After Two Days, No Answer to ‘How This Ends’
WASHINGTON - They sat behind burgundy-covered witness tables for more than 16 hours of testimony and answered hundreds of questions about the Iraq war, some of them pointed, some of them softballs.
But there was one question that Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad, couldn’t, or wouldn’t, answer.
It was the question that Petraeus himself posed rhetorically back in 2003 when he led the Army’s 101st Airborne Division into Iraq: “Tell me how this ends.”
Much to the frustration of the senators - mostly Democrats, but including a few Republicans - who grilled them Tuesday, neither the general nor the diplomat outlined a strategy for putting Iraq back together or a timetable for bringing U.S. troops home.
Four and a half years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq - and four years after some Pentagon officials thought American troops would be home in triumph - two days of breathlessly anticipated testimony by Petraeus and Crocker appear to have produced another stalemate in Washington.
Democrats in Congress don’t have enough votes to force a withdrawal from Iraq. The Bush administration can only offer the hope of slow progress in Iraq and an eventual, but undefined, U.S. withdrawal.
In response to a question from Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Petraeus predicted that 100,000 American troops would still be in Iraq a year from now.
“Two years from now, in the summer of 2009, we’re still going to have 80,000 troops on the ground in Iraq,” predicted one State Department official, who requested anonymity in order to speak frankly. “We knew that pretty much already. Now it’s done.”
But lawmakers complained that neither Petraeus nor Crocker could explain how the Iraq war fits into Bush’s war on terror or how it’s protecting Americans.
One of the most jaw-dropping moments in the hours of back-and-forth came when retiring Sen. John Warner, R-Va., asked Petraeus whether his proposal for Iraq - including a reduction of U.S. troops to pre-surge levels of 130,000 - would make the United States safer.
“Sir, I don’t know, actually,” Petraeus replied.
In military jargon, Petraeus and Crocker are “walking point” for the White House on Iraq, taking the brunt of the questions from Congress and the media. Much of what President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and others have said about Iraq has turned out to be false, but the general and the ambassador showed up with their credibility largely intact.
The president kept a low profile Monday and Tuesday, but he’s expected to announce in a prime-time address Thursday that he’s adopting Petraeus’ troop recommendations.
Petraeus has been praised for his knowledge of counterinsurgency tactics and Crocker for his knowledge of the Arab world. Both are implementing a strategy that some analysts think might have worked if it had been tried years ago.
Petraeus “is almost certainly the right man for the job in Iraq, but he’s the right person three years too late and 250,000 troops short,” Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., said as the sessions began Monday morning.
Neither man, however, has been able to answer Petraeus’ original question: How does the Iraq war end?
“Are we going to continue to invest American blood and treasure at the same rate we are doing now, for what? The president said let’s buy time. Buy time? For what?” said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a Vietnam veteran who also will retire next year.
Most experts argue that stabilizing Iraq requires two things above all: political reconciliation among Shiite Muslims, Sunnis and Kurds, and Iraqi security forces that can stand on their own.
Petraeus and Crocker could promise neither.
Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., asked Crocker whether ethnic reconciliation is likely in the 16 months that Bush has left in office.
“Senator, I could not put a timeline on it or a target date,” Crocker replied. There are “hopeful signs,” he said, but “how long that is going to take and, frankly, even ultimately whether it will succeed, I can’t predict.”
Petraeus tacitly acknowledged that Iraqi forces aren’t ready to take over security, warning that an early drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq would jeopardize what he said were improved security conditions brought about by the surge.
Petraeus cited an Aug. 16 Defense Intelligence Agency report on the implications of a rapid U.S. withdrawal from Iraq that underscored the point. The results of an American exodus, the DIA concluded, would include “a high risk of disintegration of the Iraqi security forces, rapid deterioration of local security initiatives, al Qaida Iraq regaining lost ground and freedom of maneuver, a marked increase in violence and further ethnosectarian displacement and refugee flows,” Petraeus said.
Looked at another way, however, the DIA report underscores how, four and a half years after Bush invaded Iraq, nothing has been achieved that wouldn’t be swept away as soon as the United States leaves.
