Petraeus Testimony Field Manual

An Annotated Guide to What the General Could Say to Congress

Originally published at the Washington Independent

On Tuesday, Gen. David H. Petraeus will update Congress on the status of the Iraq war. The general is so respected as a military officer that his September run through the Capitol Hill gauntlet effectively deflated political opposition to continuing the war and forestalled Democratic calls for withdrawal. The surge received a congressional reprieve after his testimony.

Now the surge is over -- the final additional brigades are just leaving Iraq -- and Petraeus' goal is different: halting troop reductions amid a rising tide of violence from terrorists, insurgents and militias.

The leading Democrats in Congress, well aware of the political potency of Petraeus' last round of testimony, are already sending the general the message that he'll face tougher questioning in this election year. But with all the talk about what questions Petraeus is likely to face next week, less attention has been paid to what the general's potential answers could be -- and what his comments could indicate about the war and the politics of continuing it.

Here's a guide to four expected questions. Presented with each are some of Petraeus's possible options for addressing them -- and what his choice of answers could mean.

Q. Doesn't the recent uptick in violence -- including last week's Basra and Sadr City explosions -- indicate that even with the greatest amount of U.S. combat power in Iraq during the occupation, we can't keep a lid on Iraq? We've tried the surge, and the results are in. Increasing troop levels isn't an option. Why should we pause further reductions?

Potential Answer #1: "Actually, violence is still down compared to the levels experienced in the aftermath of the 2006 Samarra shrine bombing. We've known all along -- and have said -- that there was still tough fighting ahead."
Translation: Petraeus is either unwilling or unable to confront the implications of the last, best chance for the Iraq war coming up short.

Potential Answer #2: "It's true that our enemies have adjusted to our strategy. What we're doing now is making further adjustments to throw them off-balance, so we can preserve the security gains of 2007. Drawing troop levels down further will complicate that."
Translation: Petraeus wants to have an honest debate about Iraq, but he's not going to give up on the war. Don't expect many concessions.

Potential Answer #3: "I can only tell you what my military advice would be, and it's to keep troop levels as close to pre-surge levels as possible. To go beyond that is to get into a question of national strategy, which is not appropriate for a military officer."
Translation: Petraeus is not going to cover for President George W. Bush any more. He might well be looking to what assignment he'll get -- if he chooses to stay in uniform -- under a Democratic successor.

Q. In Basra and Sadr City last week, the Iraqi security forces performed below our expectations, and contrary to the predictions of many, including many of your commanders. U.S. armor units had to come to the aid of Iraqi forces in Sadr City. That resulted in troop deaths and the destruction of a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle. How much more evidence do we need that the Iraqi security forces will not be competent within a time frame that the American public is prepared to support?

Potential Answer #1: "I share your concerns about the Iraqi security forces. This is why we need to pause to consider the wisdom of additional troop withdrawals. After all, no one desires the chaos that would result if we reduced forces beyond the level that Iraqi Army and Police capacity can sustain."-
Translation: Petraeus wants to use jujitsu. The premise of the question is that the condition of the Iraqi security forces is itself a scandal, and such bad news militates for withdrawal. But by conceding the poor performance of the Iraqis, Petraeus can leverage that into an argument for remaining in Iraq. Democrats want, above all else, to prevent withdrawal from becoming associated with chaos.

Potential Answer #2: "I don't entirely share your concerns about the Iraqi security forces. Many units performed admirably, and we should recognize the bravery of Prime Minister Maliki in standing up for the rule of law against a threat from a militia of his fellow Shiites. Yes, there's unevenness, but we have to support those forces until their condition improves -- perhaps not to an American level, but one commensurate with a force that can meet any internal challenge."
Translation: Petraeus is not actually in the room. Donald Rumsfeld has had plastic surgery to make himself look like the general. There might be diplomatic value in praising the Iraqi security forces -- Petraeus, after all, has to deal with Iraqis every day and will not wish to appear disrespectful -- but to deny reality could easily indicate disrespect for the Congress.

