Did not get a chance to watch the hearing today but have read quite a bit about it and none of it should surprise anyone. The Democrats and their minions ran roughshod over the General and the Ambassador allowing the idiots from Code Pink and others to heckle at their leisure. They took 2 minutes to ask a question (more like a statement) and then continued to badger the two to hurry their answers up. Just a complete and utter circus it appears.
Tom Elia is keeping a scorecard of the interruptions.
USA Today has some audio of the testimony today.
And here are some of the slides used by General Petraeus today that shows how well The Surge has worked: (h/t Michelle Malkin)
This exchange seems to be the best I’ve read today:
LIEBERMAN: General and Ambassador, thank you for your extraordinary service in the cause of freedom in Iraq. I must say that, as I listen to your testimony, which is encouraging and yet quite realistic, and in my opinion, not overstated — you’ve told us that the strategy associated with the surge is working, progress has been made, but it’s entirely reversible. You’ve been very frank about some of the problems that we still face.
What I’m about to say, with respect to my colleagues who have consistently opposed our presence in Iraq, as I hear the questions and the statements today, it seems to me that there’s a kind of hear no progress in Iraq, see no progress in Iraq, and most of all, speak of no progress in Iraq.
The fact is, there has been progress in Iraq, thanks to extraordinary effort by the two of you and all those who serve under you on our behalf. I wish we could come to a point where we could have an agreement on the facts that you are presenting to us, the charts you’ve shown, the military progress, the extraordinary drop in ethno-sectarian violence, the drop in civilian deaths, the drop in American deaths, and the very impressive political progress in Iraq since last September.
Hey, let’s be honest about this: The Iraqi political leadership has achieved a lot more political reconciliation and progress since September than the American political leadership has. So we’ve got to give credit for that.
I repeat, I wish we could have an agreement on the facts which you presented. You work for us. I don’t distrust those facts. And I wish we could go from an agreement on those facts to figure out how we can move to more success so we can bring more of our troops home. That’s apparently not going to happen in the near future.
I want to ask you a question about Iran, because both of you have spoken with great seriousness about the continuing Iranian threat. Senator Kennedy asked a question about the Iraqi government initiative in southern Iraq and said there was no Al Qaida there.
As you said, General Petraeus, there is no Al Qaida there, but there are Iranian-backed special forces that, from what you’ve told us today, continue to threaten what’s our real goal in Iraq, which is not just to defeat Al Qaida, it’s to help stand up a self-governing, self- defending Iraqi government. So talk to us about — let me ask you first: Are the Iranians still training and equipping Iraqi extremists who are going back into Iraq and killing American soldiers?
PETRAEUS: That is correct, Senator.
In fact, we have detained individuals. Four of the 16 so-called master trainers, for example, are in our detention facility. You may recall that last year we detained the head of the special groups and also the deputy commander of the Lebanese Hezbollah Department 2,800, which is working with the Iranian Quds Force to train, equip, fund and also direct these special groups.
The special groups’ activities have, in fact, come out in greater relief during the violence of recent weeks. It is they who have the expertise to shoot rockets more accurately, shoot mortars more accurately, and to employ some of the more advanced materiel, the explosively formed projectiles and the like, that have not just killed our soldiers and Iraqi soldiers, but also have been used to assassinate two southern governors in past months and two southern police chiefs.
So they are a serious concern. I believe that this has brought out in greater relief for the Iraqi government as well, because they have conveyed directly to their Iranian interlocutors their concerns about the activities of the Quds Force with the special groups and recognize the very clear threat that they present to security in Iraq.
LIEBERMAN: Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups in Iraq are responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands — excuse me — hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?
PETRAEUS: It certainly is. I do believe that is correct.
Again, some of that also is militia elements who have been — subsequently have been trained by these individuals. But there is no question about the threat that they pose, and, again, about the way that has been revealed more fully in recent weeks.
LIEBERMAN: Ambassador Crocker, picking up on something General Petraeus just said, though we all have questions about the recent Iraqi government initiative under Prime Minister Maliki’s leadership in the south, in Basra, is it not possible that there’s something very encouraging about that initiative, which is that it represents a decision by the Maliki government in Baghdad to not tolerate the Iranian-backed militias essentially running wild and trying to control the south of his country?
CROCKER: Senator, that’s an excellent question. As I look at the Basra operation, I look at it through a political lens, obviously, more than I can a military.
General Petraeus has described some of the military’s perspectives of that. The political ramifications, I think, are distinctly more positive. Because that is exactly the signal that the operation has sent within Iraq and, one would hope, in the region: that this Iraqi government is prepared to go after extremist militia elements, criminal elements of whatever sectarian identity they may be.
