The Blue Voice

Monday, September 10, 2007

Live-blogging Petraeus and Crocker testifying to the House (Update thru 2:30 PDT)

I'm posting here on the testimony of Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker to a Joint House Armed Service/Foreign Affairs Committee chaired by Democrat Ike Skelton of Missouri. It began at 9:30 AM PDT. I'm going to being updating this periodically as I watch. I've also posted a few reality-check links which I'll keep at the bottom as I update this.

Skelton opened with a statement that did a good job putting the testimony in the context of previous administration and military lies about progress in the Iraq War. He focused on the purpose of The Surge having been political progress which isn't happening.

It's good to have Democrats in a leadership position so they can frame a hearing in this way.

Tom Lantos (who was my Congressman for 11 years and I voted for him in every election) did a good job in his opening statement. He called Bush's war policy a "discredited policy" and emphasized that a majority of Congress and a majority of the American people want to get American troops out of Iraq.

Lantos also cited past problems like inadequate troop levels in the initial months of the occupation. And he was even more emphatic than Skelton by saying that no Cheney-Bush administration assertions about the Iraq War can be taken at face value. He cited the recent Jones and GAO reports on the lack of progress.

Lantos said that the administration had sent Petraeus and Crocker to try to sell the administration position on the war. "I don't buy it," he said.

He criticized the Maliki Shi'a government for supporting militias, death squads and sectarian fighters.

He even talked about the "short-sighted" nature of US support for the mujahideed in Afghanistan during the 1980s, groups which gave rise to the Taliban. (And Al Qa'ida, though he didn't say that explicitly.)

He "dramatic change of course" to get out of Iraq "now", for the good of Iraq and the United States.

Ranking Republican Duncan Hunter criticized war critics for questioning Petraeus' credibility. He said "duty, honor and country" was the basis on which "our great officers" operated. Good. Duncan Hunter and his Republican Party are unwilling to question the false claims of our glorious generals.

This is a good exposure of what the Republican Party's "support the troops" hype is really about: defending the inflated claims of generals who support the Republican Party's position on war and national security. unter tried to do what he could to intimidate Democrats from questioning our noble, honorable, infallible general and savior Petraeus. Excellent. The people all need to know how the Republicans approch this.

Hunter defended dissolving the Iraqi Army. He made a few ritual chants about Reagan and how he made the Berlin Wall fall and how the Commies were about to overwhelm us all in the 1980s and Reagan saved us.

Skelton responded well by supporting the integrity of the witnesses and emphasizing that the Committee expects them to provide independent testimony.

Congresswoman Ilean Ros-Lichtiner (R-FL) recited the "support the troops" mantra and pretended that the war was connected to the 9/11 attacks. Vague slogans. Good. The voters need to know how much and how unquestionably the Republican Party supports the Iraq War. She also dismissed the notion that Gen. Petreus' claims could be questioned, pretending it is questioning "the military". Both she and Hunter mentioned MoveOn.org's criticism of our Savior Gen. Petraeus in almost identical terms. Oh, and she cited Neville Chamberlain and the Munich Conference. Good grief! She also cited Reagan. She went on about how we had to beat the Islamunofascodefeatocratists in Iraq and yadda, yadda.

Petraeus tried to start at about 10:15 PDT but his microphone was malfunctioning. This gave us the chance to hear Skelton arguing, uh, bluntly on the side with Hunter and another Republican who wanted to eject audience members whose looks they didn't like.

The summary above goes through 10:25 PDT.

Petraeus our Saviour in Iraq started by claiming that the military objectives of The Surge are being achieved. He expects to start a slow drawdown soon to bring the US troops level in Iraq back to pre-Surge levels. He emphasized alleged Iranian involvement with "Iranian-supported militia extremists". He even claimed that the Iranian Al Quds force is trying to turn Iraqi militias into Hizbullah-like tools to wage war against the Iraqi state. There is no real evidence for this based on what's publicly available of which I'm aware. And it also doesn't really make sense.

Petraeus' testimony reminded me of Colin Powell's notorious 2003 to the United Nations about Iraq's threatening "weapons of mass destruction" (that didn't exist). Petraeus referred often to a chart, reciting alleged facts even though some of his factual claims are highly questionable.

One thing to keep in mind in hearing reports of death trends in Iraq is that attacks normally have dropped in the very hot summer months. So without the year-over-year comparisons by month, the monthly trends can't be meaningfully evaluated.