Potential Answer #3: "I share your concerns about the Iraqi security forces. It's important for our strategy that we train and equip them as rapidly as is commensurate with assured quality. The American people cannot and should not be asked to wait forever for such qualified forces to materialize, nor can the U.S. military sustain such an open-ended commitment. Our strategy going forward, as I testified in September, will be to place as much of the burden on the shoulders of the Iraqi security forces as we can."
Translation: Petraeus recognizes that the Iraqi security forces are the weak leg of the stool. He's indicating that the post-surge strategy is going to be a lot like the pre-surge strategy -- heavily reliant on training Iraqis for combat missions and punting on the sustainability of that approach to elected and appointed officials.

Q3: One of the signature accomplishments of the surge, something that you praised in September, was to enlist Sunni insurgents disillusioned with Al Qaeda onto the side of U.S. and Iraqi forces. But these so-called Sons of Iraq or Concerned Local Citizens militias pose a great long-term threat to the Iraqi government. That government, led by Shiites, is understandably fearful of giving security-force jobs to those who were, a few months ago, planting IEDs on the sides of the road. These former militants have ballooned to 90,000 in strength, and many of them openly boast of overthrowing the Shiite government. This is all financed by the United States. Has this creative and well-intentioned program not accelerated the breakup of Iraq?

Potential Answer #1: "The concern is a real one. Progress has not been as expeditious as we desire. We're aware that we have a limited window to incorporate them into the Iraqi army and police. We are working with our Iraqi partners tirelessly to make sure the brave Sons of Iraq -- many of whom have saved the lives of U.S. troopers -- have a place within the Iraqi security forces."
Translation: Petraeus knows he's in a bind and has no good solution. It's an honest reckoning with the problem.

Potential Answer #2: "The Sons of Iraq represent precisely the sort of bottom-up reconciliation we desired when we began the surge. It remains a historic achievement that a Muslim population, and particularly an Arab one, rejected Al Qaeda after extended exposure to their blend of tyranny and fanaticism. Their goal is simple: to serve Iraq with dignity. We should remember that everyone wishes the Sunnis to be part of the solution, not the problem."
Translation: Petraeus remains emotionally invested in the Sons of Iraq program. After all, it was an innovative solution -- months ago. But hubris prevents him from recognizing that his clever short-term fix sows the seeds of future calamity.

Potential Answer #3: "The Iraqi government has made many promises to incorporate the Sons of Iraq into the Iraqi security forces. We're starting to see that happen. But ultimately this will be an Iraqi-generated solution."
Translation: Petraeus recognizes that this is all out of his hands, and so he's washing them.

Q4: The goal of the surge was never just to reduce the level of violence. It was to reduce the level of violence to engender political reconciliation. Not only has that not happened, by some measures -- for example, a looming crisis over Kirkuk and emerging divides with both the Sunni and Shiite communities -- the political situation is even more tenuous. The politicians we support in Iraq are not only unpopular, but, in many cases, supported by Iran. Why is an intransigent, sectarian, incompetent, distrusted, theocratic government worth a single drop of American blood?

Potential Answer #1: "Yes, there are problems with the Iraqi government. But to characterize it as you have misunderstands the magnitude of both the challenge and how far the Iraqis have come in a short period of time. Over the past year, we've had laws passed governing oil wealth distribution, de-Baathification, provincial elections and we have more on the way. What's more, bottom-up reconciliation has paid real dividends in provinces like Anbar, and that can only influence national decisions. When the provincial elections occur in October, those reconciliation efforts will be evident among the new leadership."
Translation: Petraeus feels that lying about Iraqi politics is necessary to preserve current troop levels.

Potential Answer #2: "I can't tell you whether the Iraqi government is worth supporting. What I can tell you is that as long as it remains the policy of the U.S. to support that government, there are certain resources that I, as a military commander, require to complete my mission. Those include an at-least-temporary pause in troop reductions."
Translation: Petraeus is trying hard to stay out of the broader political debate over whether the war is worth the costs. He's also telling Congress that he's an apolitical figure caught in the midst of a policy dispute. The subtext: he'll be just as willing to do what a Democratic president wants.

