up the good work !

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

Will do , thank you, francoise

[deminmo]

Congress debates the Iraq issue then gives in
and funds it. Iraqi's need a government they chose
not one that Bush did. Iraqi's need housing and
basic services. Then we need to actually get the
troops out of their way. Chances are the dire
predictions of chaos won't happen, and the people
will sort out differences. And maybe they will get
a little prosperity out of their oil.
Besides, Bush and Chaney appear to be moving on
to Iran.

[jcorrington]

The only thing new, John, is that the Gen has a new star on his shoulder.


del8300
ie7

[Dap]

Dear Mr. Bruhns,

Been a while since I last dropped in on ya, I wanted to get your take on this issue. Seems to me your take is clear, I agree this is now one for We, the People to decide.

Everyone had better think long and hard because the decision we make will become our future, and we all are gonna have to live the rest of our lives there. Thanks for all your efforts and service. Agape.

[desmirl]

Turning this occupation off would be ruinous to the fat cats of the MILITARY/INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. The longer we stay in Iraq, the more money the fat cats make--and the more YOUNG AMERICANS DIE. Stand up to the MILITARY/IDUSTRIAL OLIGARCHS and tell them NO MORE!

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

desmirl,

I could not agree more. V/R John

[liberalfdr]

The Republican party mis-labels everything to mislead the people and the stupid Democrats let them get away with it!

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

liberalfdr,

Your comments are true words of wisdom. V/R John

[NoFactsJustTruth]

I've got to tell you, John, the failure of the Dems in CONgress to even once call republicant's bluff and force them to a filibuster, or to even once send the preznutz back the exact same funding Bill he vetoed, rather than just repeatedly caving to give him everything he asks for, leaves me with a cold feeling in the pit of my stomach that it's just really a 'one-party engineered show', to fool MOST of the people ...ALL of the time. That Schumer and Feinstein betrayed OUR country's Constitutional Rule of Law in approving an Attorney General they KNEW wouldn't even investigate this criminal adimistration, and that the Speaker took the Fail-Safe method of oversight 'off the table' BEFORE the last election, indicates the multi-nationals own BOTH sides of the isle, and 'We the People' just keep getting played like fish on a hook.

If OUR Government refuses to listen to 70% of OUR citizens telling them to end this CRIME of occupying Iraq for THEIR natural resources, what chance does the Iraqi Prime Minister have when asking us to withdraw OUR troops?

My guess is ...'none'.

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

NoFactsJustTruth,

I feel the same frustration you do. V/R John

[texanna]

Unfortunately, a good many of us thought that we did make a loud and clear statement in the mid-term elections of 2006. The elected representatives chose not to understand us. Instead, they pretended that we told them something else -- like ..."we want a social agenda passed and we definitely don't want to go all political on the Bushies and seek impeachment of anybody!". Furthermore, since that time, whenever any one of the Representatives or Senators has hit the keyboards and written an article that gets posted on a blog the comments go into several pages and usually always have as a main theme "...shut up and do something!". I know many people that have written and called their Senator or their Representative and do so even now, and what effect has that had? No, I think these people choose not to listen and not to understand and I can only think that it's because they've got a vested interest in the status quo whether they've got a "D" or an "R" after their name. Where are term limits when you need them?

[John Bruhns - Huffpost Blogger]

texanna,

Thank you for the comment. Precisely why we should judge them by their voting record in comparison to their campaign slogans. If they won't deliver for us, we have no reason to deliver for them. V/R John