In other words, Petraeus was saying that, if Biden's hypothetical came true, he would probably recommend a shift in strategy and a larger reduction of troops than the five-brigade drawdown that he's "recommending" by next summer. (I've put "recommending" in quotes because, as noted several times, this reduction is, and always has been, part of the plan. The surge troops' tours of duty will run out starting next spring, and the U.S. Army and Marines have no ready units to replace them. Regardless of recommendations, a drawdown would be unavoidable.)
Sen. Barack Obama asked Crocker a related question: "At what point do we say, 'Enough'?" He noted that the ambassador had once said that the Iraqis understand our patience is not limitless; yet in their testimony, Crocker and Petraeus had been suggesting that it should be. "Under what circumstances," Obama asked, would Crocker recommend swifter or deeper withdrawals?
Crocker did not answer the question directly. However, he noted a few "key indicators." The level of violence, he said, needs to go down and stay down. Iraqi insurgents need to display the same sort of political cooperation that Sunni tribes are now displaying in Anbar province. Linkage needs to be developed between the central government in Baghdad and provinces where this sort of progress is taking place. And the Baghdad government needs to combat Shiite, as well as Sunni, militias.
He did not explicitly link these "indicators" to the continuation of U.S. troops in Iraq. But the implication seemed clear: If these indicators are not sustained or achieved, the U.S. mission could not be considered a success.
When Petraeus and Crocker return to Congress in March 2008, these words will no doubt be read back to them. If the situation has not improved, if the indicators are not in place, then the two will be, as Petraeus put it, "very hard-pressed" to make the case for staying the course.
In one sense, today's hearings dealt President George W. Bush a harsh blow. Many of the senators' questions dealt with strategic issues, which Petraeus and Crocker—through no fault of their own—could not really answer to anyone's full satisfaction. Even the vast majority of Republican senators at least cocked their eyebrows.
Nearly all the senators seemed to recognize that the few, much-vaunted successes—especially in Anbar province, where Sunni tribes have joined with U.S. forces to defeat al-Qaida terrorists—have little to do with the main issues of this war: sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites and the failure of the central government to mediate, much less settle, those conflicts. As Richard Lugar, the foreign relations committee's ranking Republican put it, "The progress may be beside the point." The U.S. troops may be "like a farmer planting crops on flood plains."
Yet in another sense, Bush will probably recover from the blow without much damage. As counterinsurgency theorists understand, a combatant can win every battle and still lose the war. Similarly, the Senate Democrats won on points in today's clashes on the issues, yet Bush will probably win the ultimate contest: the vote, in the coming weeks, on whether to continue with his plan.
In recent weeks, Bush has put all his chips on Petraeus' testimony. He will no doubt now endorse the commander's "proposal" for a modest troop reduction and pretend that it constitutes a compromise (even though it was physically inevitable). And he will repeatedly cite the testimony from Petraeus and Crocker that "some progress" is being made and that further withdrawals might be disastrous.
The Senate Democrats, in any case, lack the 60 votes needed to circumvent a filibuster, much less the 67 votes required to override a veto. And so, no timetables for withdrawal will be set, no enforceable benchmarks will be imposed on the Iraqi government, the surge will play out, and the war will go on, the current strategy intact, through the end of Bush's presidency. Today's hearings—which have been, remarkably, the first real hearings about this war—put substantive issues, and useful words, on the record. But they will almost certainly not result in action or change.
Fred Kaplan is Slate's "War Stories" columnist and author of 1959: The Year Everything Changed. He can be reached at . Photograph of Gen. David Petraeus by Susan Walsh/AP.
Remarks from the Fray:
This whole business of having Patraeus testify before congress is an interesting example of American style militarism in action. The president has been very skillfully using the military as a shield against criticism that would otherwise be directed at him, and as a prop for his own lack of direction and the public's lack of trust in him. In other words, the military is being used as a PR machine and a foil for the commander in chief -- as opposed to a warfighting role. Note the careful phrasing of the CinC, who has repeatedly said things like "the military's strategy" and "we'll le the military decide" and "soldiers and not politicians should decide" --- as though the CinC/President were somehow divorced from the military he runs and not accountable for it. The military is being pawned off as an independant (and exalted) entity, when in reality it is merely an arm of the executive.