Senators were left to splutter, angrily but impotently, at the lack of answers.
“How long will it take?” asked Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
Late in the afternoon, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, asked Petraeus and Crocker what they’d recommend if, a year from now, the Iraqis have still failed to make significant political progress.
Ever the diplomat, Crocker, who was somber, if not downright dour, throughout the two days, replied: “I can’t say what I’ll be seeing a year or even six months from now, but I can say that I will make the same honest assessment I made for this testimony.”
Asked by at least two senators what he’d recommend if things are unchanged a year from now, Petraeus replied: “I would be very hard-pressed to recommend a continuation.”
© 2007 McClatchy Newspapers
Some people just can’t admit defeat…
BRING HOME THE TROOPS NOW!
How this ends …. when the government of the country finally figures out what the people have already figured out … we need to bring our troops home.
My suggestion is that if there are still troops in Iraq on Election Day, that no incumbents be returned to office. And no one should vote for anyone from either of the two wings of the pro-war party.
The only exception would be an incumbent who’s acted aggressively to cut the funding for this war. You can probably count those on your fingers without taking your shoes off. Any votes for more money in 2007 or 2008 take them off this list. Any Senators who aren’t trying to filibuster bills to provide more money aren’t on this list.
Historically, the most casualties usually occur during times when a war is known to be lost, but when the leaders are unwilling to admit this.
It all ends when the last drop of oil is extracted from Asia. Like Iraq, other Asian nations won’t give up their oil without a fight. The US will be using the Bagdad control center (disguised as a 120 acre US Embassy)and all of those air bases recently constructed in Iraq to accomplish this mission.
Osama knew we would go broke playing whack-a-mole in Iraq.
To turn this whole perspective around “we fell into his trap” hook line and sinker.
We turned the most western thinking Arab country in the ME into this!
Neo-cons say winning in Iraq is central to the WOT, what a lie!
To all comments so far DITTO….
How many years will it take to remove the politicians?
How it ends with the help of Gen. Petraeus:
BCLOSWDNLTIW
Translated:
Bush/Cheney Leave Office Saying We Did Not Lose The Iraq War
That is the motive of the entire escalation and the deceptions about “progress” and the testimony of Petraeus.
Wanna bet that the corporate Democrats will fall into the trap? Wanna bet the next corporate Democrat wins the presidency and, when withdrawal comes, the corporate Republicans will say, in 2012, “The Democrats lost the Iraq war, made us less safe, and that we need tougher leaders in Washington”? Wanna bet?
The Republicans want to pin the failure of Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) on the Democrats.
P.S. All they have to do is string Congress along until the election.
It needs to end with war crimes trials.
It never was supposed to end. We aren’t leaving until we have pumped out all of the OIL. Did anyone in the past two days of hearings mention OIL??
“Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., asked Crocker whether ethnic reconciliation is likely in the 16 months that Bush has left in office.”
I expect is right after the Protestants admit to the error of their ways,denounce Martin Luther and rejoin the Catholic Church, but sometime before all Muslims and all Christians renounce Jesus and Allah and return to Judaism
duhhh! the Sunni Shia divide has only been going on for 400 years. Dubya should be a ble to patch this little spat up in no time
LOL @ “whack a mole” ain’t it the truth?
“But lawmakers complained that neither Petraeus nor Crocker could explain how the Iraq war fits into Bush’s war on terror or how it’s protecting Americans.”
[Note: it’s not and never has been, a ‘war on terror’.
It is, (and always has been) a war on humanity and the forces of Light, -led by the forces of darkness, headed up by the coke-head alcoholic Bush and his despicable cohorts.]
__________________
In many houses there is a device called ‘a toilet’.
When something repellent falls in, we press a handle and it all gets washed away…
History has a similar response.
In the fullness of time, the effluent of Bush and his hideous cronies will be flushed down the u-bend of time and be nought but a vile memory.
Roll on that day…
The truth is we will still be asking this question several years from now.
No matter what lies have been said, this war is, and has always been, about the oil.