Potential Answer #3: "That's more of a question for Amb. Crocker. Ryan?"
Translation: Petraeus wants to go home. Now.

Comments

[ajax2]

Congress should have Pretraeus' former boss, Adm. Fallon start the questioning.

[CitizenLegislatorCC]

"Democrats want, above all else, to prevent withdrawal from becoming associated with chaos."

Chaos for whom? It's way, way, way too late to avoid "chaos" for the people of Iraq - their daily lives are lived in a lawless state with no functioning government and a failed urban infrastructure. The only "security" they have is provided by their local militias who patrol the streets, and help protect them from the threats posed by corrupt, hostile national army and police units (backed up by U.S. Army and Air Force firepower that's stationed at secluded, reinforced compounds and bases). Any Member of Congress who pretends otherwise - who presumes, as a deluded premise to every question, that "order" now reigns in Iraq - is lying, willfully uninformed, or a victim of the Pentagon's propaganda and without the wit or will to look elsewhere for information about conditions in Iraq.

http://tomdispatch.com/post/174909/michael_schwartz_how_to_disintegrate_a_city

Chaos is the RULE for the residents of Iraq WHILE an uneasy standoff, with frequent flare-ups of localized fighting in URBAN civilian settings, continues into a sixth year between Iraqi militias and the occupying army and its Iranian-backed Iraqi proxies who are vying for control of the nation's electoral process and thus LEGITIMATE government authority and police powers, with its attendant ability to decide the fate and disposition of the profits from Iraq's vast oil resources.

[dshwa]

The better statement is "The democrats want to prevent withdrawl from becoming associated with a bloodbath/civil war/regional war/ethnic cleansing. Of course, all that is going on now anyways, but the media spins it to appear othewise.

[CitizenLegislatorCC]

And as more than one General made clear to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this week, the "fighting ability" of Iraqis and their security forces is not the problem. They're wily and skilled, though using Iraqi instead of American methods. The problem is the WILL to fight, and the question of WHAT they are fighting for. Give them a united Iraq WITHOUT the American Army calling the shots, and the American Air Force controlling the skies, and a government they both respect and helped elect, and they'll fight to defend it from foreign invaders and Al Qaeda provocateurs, as long and hard as need be.

Unfortunately, that isn't what OUR nation's "leadership" is interested in seeing in Iraq, is it? I don't think the word "democracy" was uttered once during Wednesday's long day of hearings about Iraq. A profoundly UNdemocratic Green Zone "Government" is what the United States is imposing and enforcing on Iraq. Why???

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080404/METRO/804040437/1020/rss09

http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2008/RosenTestimony080402p.pdf

[CAPTAIND]

Rather than muddy the waters by putting words in the General's mouth, he should be allowed to give his own answers. If you really have some "hot questions" send to members of the congressional committee to ask. I never found it productive to impose or ttribute answers before someone has been sworn and testifies

[BillZBubb]

That's odd, because I've always found it rather easy to know how people like Petraeus are going to testify.

[Driver125]

He will say exactly what his puppet masters in the White House want him to say, and he won't be worried about future employment after Bush et al are gone. The military mind is generally pretty linear in situations like this. In short: "I'll jump off that bridge when I come to it." Besides, how many others would want his job? Let's see......(1) Captain wanted for brand-new ocean liner to be named Titanic (2) Army commander wanted for doomed military mission in foreign land (3) Pick your own....

[BillZBubb]

Exactly, Petraeus is a political general of the neocon persuasion. He'll spin it however the neocon masters want. Always has, always will. This is no mystery.


Here's my #3:
3) Experienced cavalry officer needed to lead campaign to remove savages from Black Hills area.

[Shortyfuse]

I am impressed with your facts and easy to read style. Could you be the one to tackle the NATO meeting. I am very depressed that they folded to Bush and agreed to build a missle defense in the corrupt Eastern block. Is Bush dismantling our nuclear arsenal and selling it the them? Will NATO be the new enforcer of the WTO? Now that America is broke, will our military recorces be used and owned by NATO? ( nuclear powered warships, nuclear powered subs, etc. that we can no longer afford to maintain.)

