It's Time to Challenge General Petraeus

Dear Members of the House Armed Services Committee,

As a former member of your Committee, I urge you to pursue some of the troubling questions that were left unanswered by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker during today's hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The most serious is whether the surge of U.S. forces is making things worse, not better in Iraq both militarily and politically. In addition, can we afford to continue to fund sectarian combatants who have not shown the slightest inclination to compromise and reconcile?

It is crucial that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker be challenged on these crucial points and that you use the opportunity of your hearing to separate myth from reality in Iraq.

General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker continue to portray the Maliki government as combating lawlessness in an effort to unite Iraq under the rule of law. I urge you to make clear that this is a dangerous departure from reality. In fact, Iraq is more bitterly divided now than before the surge began. This is because Mr. Maliki functions as a sectarian combatant seeking to use the leverage of his power -- and US military backing -- to weaken and defeat his sectarian rivals. This was on graphic display in the recent failed attempt of Prime Minister Maliki to defeat his Shiite competitors in Basra after dragging U.S. forces into the conflict.

General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have cited as evidence of success the reduction in violence that has resulted from enlisting Sunni combatants who once killed American troops to fight Al Qaeda. It is important to point out the obvious fact that there is great danger in paying people not to shoot at us. We are funding former Sunni enemy combatants who are now demanding more money, distributed more quickly, or they will defect and go back to shooting Americans. Do they not see a danger in buying the allegiance of those who once attacked and killed our troops, particularly when they remain bitter enemies of their sectarian rivals?

It is crucial that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker be confronted with the question: Can we afford to continue to fuel the fire of sectarian division by funding sectarian enemies who have shown no signs of seeking, let alone finding, common ground and reconciliation?

General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker repeatedly pointed in their testimony today to the reduction in violence and casualties since the surge began. This reduction can be seen only in comparison to the extreme level of violence in 2005 and ignores the most recent developments on the ground in Iraq. According to U.S. military statistics, suicide bombings and Iraq casualties have spiked in the last few months. Iraqi deaths rose from 568 in December to more than 1,082 in March. U.S. troop deaths escalated from 23 in December to 38 in March, eclipsing the tragic milestone of 4,000 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq. Do General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker consider this progress?

General Petraeus is recommending that we continue to keep buying time in Iraq. He called for the maintenance of troop levels greater than when the surge began during what he described as a 45 day "evaluation" period followed by the "commencement" of an indefinite "period of assessment". In short, let's keep kicking the can down the road. This needs to be challenged. Why? And to what end? Curiously, this time period coincides exactly with U.S. elections. If experts are correct that the current course is making things worse, not better in Iraq, then the time we are buying could actually be fueling the violence and bloodshed that will follow the election of the next U.S. president and Congress. Can we afford to take this horrible risk, particularly given the enormous price being paid by the deterioration of US military readiness?

Today's hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee failed to fully expose or explore the serious and dangerous consequences of maintaining our current course in Iraq. I urge you to pursue these consequences through tough but fair questions of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. There is too much at stake to do anything less.

Sincerely,
Tom Andrews, former Congressman and House Armed Services Committee member

Comments

[winoohno]

You should be directing your questions to Pres. Bush, Vice-Pres. Cheney, Sec. Rice and Sec. Gates. In this country, we have civilan control over the military. Gen. Petraeus should not be in the position to even testify in front of Congress -- he should have reported through his chain of command to the Joint Chiefs or Adm. Fallon (oh yeah, he was pushed out).

The reason why there is such confusion is that Pres. Bush has abdicated his role as Commander in Chief of this vastly unpopular war by placing all the responsibility and decision-making with Petraeus. Bush knows there is no way out, so he hand-picked a General who shared the view that we should be in Iraq long-term and the rest is history.

Your efforts of trying to get some real facts and accountability should be directed at the Administration. Petraeus should not be articulating our overall strategy or goals in Iraq. He is a military man who is doing all he can to save soldiers' lives and make the most out of an untenable situation.

The real culprits here are the chicken-hawks who so brazenly sent our precious military to Iraq with no game plan, no exit strategy and frankly no idea of the cost or effort necessary to accomplish anything of value.

It is a pathetic situation, but muddied further by this Administration's penchant for passing the buck, running the clock out and otherwise distancing themselves from the debacle that is Iraq.

[cam]

You are discussing the surge as though it is the core issue - it isn't. The level of American troops is not an independant control variable that can be tweaked up or down to control the level of violence, or the influence of Iran, or the segregation of Iraqi society. It's merely a political smokescreen that has been engineered to conceal a core truth: that the people who led us into the morass cannot afford the consequences of us escaping it.

[Rescisco]

Every single American should question eac h assertion made by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. There is no rational reason and no factual basis for taking anything they said at face value. The strategy is to repeat the successful ploy of last year (45 days of analysis beginning in July and concluding with a deeper commitment in September). The truth is, it is time for the people to be more vocal and more insistent. Congress will follow.

[desmirl]

General Betrayeus is towing the party line. He is beholden to Bush for his job and isn't about to say one thing that hasn't been handed down from on high. Why people can't understand that most generals got where they are because they Pentagon and the Administration foster a 'yes, master' fraternity is beyond me. When Bush says, "Jump!", General Betrayeus is asking "How high, master?" while he's in the air.