I note, for example, that Iraqi security forces are simultaneously engaged now in Basra against Iranian-backed Shia extremists and they’re engaged in Mosul against Al Qaida and its Iraqi supporters. And I think that is important. The reflection of that has been seen in the level of political unity behind the prime minister. It’s as — or more extensive than anything I’ve seen during my year there.
LIEBERMAN: Right.
CROCKER: The meeting of the political council of national security on Saturday — and this brings together the president, the two vice presidents, the speaker, the two deputy speakers of Parliament, the prime minister, the deputy prime minister, and the heads of all major parliamentary blocks; unanimously developed a statement, a 15-point statement that included support for the prime minister in these efforts. It called for the disarming and elimination of all militias elements, and it had a strong message warning of outside interference in Iraq’s affairs.
So I think these are highly positive elements that the government can continue to build on as it moves ahead with the other elements of the reconciliation agenda.
The fact of the matter is that, as you can see by the slides, things ARE working in Iraq. Slowly, methodically…but they are working. To pull out now would be disastrous to the whole region and thats not even including the danger our country would be in once al-Qaeda has a nation state to operate from.
As for these protestors, I have nothing but contempt for them. They give encouragement to our enemy by shutting down recruiting offices, calling the enemy “freedom fighters” and telling the world that 9/11 was our fault. In no way, shape, or form is this “supporting the troops.”
The enemy views our own countrymen rallying to support them daily from our MSM…how could this NOT embolden them and give them strength?
See author page
I didn’t get a chance to catch it all, but thought Lindsey Graham scored big with his no-nonsense and condensed Q & A in the morning Armed Forces Committee session. Be sure to seek out his particulars.
I chose to watch it on C-SPAN, which had split screen. Most actually chose to keep eye contact after asking their question/giving their campaign schpiel. Kennedy, however, was a rerun of last year’s testimony. Pompously delivered his BS, then rudely ignored Petraeus’ response. What an embarrassment Chappaquiddic Ted is. Still can’t believe the man didn’t do jail time, let alone make a lifelong career on the public’s dime.
Why in the world do they allow people draped in black clothing with make up and obvious placards into the hearing room? They are there to disrupt — KICK THEM OUT! Free speech means to allow others to speak too; constant interruption denies equal treatment and gives idiots like Code Pink the floor. Shame on you pathetic losers who have no respect for our troops or the democratic process.
2:55p Pacific Time, and Candidate Obama just finished up his Q & A. He did, as predictable, more than his fair share of focusing on the past.. i.e. “blunder” to go in, how he was against it, and how he didn’t blame Petraeus/Crocker for these errors in judgment. When you read his 2007 testimony, it’s very much a rerun soap opera in rhetoric.
What I found unbelievable was an out of the blue addition. i.e. his not so subtle insinuation that part of Iraq “success” was somehow defined to include “no Iranian influence”, and “no trace of AQ” in Iraq. Well pull a rabbit out of the hat… duh… who ever said that was a goal? Or even possible? There’s about as much chance of that happening as a US with zero crime and zero dissent of opinions.
What I found very telling was – leaving the “no AQ” and “no Iranian influence” out of the success equation – Obama admitted in the end that the goal in Iraq was very “do’able”. A slow turning of attitude? And perhaps listening to his Iraq advisor, Colin Kahl, afterall?
By contrast, Clinton stuck to her it’s “irresponsible” to stay position. McCain… of course he’d throw his support behind Petraeus and Crocker’s suggestions.
Needless to say, I’ll be happy to see when the full transcript of all three POTUS candidates is posted online.
Correction… just saw a partial rebroadcast of Obama’s summation. He used the words “achievable goal” and not “do’able”. Describing that goal as Iraq as somewhat messy, but moving along and not being a threat to it’s neighbors.
Fred Barnes had a good point: It seems the Democrats have dropped the “no political progress” line that was so common last September.
They are running out of defeatist talking points.
And the sun won’t rise tomorrow Mike.
After watching most of todays testimony from Petraeus and Crocker our dear representatives on the left did nothing but move the goalpost and postured for their political gain. Kennedy, Kerry, and Menendez were fools in a cesspool of conceit.
I would bet the headlines in most of our leftist papers tomorrow will be along the lines of “Petraeus fails to set timelines for withdrawel” and not one paragraph will be written about the progress in Iraq.
As one eyes over the 08 March dates of the security charts the salient question– and concern– that comes to mind is, not will or can the security gains be reversed, but how long will the security gains be “reversed”?