I have to give Patraeus credit, he is in a tough spot. He's trying to be loyal to a boss who ultimately wants him to step beyond his role. As the article properly notes, when Patraeus was asked if fighting in Iraq is "making us safer" he basically answered that it was beyond his ken, and that he was simply doing the mission he had been assigned (tame Iraq) as best he could. I can't find a handy cite, but I seem to recall an incident during WWI when "Blackjack" Pershing was about to head to France to head the American army in the field. A reporter asked him "Why are American boys going to be fighting in France?" To paraphrase, Pershing replied "Why? Don't ask me why. If you want to know WHY ask the president. My commander has issued me orders, and I have a duty to follow them." Back then it was a lot more clear - the military was a tool of politicians (president and congress), who were then accountable to the American people for the strategies and polices put in place. President Wilson didn't expect his general to serve as a mouthpiece for his (the president's) policy and strategy choices. And Pershing felt that arguments over the "why" of the war were for politicians and their constituents, not the military.
Simply, we don't need Petraeus being grilled. We need the President being grilled. And every time the president tries to distance himself from military decisions or prognostication he should be pointedly asked "Hey, aren't these YOUR people? Don't they do what YOU tell them?"
--fozzy
(To reply, click here.)
I wonder why Patraeus has so much trouble envisioning the future when it comes to achieving benchmarks for the government or Iraqi military, but can clearly forsee disaster if we withdraw. Why is one future so cloudy and the other so clear?
Isn't this occupation just delaying the inevitable conflict between Iraqis that will lead to a lasting resolution? Soon after we left Vietnam the nation stabilized and the NVA defeated the Cambodian Khmer Rouge. Now we have normalized relations. What would have happened if we stayed like Bush said we should. Would we still be there dying for a failed government in a fractured nation?
--Lid
(To reply, click here.)
Ok, we're all in the throes of information overload from Petreaus and Crocker, and the various talking heads picking apart the scarce facts of the situation. Surge is working, surge is sorta working, surge is not working the way it needs to, confidence in the surge, troop drawdown, oooook.
The consensus on the real long-term issue, political reconciliation, is that the Iraqi government is "dysfunctional." I'll believe that, if only because it seems self evident, but does anyone else think that the actual goings-on of the Iraqi parliament and the state of political negotiations has been woefully underreported? Or at least reported without detail?
The parliament was out last month, so that partially explains the gap. But if you gave me a quiz on who's talking about what and how far along they are in the discussion... I'd fail rather poorly. I think most of us would. Yes, they need to pass an 'oil law.' But what has been proposed? What would be the outcome of the various plans? Is constitutional reform an issue being discussed? How so? Did the partial Sunni walkout ever end?
Does anyone have any links\publications that do a half-decent job of following what is undoubdtedly the central question in Iraq?
--jwschmidt
(To reply, click here.)
Same old same old mainstream line about dems lacking 60 votes to block a filibuster and the 67 necessary to override a veto. What isn't mentined in the story line on how Bush wins even while losing points today is the fact that Congress is not required to give him the supplemental funding he needs to continue to this policy.
But then what am I, a hayseed from Wisconsin, thinking? The democratic leadership is so tepid, remember the softball hearings in the House yesterday, and fearful that its tenuous hold on the so called levers of power would collapse in 2008 if it acted so boldly as to send and resend supplemental funding legislation with benchmarks to the president, and let him take the heat. Ooops, there I go again, imaging that Congress should have the same capability as the administration in bringing its story to us voting hayseeds!
--Joe Maassen
(To reply, click here.)
(9/13)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Hitchens: Obama Should Pay More Attention to India and Less to Pakistan
Would the World Be a Better Place If We All Acted More Like Churchill?
Dubai Assumes It's Too Big To Fail. It May Be Wrong.
The Only Good Way To Get Rid of Unused Prescription Drugs
The Fancy Vodka That's Making Great Ads About the Recession
Kid Won't Shut Up? Give Him Your iPhone.