I have to agree with collidingrivers, come election day if your Senator, Congressperson or Presidential candidate hasn’t ACTIVELY worked to end the war, then vote against them.
The war will end when Iraq runs out of oil.
Which country will we “liberate” next in the name of oil?
Sometimes its hard to be proud to be an American.
Now is the time for the people to tell Congress what to do. GET OUT OF IRAQ!! Lets hope Congress is ready to take direction from the voters and act.
Allah is on the side of Bin Laden. God is on the Neocons side. Which one will win? Religion is the downfall of mankind. How does this end? It ends when everyone on earth has enough to eat and does not have a reason to become a terrorist.
If we stay in Iraq long enough
we’ll actually find weapons of
mass destruction. People will
manufacture or import them
or bring them on here because
of our continuing, unwanted presence.
We might even see a mushroom
cloud, thus fulfilling the dream
of Condoleezza, Dick and
l’enfant terrible himself.
Just remember. If playing
poker, make sure that
Quaggenbush is your
opponent, not your partner.
He won’t fold at 100, 200 or
even 600 trillion dollars.
He’ll keep to his mad course
no matter what his debt.
And for what? Don’t ask.
He’s all over the place
on that, going flippety,
flippety FLOP FLOP FLOP.
Cloture this ! Time for Iraqi War surtax.
.
Time for GOP to put their money where their strategic mouth is.
Blogger “Larkrise,” makes a key point re: American continuation in Iraq…..”but I suspect that the loss of any financial comfort will be the only means to effect substantive change for the better.”
I agree and see a potentially win win solution.
The GOP sees strategic value in the war and wants to continue the it at its present level.
The GOP is the party of corporate and affluent interests.
Ergo, morally, ethically and economically sound policy dictates that a war surtax be enacted.
If 130,000 plus troops for years is valid and beneficial for America’s strategic interests, it follows that today’s voters and leaders, and not tomorrow’s middle class or children, should step up and fund this policy.
It ends when the most of OIL is gone….Ditto Iran.
As usual Bush apologists testifying and not under oath. When the question of being under oath was raised by an audience member they were tossed out.
madbeats -
Libertarian congresman Ron Paul is brave and true when it comes to Iraq. He acknowledges that the illegal invasion was just a pretext for stealing petroleum/gaining US strategic advantage in the Middle East.
But he’s an ideological idiot on most other issues: He calls for privatization of:
.Social Security
.EPA and related consumer safety functions of government
.All Prisons and most domestic police functions
.US Weather and Postal Services
.Public Schools
.And much more lunacy (read his website!).
He is (in every other respect) a hypnotized adherent of Ayn Rand/neocon philosophy.
He’s intellectually honest about Iraq, but only within a basically unreasonable value system that’s ultimately even crazier than what our government did in Iraq.
If you’re a Libertarian, too, then none of this (other) craziness would alarm you. In which case, I apologize for my presumption that you’re a reasonable person.
We still do not know who blew up the masjid in Samarra in early 2006 to begin the sectarian troubles.
Wasn’t that about the time that a lot of pressure was coming from the Iraqis for the US to get out?
Here is part of the interview with Arun Gupta in www.democracynow.org, 9.12.2007.
AMY GOODMAN: Tell us who David Petraeus is. Arun, you’re the first person to mention General Petraeus on our show years ago.
ARUN GUPTA: Yeah. What we were talking about two-and-a-half years ago was Petraeus’s role in helping to set up the Special Police Commandos. In 2004, 2005, he was given the mission to train all Iraq military and police forces. And, in fact, in July 2004, Newsweek had this cover of him, saying that Petraeus was going to train Iraqis to take over the fight. Now, the reality is, is that was, of course, a failure, because three years later he was back with an escalation of US forces.
Now, one of the key things that Petraeus did was they decided — him and his command decided — that they were going to create this paramilitary force, the Special Police Commandos. They armed them. They funded them. They trained them. And they also issued the usual denials: “Oh, we’re not giving them any weapons. This is an Iraqi initiative.” And so, now he’s saying the same thing with the Sunni militias.