There is no doubt (after examining the security charts) Iraqi security underwent a notable up-tick in incident violence not seen since fall of ’07. The million dollar question is, is this a trend? Only time can tell if it is a trend.
But most certainly Petraeus’ concern of a “reversal” has happened as an interim event.
This event ‘reversal’ reasonably explains why this time Petraeus “omitted from his packet of handouts a more optimistic graphic that he gave to members of Congress in September” and is now recommending a troop pause.
Actually, the 45-day pause was suggested weeks/months ago.
Ultimately, Democrats have lost and will lose the Iraq issue. President Obama cannot withdraw troops en masse (the Dems’ base’s desire) because Iraq would collapse (according to the Peace Institute and the National Intelligence Estimates) leading to genocide and full blown regional war that would make the $430bn/4000kia over 5yrs look like a skirmish. President Obama can do a partial withdrawal, but that’s the same plan as Sen McCain and Pres Bush and Hillary.
End of story. That’s it. They know it, and now all they can do is politicize it. Once Pres Obama takes office there’d be the same calls for irresponsible immediate unconditional withdrawal en masse, but as Dems did when they took Congress on the promise to end the war, he’d just hedge it, blame it on whatever, and continue the war because the cost of withdrawing is infinitely more than the cost of staying and slowly lowering troop levels.
Any further anti-Iraq war rhetoric from the left is simply irrelevant and demonstrative only of a willing suspension of belief. Calls for “new strategy” or claims that “this strategy isn’t working” are even more moot in the absence of a better strategy than one that pairs withdrawals to successes/conditions on the ground.
So rant away leftists, then pull that lever in November and authorize the continuing of the war like you did in November 2006.
Yet, Petreaus, himself, didn’t recommend a troop pause weeks or months ago; he, also, did not commit to a timetable for resuming troop reductions after the 45-day pause and, also, has recommended an open-ended suspension of US troop withdrawals this summer, asserting “a process of assessment to examine the conditions on the ground and, over time, determine when we can make recommendations for further reductions.’’
“Ultimately, Democrats have lost and will lose the Iraq issue.” —That’s a mighty bold statement, especially for this early in the game, the 06 elections and polls indicating a public souring on a large troop presence in Iraq.
“President Obama cannot withdraw troops en masse (the Dems’ base’s desire) because Iraq would collapse (according to the Peace Institute and the National Intelligence Estimates) leading to genocide and full blown regional war that would make the $430bn/4000kia over 5yrs look like a skirmish. President Obama can do a partial withdrawal, but that’s the same plan as Sen McCain and Pres Bush and Hillary.”
I don’t know what you mean by withdrawing troops en masse. But if you mean ‘all troops’, Obama never said “all troops” would be withdrawn.” If you mean a number like 100,000 removed would lead[] to genocide and full blown regional war,” that’s a description of a worst case scenario, depends on how the variables are considered, and, also, not a certainty; of course, there are, also, counter arguments against such a scenario happening.
By “Peace Institute” do you mean the USIP? The NIE’s paint a spectrum of possible outcomes for various troop withdrawals; they do not designate the certitude of a collapse that you do.
Yes, General Petraeus DID suggest a July pause weeks/months ago, and the nutroots went wild with claims that only surge forces would be removed while he, Gates, and others have been adamant that they desire to further withdraw units only if conditions on the ground warrant.
It’s not a bold statement at all to say Democrats have lost and will lose the Iraq issue because they offer no plan. Is the American public that was deliberately, openly, and clearly lied to in 06 ready to swallow another “New Direction in Iraq” promise 2yrs after the last one was so plainly broken; so plainly proven a pandered lie? Add to that the fact that Sen McCain’s plan isn’t any different than what Sen Obama can offer; both seek a gradual reduction of forces dependent on conditions on the ground, but without a complete withdrawal.
Re the genocide and regional war stuff, nope, not a worst case scenario but a most likely scenario if a withdrawal happens that is made irregardless of conditions on the ground. How many of the intel agencies that compiled the NIE dissented from the position that genocide, regional war, and re-invasion weren’t likely scenarios in the event of a withdrawal that ignores conditions and is based on poll-driven political timelines?
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0643702020080406?virtualBrandChannel=10112
Face it
1) the American people will not buy the “vote D and we’ll end the war” line unconditionally anymore, they’re gonna want a plan
2) there’s not a lotta difference between Sen McCain and Sen Obama’s plans except that McCain is honest and tells everyone the cold fact that yeah, there’s gonna be American troops in Iraq for a long time-more than the next 4yrs.
3) As election day draws closer, Dems will be less and less able to try the sleight of hand claim that voting Sen McCain is like voting for more GWB.