[adinga]

I believe we must accept that the US has made a big blunder in Iraq. Some say because we caused it we must stay till it its fixed, but the problem with this is it does not seem like it is fixable. That means staying there for a hundred years as Senator McCain says... I feel rather than use up all our resources and later find out that it is to no prevail, we must attack the problem now boldly accepting whatever consequences occur. What I mean is we must form a strategy that is based on pulling our troops out, while taking inventory of our wins and losses and forming a different strategy for dealing with them.

[BOfever]

You expect congress to challenge Petraeus on this? Come on, you know all these people, they are a bunch of fools. They couldn't even challenge Roger Clemens or the MLB players and you expect them to try and show up a 5 star general?

[Nonamnesiac]

It's time for the adults to take over this prcess and stop listening to the childish chicken-hawk worshippers of Sergant Rock. It's obvious from Petreaeus's testimony that every single life and limb lost is a waste and that every day we have any troops or contractors in Iraq is harmful to US interests and helpful to the interests of Iran.

The only thing left to do after listening to Petraeus and the lies of those who lied us into the war and their subsequent predictions for why we must stay in Iraq is just get out.

This is not complicated. If you want to get out -- and I mean all troops and contractors -- you get out. You put together a plan so that our troops are safe while they're rapidly exiting and exit -- now -- and you make the contractors get out too.

It's the only way -- immediate, safe withdrawal.

It's time to stop listening to the childish chicken-hawk worshippers of Sergeant Rock coming up with ever more stupid, dishonest reasons to remain in Iraq and make the pols get our troops and contractors out of there now -- safe and sound. The next Petraeus testimony, in say the beginning of June, should be about how efficient we were in getting all of our troops and contractors out of Iraq.

It also means we have to shut up Dems who say "the war was wrong, but we must remain" -- Dems like Obama and Clinton.

[altohone]

Where's Grover Norquist when you need him?

We're now paying 90,000 Sunni welfare queens $300 bucks a month in US taxpayer dollars.

Is a little ideological consistency too much to ask?

[Nonamnesiac]

We're paying 200,000 welfare queens at least a hundred thousand dollars per year each to do the same thing -- Blackwater and other contractor firms. At least by paying Sunnis and Shia militia, some Iraqis are benefitting from our being there.

[altohone]

Fine.

Apply that logic domestically too then. The neocon double-standard that ignores how Americans were benefitting is too blatant to ignore.

BTW, contractors are being paid to do things for us... supposedly anyway. It's quite different to pay so things aren't done to us.
Being paid for inaction was the basis of GOP complaints for decades.

[DemandTruth]

One other question, if you don't mind. There was a lot of bluster and talk (especially from good ole Joe Lieberman) about Iran training and equipping the "insurgents".

Well, we KNOW that many Iraqis were extensively trained and well equipped by US because they promised to fight alongside us, in the Iraqi army (or whoever is supposed to be the "good guys"). Then we KNOW that after they were equipped and given the best military training by the best of the military (US), many Iraqis took those weapons and that training and funding, and went back to fighting with the "bad guys" against us.

So, does Patraeus know what the percentage is of US-trained and equipped "bad guys" vs. Iran-trained and equipped "bad guys"? It would be interesting to know. It would be interesting to know if they even know.

[beanie]

The surge was designed by the Bush administration to minimize the adverse effect Iraq would have on the 2008 presidential election. If Petraeus is successful then he will be elevated/promoted and McCain may just get elected. If Petraeus fails then he will simply be one of the many publicly humiliated but privately rewarded toadies of this administration. Remember Ashcroft, Gonzales, Feith, Wolfiwitz, Rumsfeld, Yoo, Bartlett, Powell, Tenet, Brownie, Bremmer et al.?

Secondarily it served the petty personal interests of Bush and Cheney. "We know what is best for you and we will damn well do what we please".

So? Nah, nah, nah, nah, nahhhhh!

[argeec]

Congress should not be questioning Petraeus and Crocker, they should be questioning Gates and Rice.
The important issues do not concern happenings on the ground in Iraq. They concern the reasons for our presence in the middle east and what our objectives are there.
We need a debate about why we are there and what we hope to achieve by being there.
IMO, the Israel lobby does not want that debate to occur and, because of their influence with congress, we get Petraeus and Crocker instead.

[fairwitness]

Asking Petraeus or Crocker questions is an exercise in futility--they are not the policy-makers, who are those dark, cowardly figures who hide behind the star-spangled general and his civilian sidekick.

Rather, DEMAD that Bush, Cheney, Rice, et al, face questioning on camera by suitably outraged citizens. I'm sick of "fair but tough" treatment of these criminals by cringing, obsequeous military-worshipers.

It's "business as usual", the "my friend" this, and "the distinguished" Mr. that, which, in this congress, has enabled the war-mongers and sociopaths to game the system.

[grendl]

It's the best peace money can buy.

And shocked am I to find out Maliki our puppet, is using the puppeteer to his own ends. Maybe WE'RE THE PUPPET. What a concept.

Being used by foreign nations for armaments against their rivals. And we gladly fund them for political reasons, and financial reasons and everybodys happy except the men and women dying for a lost cause, and watching their nation go down the tubes.

You're right, we don't know what will happen when we leave. We didn't know what happened when we first attacked that nation and I didn't hear any generals second guessing that directive.

[peterg76]

The puppeteers are the oil monopolies. The rest of us are all puppets.

[tutmoo]

so the problem is all those national oil companies [venezuelan, iranian oil co. chinese national oil,saudi aramco]. in case you haven't heard the foreign national oil cos.control 70%of the world reserves. guess you will have to find another scapegoat as the us oil companies are buyers , not owners of oil from foreign nationals.