Remarks from the Fray:
This whole business of having Patraeus testify before congress is an interesting example of American style militarism in action. The president has been very skillfully using the military as a shield against criticism that would otherwise be directed at him, and as a prop for his own lack of direction and the public's lack of trust in him. In other words, the military is being used as a PR machine and a foil for the commander in chief -- as opposed to a warfighting role. Note the careful phrasing of the CinC, who has repeatedly said things like "the military's strategy" and "we'll le the military decide" and "soldiers and not politicians should decide" --- as though the CinC/President were somehow divorced from the military he runs and not accountable for it. The military is being pawned off as an independant (and exalted) entity, when in reality it is merely an arm of the executive.
I have to give Patraeus credit, he is in a tough spot. He's trying to be loyal to a boss who ultimately wants him to step beyond his role. As the article properly notes, when Patraeus was asked if fighting in Iraq is "making us safer" he basically answered that it was beyond his ken, and that he was simply doing the mission he had been assigned (tame Iraq) as best he could. I can't find a handy cite, but I seem to recall an incident during WWI when "Blackjack" Pershing was about to head to France to head the American army in the field. A reporter asked him "Why are American boys going to be fighting in France?" To paraphrase, Pershing replied "Why? Don't ask me why. If you want to know WHY ask the president. My commander has issued me orders, and I have a duty to follow them." Back then it was a lot more clear - the military was a tool of politicians (president and congress), who were then accountable to the American people for the strategies and polices put in place. President Wilson didn't expect his general to serve as a mouthpiece for his (the president's) policy and strategy choices. And Pershing felt that arguments over the "why" of the war were for politicians and their constituents, not the military.
Simply, we don't need Petraeus being grilled. We need the President being grilled. And every time the president tries to distance himself from military decisions or prognostication he should be pointedly asked "Hey, aren't these YOUR people? Don't they do what YOU tell them?"
--fozzy
(To reply, click here.)
I wonder why Patraeus has so much trouble envisioning the future when it comes to achieving benchmarks for the government or Iraqi military, but can clearly forsee disaster if we withdraw. Why is one future so cloudy and the other so clear?
Isn't this occupation just delaying the inevitable conflict between Iraqis that will lead to a lasting resolution? Soon after we left Vietnam the nation stabilized and the NVA defeated the Cambodian Khmer Rouge. Now we have normalized relations. What would have happened if we stayed like Bush said we should. Would we still be there dying for a failed government in a fractured nation?
--Lid
(To reply, click here.)
Ok, we're all in the throes of information overload from Petreaus and Crocker, and the various talking heads picking apart the scarce facts of the situation. Surge is working, surge is sorta working, surge is not working the way it needs to, confidence in the surge, troop drawdown, oooook.
The consensus on the real long-term issue, political reconciliation, is that the Iraqi government is "dysfunctional." I'll believe that, if only because it seems self evident, but does anyone else think that the actual goings-on of the Iraqi parliament and the state of political negotiations has been woefully underreported? Or at least reported without detail?
The parliament was out last month, so that partially explains the gap. But if you gave me a quiz on who's talking about what and how far along they are in the discussion... I'd fail rather poorly. I think most of us would. Yes, they need to pass an 'oil law.' But what has been proposed? What would be the outcome of the various plans? Is constitutional reform an issue being discussed? How so? Did the partial Sunni walkout ever end?
Does anyone have any links\publications that do a half-decent job of following what is undoubdtedly the central question in Iraq?
--jwschmidt
(To reply, click here.)
Same old same old mainstream line about dems lacking 60 votes to block a filibuster and the 67 necessary to override a veto. What isn't mentined in the story line on how Bush wins even while losing points today is the fact that Congress is not required to give him the supplemental funding he needs to continue to this policy.
But then what am I, a hayseed from Wisconsin, thinking? The democratic leadership is so tepid, remember the softball hearings in the House yesterday, and fearful that its tenuous hold on the so called levers of power would collapse in 2008 if it acted so boldly as to send and resend supplemental funding legislation with benchmarks to the president, and let him take the heat. Ooops, there I go again, imaging that Congress should have the same capability as the administration in bringing its story to us voting hayseeds!
--Joe Maassen
(To reply, click here.)
(9/13)