Add to this the division in the party (the Dem party) stemming from:
alienating Florida voters
alienating Michigan voters
alienating Clinton supporters
not promising a complete withdrawal in 4yrs
and lastly add the incoming scrutiny from the people who decide the election: the centrists, independents and RINO/DINOs. These people will look at Sen McCain and see a history of working across party lines and working for centrist, independent, and RINO/DINO positions while Sen Obama has only taken the far left party line in his small history.
Gonna be a lot tougher than Dems realize.
Scott, respectfully, i suggest your semantics are confusing the issue at hand.
I said in post 7, “Petraeus… is now recommending a troop pause.”
You said in Post 8, “Actually, the 45-day pause was suggested weeks/months ago.”
I, again in 9: ” Yet, Petreaus, himself, didn’t recommend a troop pause weeks or months ago; he, also, did not commit to a timetable for resuming troop reductions after the 45-day pause and, also, has recommended an open-ended suspension of US troop withdrawals this summer, asserting “a process of assessment to examine the conditions on the ground and, over time, determine when we can make recommendations for further reductions.’’
Then, you back again in 10: “Yes, General Petraeus DID suggest a July pause weeks/months ago, and the nutroots went wild with claims that only surge forces would be removed while he, Gates, and others have been adamant that they desire to further withdraw units only if conditions on the ground warrant.”
I think the problem is: you want to accent “suggest”, while I spoke of “recommend”, as in making a declaration about something. While in the past months Petraeus did hint, infer, and even did ‘suggest’ a freeze or pause, he did not anywhere, that i know of, state a recommendation, specifically, for a pause. For example, he was never, to my knowledge, as specific as Gates was, months back, on a pause.
As i read the Patraeus tea leaves, the public may have ‘believed’ –as per his prior hints, or suggestions, that he _might_ freeze a troop reduction, but now they ‘know’ he will recommend to the president a freeze. That’s the difference. And it’s this recommendation that probably ties back to the March 08 spike in violence …it assured that Patraeus could not continue with a troop draw-down. March violence tied his hands to a pause, but prior to that they were not bound.
If you can provide me a link where, several weeks/months ago, Petreaus recommended, specifically, a troop pause, I will admit ignorance.
—-
So it was the USIP. I haven’t read it yet. I know the group is a child of the Iraq study group.
—
You state:
“How many of the intel agencies that compiled the NIE dissented from the position that genocide, regional war, and re-invasion weren’t likely scenarios in the event of a withdrawal that ignores conditions and is based on poll-driven political timelines?”
I don’t know. As you’re well aware McConnell’s denied the request for the NIE to be released for public consumption in an unclassified version. Therefore, there is no telling where the intel agencies stand on the particulars presently.
—
I don’t have a lot of time right now to argue at length on this (and apologize for simply linking), but here is a counter argument to the worst case scenario:
http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2008/GauseTestimony080403a.pdf
There are plenty of quality counter-arguments like that by foreign policy and military experts
that make it harder for one to simply privilege a particular case as a certitude, consequently, locking out scenarios, especially, when the events and personalities involved are variable and can be dynamically fluid.
—
“Gonna be a lot tougher than Dems realize.”
Maybe, but it’s still to early for me to frame it; as i feel the public is too media malleable. Perhaps you are betting at it than i am.
recommend vs suggest?
Irrelevant to me. You’re correct that it’s semantics. My point is that the concept, announcement, and plan/objective to have a 45-day pause in withdrawals in July is not a new concept, announcement, plan/objective to the American people.
To further illustrate my point that a pause has always been part of the surge plan, please read the testimony re the surge from September 2007:
http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM43_general_petraeus_testimony_10_september2007.pdf
“I would also like to discuss the period beyond next summer. Force reductions will continue beyond the pre-surge levels of brigade combat teams that we will reach by mid-July 2008; however, in my professional judgment, it would be premature to make recommendations on the pace of such reductions at this time. In fact, our experience in Iraq has repeatedly shown that projecting too far into the future is not just difficult, it can be misleading and even hazardous. The events of the past six months underscore that point. When I testified in January, for example, no one would have dared to forecast that Anbar Province would have been transformed the way it has in the past 6 months. Nor would anyone have predicted that volunteers in one-time Al Qaeda strongholds like Ghazaliyah in western Baghdad or in Adamiya in eastern Baghdad would seek to join the fight against Al Qaeda. Nor would we have anticipated that a Shia-led government would accept significant numbers of Sunni volunteers into the ranks of the local police force in Abu Ghraib. Beyond that, on a less encouraging note, none of us earlier this year appreciated the extent of Iranian involvement in Iraq, something about which we and Iraq’s leaders all now have greater concern.