[zizyphus]

I would ask Petraeus why US dropped cluster bombs on civilians in Fallujah, and why US troops targeted ambulances, all in violation of Geneva Conventions. HIs boss, the great uniter, has managed to get all the Iraqis, even ones who hated Saddam, turned against the US. All the Iraqis want is for the US to leave Iraq as soon as possible. The longer we stay there, the more violence will occur. The gig is up- the Iraqis know we aren't there to bring democracy, but to steal their oil. We are the terrorists, and the the Iraqis are resistance fighters, just like we would be if we were in their shoes.

If it wasn't for the US meddling in middle eastern affairs, A Qaeda have wouldn't come into existence. By staying in Iraq, we keep the embers of hatred alive, increasing the numbers of Al Qaeda.

Petraeus, Bush, Cheney should all in the Hague answering questions about their war crimes now.

[scooperss]

He'll say what he's told to say or else.

[lastams]

I’m sure that good General will be loaded with facts and figures from all around Iraq.
This providence will have had x number of less killings, sectarian violence will be down in sections of City Y. What the General will NOT be mentioning is
1. That the Iraqi government continues to be nothing better than Iranian supported extremist groups, each group with it’s own agenda.
2. That militias continue to grow in strength. The Mahdi Army which had a few hundred members at the start of the war now numbers in the tens of thousands.
3. That the Saudis, besides being the number one supporters of world terror, are also the major source of foreign suicide bombers in Iraq.
Oh and leave us not forget that the General won’t be mentioning anything from the National Intelligence Estimate which the White House refuses to release.
Instead of intelligent questioning concerning specific objectives, what we will be treated to is one more bit of political theatre, with no one daring to question the very premise of our occupation; that the Iraqis will somehow magically congeal into a unified democratic government with an independent nonsecular security force.
After five years of war, you’d think we'd know better.

[ForeignAffairs]

Instead of debating the tactical success of the surge, wouldn't it be more useful to use Petraeus' testimony to review and analyze our larger Iraq policy objectives?

Here are some basic questions for General Petraeus:

Do you support Darcy Burner's Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq?

What sort of military victory or show of resolve in Iraq could possibly be so decisive that it frightens all terrorists so badly that they would never again dare to attack us? Why can’t U.S. spending to fight terrorism in Iraq be proportional to that of China, Russia, and the EU?

If you believe that we have a moral and strategic mandate to seize control of Iraqi oil resources, why should we sacrifice our blood and treasure to stabilize Iraq for benefit of Russia, China, and France, who already have big Iraqi oil contracts and contribute little or nothing to this fight? Why should we be so generous about financing and securing their energy future? What sort of Iraqi oil contracts and stewardship have we won after five years of fighting? Why can’t U.S. spending to secure Iraqi oil be proportional to that of China, Russia, and the EU?

In 2006, Iraq produced only 10% of our OPEC oil imports. Does it make us more secure to increase our dependence on Iraqi oil – as opposed to developing more sustainable solutions closer to home?

Do you have personal knowledge of impeachable offenses or war crimes that Congress should investigate?

[Puller58]

Spencer, baby! Congrats on escaping from Marty Peretz's Wild Kingdom. Now that you're out from under the neo-con thought police, why not report on more newsworthy folks than a political general like General P? Interview such mental giants like Norman Podhoretz, Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, John Hagee, Fred Kagan and ask them some questions. 1. Who is responsible for Israel's security, Israel or the US? 2. Why should Iran be attacked? 3. Why did the US support Chalabi? I'm sure you can come up with more questions. The point is that from neo-cons to christo-zionists, we should get a full accounting of the reasons for war in the middle east and the extent to which AIPAC and the neo-cons continue to exert influence.