So, anyway, the Special Police Commandos quickly morphed into Shiite death squads that were used against the Sunni insurgency and against Sunnis, in general, throughout Iraq. And this played a key role in terms of stoking and fomenting the civil war, because you had these death squads wearing government uniforms, being armed and trained by the US, going around killing Sunnis randomly. It generally alienated the Sunni Arab population from the government and drove them into the arms of the resistance.
Now what Petraeus is doing is he’s funding and arming these Sunni militias. And there are reports that have stated clearly with these militias saying, like, “Yes, we’re getting weapons from the US government.” And part of it is, is that they do want to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq, which is another Sunni-based group. It’s an Iraqi-based group. But their main purpose is they want this money and weapons and aid to fight the Shiite militias.
So here we have them, like in 2004, setting up these Shiite militias, and now he’s setting up these Sunni militias to fight these Shiite militias. And what it portends is just an absolute disaster for Iraq. And, of course, it will also be used as justification: “Well, we can’t leave because a bloodbath will result.” But we’re not looking at the fact that it’s the US that’s creating this bloodbath.
Where do we go from here? A modest Suggestion.
There is no alternative to war. There is no other way to build an empire. There is no other way to get a people to submit. The treat of war ultimately is what keeps them oppressed and the rewards of war keeps them submissive and redirect their rage. There is no alternative to war.
The balm of meaningfulness, the embracement of community, the soaring of human spirit, the promise of democracy, of a robust democratic capitalism is only available within peace. There is no alternative to peace.
Our mission in Iraq, stepping aside the treacherousness of the lies for the moment, was based on willingness of the American people to step up to the plate to sacrifice national treasure and the lives of our citizens to rid the world of a brutal regime. The effectiveness of the neocon’s (retro fascist being a much more accurate, truthful, label ) lies lays in this fact: we are willing to fight to protect the oppressed. That is nobel.
Therein is the clue we need to follow through to a policy which is consistent with the truth buried within the lie. We need to support the rebuilding of the nation. And this is my suggestion: we finance its rebuilding to the tune of the Billions of Dollars a week we are currently using to finance its destruction.
We begin on a few fronts. One is in offering all Iraqies that have fled their war torn country jobs as teachers of a corp of well paid, well trained international peace keepers/reconstructionist. These would be trained in Iraqi culture and language. They would form the base of a reconstruction corp.
This corp would be out fitted with construction equipment at every scale from ‘dozers to screw guns. After an initial inventory of the devastation throughout the country and a prioritizing of civil engineering projects the corp would immediately set out to physically rebuild the country. From sanitation and water works to schools and residences from transportation to hospitals. All done with support for the emergence of a local sustainable distributed community economics. Small scale. Local.
In addition there would be the distribution of agricultural equipment and supplies with the focus of establishing a network of trained local small scaled organic producers and processors.
This corp would be outfitted with the teachers, tools and materials to reestablish and extend a network of schools, academic and vocational. Equipment and supplies would be distributed while personnel would be trained. Some locals maybe recruited to go abroad to schools and others trained locally.
The fine grain of this plan for an International Peace Corp would also include distribution of arts and craft equipment and material. The importance to the vitality of a culture of their ability to develop and produce their own expression is too often overlooked. Outfitting local media and arts & crafts centers is important too.
Send them teachers, send them contractors, send them doctors, dentists; send them hammers and saws; looms and spinning wheels; bicycles and mp3 players; makeup and halter tops!
Another front would be in the fact that many of those that went to Iraq within such a program would be Vets, our Vets. The potential for healing for our Vets and Vets from all wars throughout the world is infinite. To be helping out with the running of a daycare, of a local health clinic, with the painting of a granny’s apartment will heal our Vets.
The first phase would be the setting up the Corp and publicizing its mission. The implementation phase would have our troops providing cover with the promise of them too, their talents and their equipment, being used to support the rebuilding.
The Iraqi project would go on simultaneously with an Afghani reconstruction project. And while the word went out that America would, through the UN fund and support the deployment of the International Peace Corp into all areas of conflict.