He also emphasized the role of "Al Qa'ida" in the Iraq War, with its "barbaric Al Qa'ida bombings", etc. He made the claim that The Surge caused Sunnis in Anbar province to turn against AQI (but see the citations below on this issue). And if Al Qa'ida is this much of the problem in Iraq, it's worth keeping front-and-center the fact that Al Qa'ida is a Sunni Salafist extremist group that is bitterly anti-Shi'a. Is the Shi'a theocracy in Iran really supporting them?

He says that US still can't hand main counterinsurgency responsibilities to the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF).

A "premature drawdown" would have "devastating consequences", he said. That is probably true in the short run, although his explicit prediction that Al Qa'ida would flourish is highly questionable in light of the Anbar Miracle that he promotes as great progress. Of course, the fact is that US presence has had and continues to have "devastating consequences". But Petraeus our Saviour didn't describe it that way.

He used the phrase "America's new greatest generation" to describe the soldiers. How many "greatest generations" are we going to have before this dumb phrase becomes obsolete?

The summary above goes through 11:00 PDT.

Ambassador Crocker's prepared statement was pretty forgettable. He sounded like a dull speaker at a civic club dutifully reciting the Republican Party line. He droned on about federalism and how these things take time. He compared today's situation in Iraq to the civil rights movement in the US. Riii-iight.

For what it's worth, he said that when Iraqis got a taste of Al Qa'ida rule in some local areas, they overwhelmingly rejected Al Qa'ida. That's great news! That means they won't need American troops to deal with Al Qa'ida so Iraq is unlikely to become a haven for Al Qa'ida. Mission accomplished. Let's bring the American troops home.

Also said Iran had provided "lethal capabilities to enemies of the Iraqi state".

Crocker also said that in 2006, Iraq almost became "unraveled". Say what? And all this time the administration and our unquestionably honest generals were telling us that things were going great, we were winning every battle, there was progress everywhere and so on? You might think from that they might have been, you know, bald-faced lying, wouldn't you? But we know that can't be. Just ask Duncan Hunter.

Otherwise, Crocker's prepared testimony was dull as dirt.

The summary above goes through 11:35 PDT.

Skelton expressed extreme skepticism about Crocker's and Petraeus' claims. In response, Crocker admitted that we're unlikely to see rapid progress on their own "benchmarks".

Lantos jammed Petraeus for making a fake comparison between his own "token" proposal and a hypothetical "rapid", irresponsible withdrawal. Petraeus claimed he had proposed "substantial" reductions in force levels there. Lantas made the point that other military experts and officers had proposed more rapdi withdrawals. Petraeus playing down that factor, saying that the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) all agreed with him.

Hunter tossed Petraeus a softball question to let him brag about how well things are going with developing the ISF and to make dubious claims about Iranian involvement.

Ros-Lichtiner asked another softball to ask Petraeus and Crocker to recite the Party line on Iran, Syria and the dire risk of pulling American troops out of Iraq. Which they cheerfully proceeded to do.

The summary above goes through 12:15 PDT.

The Democrats have done an uneven job in questioning Petraeus and Crocker up to this point.

Among the Democrats, Gary Ackerman of New York made a strong point of pointing up that after over three hours testimony, no one had mentioned the alleged "international war on terrorism". He said that if they really believed that, Crocker and Petraeus would not be recommending troop drawdowns. He talked about the futility of trying to settle the Iraqi civil war. He asked, "how much more blood should we invest?" He asked them to say how many casualties they thought it would be worth in the next four years. This was a good way to put the real issue of costs and benefits in perspective.

He even interrupted Petraeus a couple of time when he was talking smack about Al Qa'ida to make the link. Petraeus side-stepped on whether AQI actually threatened the United States. Ackerman did a decent job of pressing him on his testimony that indicated ending the sectarian violence was now the mission, but still trying to use AQI as a selling point for continuing the war indefinitely.

Gene Taylor of Mississippi said the US-ISF partnership looked like a "partnership in words" to him and asked when it might become real. Petraeus recited an organization chart of reporting and consulting arrangement to duck the question. Taylor asked if there was an actual target date for the ISF to be fully ready to defend themselves. Petraeus didn't give a date.

Eni Faleomavaega of American Samoa asked about military overstretch. Petraeus ducked. He also brought up Gen. Shinseki's famous prewar recommendation for more troops, and Gen. Taguba's problems after he did his Abu Ghuraib report. He then asked if the thought Petraeus had enough troops. He ducked the question.

John Spratt of South Carolina asked Crocker whether political progress in Iraq could be reasonably expected to result from the surge, raising an important point.

Solomon Ortiz rasied the issue of more active diplomacy with surrounding countries. Petraeus recited the need to stop foreign fighters from coming to Iraq through Syria. Ortiz did follow up to highlight that Petraeus was ducking the question. But he didn't pick up on a comment by Petraeus about the need for more active measures in cyberspace, including the use of the Internet for "inspiration" of jihadists.