In view of this, I do not believe it is reasonable to have an adequate appreciation for the pace of further reductions and mission adjustments beyond the summer of 2008 until about mid-March of next year.”
Now, he didn’t specifically “recommend” a “45-day pause in July”, but he made it clear last September that in March (a few weeks/months ago in my words earlier) he’d evaluate further drawdowns and make recommendations; the recommendation made was to pause in July, after the surge forces are gone, wait 45days, and then see if the conditions are right for more drawdowns.
I don’t like it, I’d like to see more drawdowns, more success, and more Democratic Party belly button stares in reflection of how the party has banked on American failure rather than rooted for, supported, promoted, and advocated American success.
re effects of US withdrawal, You’re right. There’s plenty of people who believe the Tigris and Euphrates will turn to chocolate instead of blood, the date groves will bear jelly beans instead of insurgents, and the sky over Baghdad will be filled with cotton candy clouds instead of smoke from bombs. I don’t. I think (and statements from Sen Obama, Sen Clinton, Gov Dean and other Dem leaders confirm) that it’s not likely. It’s gonna take time, and that the cost of being wrong (withdrawing US troops irregardless of conditions on the ground) far outweighs the cost of being careful (keeping as many US troops as are needed in Iraq to succeed in making Iraq a secure and stable ally in the war on terror). The cost of being careful could be $100bn (the other night ABC Nightly News finally came clean and admitted the war in Iraq has cost $453bn over 5yrs), and it could be another 1000 Americans killed. That’s a very high price. However, it’s immensely cheaper than gambling with the most likely scenarios of civil war, genocide, and regional war which are completely un affordable in blood and treasure.
This is why I think Pres Obama would likely come into office at a time when conditions could warrant more drawdowns (trend is towards security getting better and more political reconcilliation by then as well). He could then start ordering forces home, but at the same, unreported rate we’ve had for the past 6months. When force levels get down to 80-50k, he could say we have to keep these forces in Iraq to continue:
protecting Americans there
training ISF
deterring regional threats to Iraq
fighting AQ
ie the current mission and the objective of the past 4yrs….though, Pres Obama would get credit for the drawdowns, the “new” direction in Iraq, etc.
Sen Clinton would do the same
Sen McCain will do the same given the chance
I have yet to be convinced of the US leaves by a different path= chocolate river/jelly bean forest/cotton candy clouds theory. Lacking a different path/plan, it seems to me that the war is now an animal in and of itself that the next President-even a Dem-cannot provide a yet another different/”new” direction. And I still think it’s gonna be a YouTube Bonanza in the fall when members of Congress and Dem party leaders try to argue for yet another “New Direction in Iraq” while the vids of their promises from 2006 are still available for before/after campaign ads/vids. I know I for one will be EAGER to make some vids of Speaker Pelosi promising to end the war (from her 2006 ads), and edit them with her inevitable 2008 claims of the same.
Behold!
The glorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry of the internet.
😀
SISTANI SPOKESMAN SEZ “DISARM” and MOVE MILITIAS OUT!
Sorry, but I did mean to “shout” here. But oh, yes I did. Can’t remember where the Basra thread was where we discussed this, but generally the “gang’s all here” anyway. So here’s as good as any place to bring up the new news. Sadr’s challenge to Sistani has been answered. And somebody ought to call Gen. Petraeus in his House meetings so he can give ’em the update. Anyone got his cell number? LOL
Per an Adnkronos article today… at the very bottom of course… it appears that Sistani’s spokesman is responding to Sadr’s “I’ll disband if the head honchos say to” challenge.
Take that, Sadr. Now whatcha gonna do?
MataHarley,
I’m sure you’re aware that “spokesman” is nameless.
Yep, sure am, Doug. But Sistani’s PR history (thru spokesmen) vs Sadr’s (thru his spokesmen) are like night and day for validity. So I expect we’ll hear more of this in the next days thru other channels as well.
So I’d say keep your ears to the ground, and your fingers crossed… assuming you *do* want Iraqis to see some good news and progress in their internal battles against thugs, gangs, militants and mafias.
UPDATE for Mr. Doug:
Sistani’s spokesman has been named in today’s Voices of Iraq.
This is exactly true. The Mahdi militia was established in 2003 by Sadr, where they proceeded to systematically murder senior clerics to advance Sadr up the theological food chain.
While Sistani can no more say “disband”, since he didn’t form it and won’t go there, he most definitely *can* say “disarm” within his religious authority. Thereby, he unequivocably throws his weight behind the Iraq elected government.
I say again… “take that, Sadr! Now what?”