[Manx]

Question I would like to pose to Gen. Petraeus:

Many have said that you were hand-picked by President Bush to further his agenda in Iraq and even retired Admiral Fallon suggested that you are a political operative for the Bush administration. Have you ever disagreed with President Bush about Iraq policy, and if so, what was the subject of the disagreement?

[dshwa]

Answer: It's not appropriate for me to discuss the internal strategy debates about the conduct of the war.

[Manx]

The question I posed is almost a rhetorical question. Presumably, the question itself would have more impact on the public than the answer, which would probably be evasive.

[GPRogueCowboy]

What I would ask:
Approximately how many Al Qaida Terrorists were in Iraq when you assumed Command?
Approximately how many Al Qaida Terrorists have been Captured since you assumed Command?
Approximately how many Al Qaida Terrorists have been Killed since you assumed Command?
Do I have the Allied and Iraqi numbers correct?
160,000 Allied Forces?
420,000 Iraqi Security Forces?
70,000 Iraqi Awakening Forces?
For a total of 650,000 charged with maintaining the peace and defeating Al Qaida?
How long will it take the 650,000 to DEFEAT the less than 6000 Al Qaida Terrorists?

According to Top Generals in Iraq March 15, 2008:

"Al-Qaida in Iraq, which did not exist as a coherent group before U.S.
troops invaded in March 2003, probably now numbers no more than 6,000,
according to U.S. intelligence estimates. It may have been closer to
10,000-strong before the severe pummeling it took last year,
when it lost its main bases of Sunni Arab support.
It controls no cities but is still active in pockets
through much of central and northern Iraq."
Do you agree with this assessment?

Can we expect 1000 Dead G.I.s and 5000 Wounded per year?
Will how long will the cost of $12-$15 Billion/mo continue?
How long will it take for 650,000 to defeat 6000?
Why did 1000 Iraqi Security Forces that you trained go AWOL during the 1 week Basra Battle?

GREAT JOB.
You should be a 5 STAR by May 2008

[GPRogueCowboy]

More Than 1,000 in Iraq’s Forces Quit Basra Fight
The desertions in the heat of a major battle cast fresh doubt on the effectiveness of the American-trained Iraqi security forces. The White House has conditioned further withdrawals of American troops on the readiness of the Iraqi military and police.
The crisis created by the desertions and other problems with the Basra operation was serious enough that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki hastily began funneling some 10,000 recruits from local Shiite tribes into his armed forces.

A reported asked: "Who was in charge of training the Iraqi forces"?

Answer: "General Petraeus was in charge in 2004 and 2005"

In June 2004, less than six months after the 101st returned to the U.S., Petraeus was promoted to lieutenant general ( 2 Star ) and charged with the task of training the new Iraqi Army and security forces as commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command Iraq.

Petraeus returned to Iraq in February 2007 ( as a 4 Star General ) to lead the "SURGE". He commands 650,000 Allied and Iraqi Forces that are trying to "DEFEAT" 6000 Al Qaida Terrorists that want to come to the United States and KILL Americans.

Petraeus is scheduled to return to the US later this year with a PROMOTION to 5 Stars.
Give me a Break!!

[wiseapple]

I think whatever the general and ambassador say will have been thoroughly edited and vetted by their superiors. The chimpster listens to his 'generals on the ground', but only when they read back the script that they are directed to read.

[SamThornton]

Maybe we're overthinking this one, Spencer. Maybe the General will simply repeat what's worked before: "We've turned the corner. Six more months will give us victory. Our troops are all heroes." and so on and so forth.

[Titonwan]

I wrote Barack Obama today, as I am a resident of Illinois. But I am also a veteran and citizen of the U.S.A. I strongly urged him to read the testimony of General William Odom given to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (2 April, 2008). I urge you to go to "After Downing Street" web page and read it yourself. It is an eye opener. This war is insane and about to get worse. There will be blood no matter what we do. We need to withdraw immediately. Any neocon that tell you different and plays with your patriotism by saying your a coward- tell them for me= fuck you. Dick Cheney and Al Qaida have the same goals. Read it and judge for yourself. Thanx