Howard Berman of California didn't do well. He asked a whole series of questions and asked Petraeus to respond to all of them in a group. This is a classic mistake and lets the respondent duck most everything in the questions, which Petraeus did. Interestingly, Petraeus denied that the US was arming Sunni tribes. (I'm assuming there's some comma-dancing involved there, because we know the US is arming some of them.)

The Republicans, not surprisingly, have so far stuck to the Party script pretty well. In general, they praised Petraeus profusely. Then they mentioned or alluded to a MoveOn.org ad criticizing Petraeus. Then they tossed out a softball question to allow Petraeus to recite the administration's line.

Jim Saxton of New Jersey said Evil would take over in Iraq if we left. Christopher Smith of New Jersey said that massive killing would happen if we leave. John McHugh of New York gave Petraeus a softball to link the Iraq War to the "global war on terror" (GWOT), after he had faltered on the question when Ackerman pressed him. Donald Manzullo of Illinois also gave hime a softball to link the Iraq War and the GWOT.

Donald Manzullo of Illinois let Petraeus go back and make more vague allegations about Iranian assistance to anti-government forces in Iraq based on (of course!) secret information.

Roscoe Bartle of Maryland griped about reporting in the New York Times and the Washington Post about the way casualties are counted. Petraeus answered it carefully to reinforce Bartle's point. Geoff Davis of Kentucky recited Petraeus' virtues and gave him a softball to recite how necessary the war is.

Rep. Royce of California, who had an unfortunate resemblance to Joe McCarthy on screen, gave him the chance to talk about the supposedly central role of Al Qa'ida and the bad role of Syria.

The summary above goes through 1:38 PDT.

In the last segment I', reporting live here (which omits what should be the last hour and a half of the hearing), Democrat Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii made the point that basically there is no military policy in Iraq other than indefinite occupaton. And he mentioned the Hunt Oil deal recently reported. And he even said "Iraq is not a sovereign country".

Kathy Castor of Florida cited various reports about the sad shape of the ISF and brought up the shifting justifications for the war. Both good points, but it was structed as a direct question to force Petraeus to address either point.

Donald Payne of New Jersey asked a sadly rambling question about the degree of hostility to Al Qa'ida of the Anbar Sunni tribes and the poor performance of the ISF.

Silvestre Reyes of Texas asked a much better, more direct question about the state of the ISF and the pessimistic evaluation of it in the Jones report. Petraeus dancing around it.

Republican Buck McKeon's softball question was to let Petraeus talk about how great the Army is doing in Iraq despite the extended deployments and multiple deployments. "Morale is solid", Petraeus said.

Steve Chabot of Ohio followed by talking about what a bad guy Saddam Hussein's son Uday was and asked Petraeus to essentially repeat what he just said about morale. If you listened carefully, Petraeus said in a vague way that morale was mainly driven by unit leadership and cohesion. Chabot also asked him to talk about how bad Muqtada al-Sadr is. Both Chabot and Petraeus mentioned his being in Iran.

Overall, Petraeus' performance was impressive in a technical sense that he was very articulate and didn't slip into any embarassing statements of difference with the Cheney-Bush policy. Crocker was so bland and dull that no one would have noticed if he had. If there was a "gotcha" moment, it would be Petraeus' dancing around Gary Ackerman's question about the Iraq War's relationship to the GWOT.

But I doubt most voters seeing Petraeus would have found much to change their minds and get them to be more enthusiastic about the Iraq War.

Unfortunately, the Republicans did better in their questioning than the Dems did. The Reps had a simpler task: their script must have been something like (1) praise Petraeus; (2) attack MoveOn.org; (3) toss Petraeus a softball question to let him recite administration talking points. It was noticeable how closely they stuck to that script.

The Dems needed to state the problems that Petraeus was trying to avoid or smooth over, and to try to get him to address those concerns or admit that he couldn't. The biggest problem I saw was that several Dems (Berman, Castor, Payne) wasted their chance by tossing out several questions in sucession and then asking for a response to all of them. It let Petraeus go easily back to his talking points and also diffused the emphasis that they might have put on one or two of their points.

But the Dems did a decent job, on the whole. And Tom Lantos, Gary Ackerman and Gene Taylor were particularly good.

The summary above goes through 2:30 PDT.