Metroeloise -
Your instincts toward curing the present neocon-caused mess in Iraq in are decent. Indeed, this kind of decent vision is what should’ve been guiding America well before Iraq; all the way back, through 200 years of US foreign policy.
But it hasn’t before, and it can’t now, because of the refual of apologists, like you, who have nothing to say about the lying, corporate-dominated, undemocratic system that rules America, ever more-so Today.
You seem not to understand that it is America’s criminally-distorted form of Capitalism that bought-off the US presidency and the congress and allowed Bush’s insane Iraq policy, to begin with.
Your suggestions ring hollow because you show no interest in or indignation at the CAUSE of such policies, but only in, now, spending further US taxpayers’ dollars to gauze-over the disastrous effects of such policies and their causes.
How can America build a stable, democratic, human-scale Capitalist society in Iraq when America’s leaders have lost all sense of what it means to protect and preserve such a society at home?
Let me roughly quote your likely cognitively-hypocritical teacher for you, Ayn Rand: Let your mind be the judge of your own actions. If others dissent from your verdict, let Reality be the court of final appeal.
Now look at the Reality of what caused the US invasion of Iraq: Conscious lies, fear-mongering; agendas set by profiteering corporations, etc.
You want to call it fascist in subsequent-action. But you don’t want to deal with the fact that it was fascist to begin with.
In not-dealing with this fact, you help to guarantee that such actions can be easily reproduced by the US government, in the future.
Whether you’re a Randian or not: You are not dealing with the causal Reality.
Wake Up!
What a Crock-er shit!
lwhunt330 September 12th, 2007 1:55 pm
“It never was supposed to end. We aren’t leaving until we have pumped out all of the OIL. Did anyone in the past two days of hearings mention OIL??”
The term “oil” hasn’t been used by most of our Congressional leaders for a long time now. When people finally realized that we went to Iraq to control the flow of their oil, our fearless leaders began to use camouflage terminology such as fossil fuels, hydrocarbons and most recently, U.S. security interests or simply U.S. interests. It will be interesting to see what they come up with next.
Favonian wrote a response and I will weave my comments through theirs. Please bear with the lack of formatting to indicate the call and responses.
“Metroeloise -
Your instincts toward curing the present neocon-caused mess in Iraq in are decent. Indeed, this kind of decent vision is what should’ve been guiding America well before Iraq; all the way back, through 200 years of US foreign policy.”
__Yes indeed it should have been. The point is that it can be. The critique that it wasn’t and the insights into how it came to be, how it was perpetrated is important; it is an epic story. Philosophically it was done with the great dualistic sham that “foreign policy” was not related to “national policy” and that it was to be within the realm of the elite as we the people couldn’t know enough nor had the inclination to act with informed intelligence. Still I was looking into a solution not a critique. In passing my response was informed with the ethic that there needs to be a congruence at all levels of implementation of the guiding principles of democracy. That ought to speak to your comments throughout the next few paragraphs.
“But it hasn’t before, and it can’t now, because of the refual of apologists, like you, who have nothing to say about the lying, corporate-dominated, undemocratic system that rules America, ever more-so Today.
You seem not to understand that it is America’s criminally-distorted form of Capitalism that bought-off the US presidency and the congress and allowed Bush’s insane Iraq policy, to begin with.
Your suggestions ring hollow because you show no interest in or indignation at the CAUSE of such policies, but only in, now, spending further US taxpayers’ dollars to gauze-over the disastrous effects of such policies and their causes.”
How can America build a stable, democratic, human-scale Capitalist society in Iraq when America’s leaders have lost all sense of what it means to protect and preserve such a society at home?
Let me roughly quote your likely cognitively-hypocritical teacher for you, Ayn Rand: Let your mind be the judge of your own actions. If others dissent from your verdict, let Reality be the court of final appeal.
Now look at the Reality of what caused the US invasion of Iraq: Conscious lies, fear-mongering; agendas set by profiteering corporations, etc.”
___I found it interesting that you wish to locate Ms. Rand as my teacher. Historically, in my personal development, I was crushed as I read her to realize that someone with such a talent really could harbor not just such a despicable philosophy but hide it so well within her narratives. So I do see her as a teacher of sorts. An example of what not to do. As for the issue of my teachers: One was my Grandmother. I am following her directive to present not critiques but solutions.
“You want to call it fascist in subsequent-action. But you don’t want to deal with the fact that it was fascist to begin with.”
___Actually I call it retro fascism to point out its genesis. In passing there is the critique of the media use of their selected title of “Neocon.” There is nothing of conservatism to them. They betray their loyal right wing base.
“In not-dealing with this fact, you help to guarantee that such actions can be easily reproduced by the US government, in the future.”
___Again: I am presenting a structure for solutions.
“Whether you’re a Randian or not: You are not dealing with the causal Reality.”
___What is Real here is that we can do what I proposed. It might be the most sexed up solution; it might be very plain. Still it is there: we can act with principle as a democratic capitalist nation to redirect the current streams of development toward a sustainable and just future for all.
“Wake Up!”
___Oh yes!
metroeloise -
thanks for your sincere and thoughtful reply.
We should import a lot of coke, heroin , weed, and pharmaceuticals into Iraq and get their population high and numb, just like here in the U.S., and then Iraqis will be as complacent and docile as most Americans.
Two ‘know-knothings’ doing their trained puppy acts before Congress in the service of a psychotic monkey who serves only two Gods:
Murder and Avarice.
“I am not a nation builder” said George W. Bush during his first bid for the presidency. How right he was. He cannot get anything right. He failed at being in the National Guard, he failed with his baseball team, he failed with his oil company. He failed as a president. This is a lesson to all students to try very hard to be more than “C” average.
And it hasn’t changed a bit in the last four years.
(Reprinted with permission)
Hubris Uber Alles
Astride the known world,
Filled with hubris
They marched in their turn:
Darius, Xerxes, Agamemnon, Alexander,
Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler and more
All their empires rising, conquering,
Their passing marked by mounds of skulls
And vainglorious boasts.
Their places taken in turn by others
as their empires rotted from within.
Now yet another warlord stands,
His nation’s proud banner, once a beacon
Of freedom and hope to all mankind,
Now a symbol to be feared
By friend and foe alike.
This, too, shall pass away
After adding its quota of skulls to the mountain,
While the common man around the world
Holds tight the dream of Brotherhood and Peace
Close to his breaking heart.
Steve Osborn
9 August 2003
Of course there is no answer because the answer to all these questions is “it depends”. They will tell you that it depends on what happens on the ground and in political goings on. It is always the conclusion that they do not have a clue, because most of the factors are out of their control. They will not admit this, but you can tell that this is the case even without looking too closely.
After watching the senate hearings with Crocker and Petraeus two things disturbed me.
One when the Senate was presented with the accusations/evidence of Iranian training/funding/arming of the insurgency and terrorism in Iraq, there was no sense of outrage but of resignation. If this was taking place in the United States what would they say but instead they give off the attitude of “ow OK i guess we deserve to have a our service men killed and blown up by Iranians……no big deal to me” Republicans and Democrats all say they support our servicemen….why don’t they at least denounce Iran for killing the troops they monotonously praise.
The second issue is with the very misleading statements from Crocker about Maliki and the government. Just from watching this hearing you would think that Maliki was a good guy with the interests of Iraq’s and Americans as his driving influence. The reality is that Maliki is firmly supporting Iranian and Mahdi army goals, while only doing enough to appear as an ally to the U.S. . Crocker knows this, the Senate should know this but everyone there seemed to be happy playing the game, lie to the American public game so we dont make our supposed allies mad at us . Both sides tout the 2005 Iraqi election as democracy and shut down support for change in the Iraqi government by claiming interference in democracy but in reality they know the elections where a scam and heavily tainted by Iran (reference:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/29/AR2007082901930.html) They then call for democratic change in Iraq for a government they support via money and military arms. Why would the current Iraqi government ever vote itself out of power and if the people wanted a change how would they pressure the government to do this?
The biggest problem in this war from Democrats and Republicans are there attempts at manipulation of American perception over simply telling the truth.