Links on the Iraq War:

Security in Iraq still elusive by Leila Fadel, McClatchy Newspapers 09/09/07:

Baghdad has become more segregated. Sunni Muslims in the capital now live in ghettos encircled by concrete blast walls to stop militia attacks and car bombs. Shiite militias continue to push to control the city’s last mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods in the southwest, by murdering and intimidating Sunni residents and, sometimes, their Shiite neighbors. Services haven't improved across most of the capital — the international aid group Oxfam reported in July that only 30 percent of Iraqis have access to clean water, compared with 50 percent in 2003 — and tens of thousands of Iraqis are fleeing their homes each month in search of safety.

Iraqi security forces remain heavily infiltrated by militias, and political leaders continue to intervene in their activities.

Civilian deaths haven't decreased in any significant way across the country, according to statistics from the Iraqi Interior Ministry, and numbers gathered by McClatchy Newspapers show no consistent downward trend even in Baghdad, despite military assertions to the contrary. The military has provided no hard numbers to back the claim.

The only sign of progress is in the homogenous Sunni Arab province of Anbar, where tribes have turned on al Qaida in Iraq and established relative security in a once violent area. But that success has little to do with the 4,000 U.S. troops who were sent to Anbar as part of the surge of 30,000 additional troops to Iraq. Instead, it began more than four months earlier, with the formation last September of the Anbar Salvation Council to fight the escalating terror of Sunni extremists. Officials agree that the anti-Islamist coalition in Anbar has yet to ally itself with the Shiite-led government in Baghdad, and a recent National Intelligence Estimate warned that it might even threaten it. (my emphasis)

And the Anbar Miracle? The administration is touting this as a great success but Sunni insurgent groups have fought "Al Qa'ida in Iraq" (AQI) and have proved to be effective at it. Which one might think would be an argument that American aren't necessary to fight AQI. But for Cheney and Bush, it's somehow an argument for the Americans to stay indefinitely.

"Officials agree that the anti-Islamist coalition in Anbar has yet to ally itself with the Shiite-led government in Baghdad, and a recent National Intelligence Estimate warned that it might even threaten it", Fadel writes. That would be the American-backed government, whose Sunni opponents the US is arming and empowering as part of the "Anbar" approach.

Oh, and there's this:

The tribal rebellion against al Qaida in Iraq began in September 2006, well before the surge was even contemplated. That's when tribal leaders, fed up with al Qaida in Iraq’s attacks on moderate Sunnis and its efforts to impose strict Islamic fundamentalism, formed the Anbar Salvation Council to battle the group.

Tribal sheik Fassal Gaoud, a former Anbar governor, told McClatchy Newspapers in June that the tribes previously had asked for U.S. help in attacking the group, but had been rebuffed. By the time U.S. troops began working with the tribes, the battle against al Qaida was well under way. Gaoud, however, was killed in a bombing at the Mansour Melia hotel in central Baghdad in July in the midst of the U.S. surge.

“We did in three months what they couldn't do in four years," Ali Hatam Ali al Suleiman, another tribal leader, told McClatchy in June. (my emphasis)

In Baghdad, she writes, a series of elaborate concrete barriers seems to have given some communities a greater sense of security in their neighborhoods. But it hasn't made it a peaceful city, not by a long shot. As grim as the fact is, the ethnic cleansing which has gone on in Baghdad could reduce some violence because the targets for sectarian militias are so widely dispersed as they once were before Cheney and Bush liberated the Iraqis.

This administration has created a massive nightmare in Iraq. And they can't realistically face the consequences of the disaster they've created.

Investigative reporter Laura Rozen passes on an analysis from "a knowledgeable Iraq observer" on the Anbar Miracle, Fantasy Island War and Piece blog 09/10/07. That analysis also references Anatomy of a Tribal Revolt SmaWarsJournal.com Dave Kilcullen 08/29/07. Kilcullen is a leading expert on counterinsurgency warfare, though caution is in order in looking at his reference to alleged Iranian support of Bin Laden's Al Qa'ida group.

Tom Engelhardt provides some of the numbers with links to two similar previous analyses in Tomgram: Launching Brand Petraeus TomDispatch.com 09/09/07.

The AP's Richard Lardner discusses the figures, as well, in Iraq debate is sea of statistics 09/09/07.

Steve Clemons comments on an article by Bruce Ackerman on the role of Petraeus under Cheney and Bush right now in Corrupting the Military: Petraeus as Bush's Political Spear-Carrier Washington Note blog 09/05/07.

Mark Tushnet, however, thinks that concern is exaggerated: The "Petraeus" [read Bush] Report and Civilian Control of the Military Balkinization blog 09/10/07.

Tags: iraq war, petraeus, ryan crocker

posted at 12:15:00 PM by Bruce Miller

| +Save/Share | |