Failing to move the needle

September 12, 2007

It seems absurd, but after four-and-a-half years of combat, yesterday was the most substantive policy discussion about Iraq policy in the Senate to date. Indeed, Slate’s Fred Kaplan said yesterday’s grillings of Gen. David Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker were “remarkably, the first real hearings about this war,” which put “substantive issues, and useful words, on the record.”

That’s the good news. Senators showed up yesterday at the top of their game, searching for answers, evidence, a coherent policy, and signs of hope. Never mind that House charade on Monday, which produced nothing of interest, yesterday’s hearing included a real exploration.

This is not to say Petraeus and Crocker offered satisfactory assessments. They couldn’t.

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.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said she approached this week looking for some sense from Petraeus and Crocker that a sensible strategy is in place. She came away wanting. “What is the way forward?” she asked glumly as the Senate hearings droned on yesterday evening. “What are we buying time for?”

What yesterday made clear was that Petraeus and Crocker won’t, or can’t, answer those questions. All they have to offer is “stay the course.” The next question, of course, is whether this moved the needle one direction or another.

There was some sense, on the blogs and elsewhere, that Petraeus would dazzle lawmakers and the media, forcing complacent Dems to back down into complacency. That, fortunately, has not happened. Petraeus and Crocker apparently haven’t changed any Democratic minds. Dems came into the week skeptical, and come out of the hearings with very little reason to embrace the president’s policy.

The irony is, the political world has been waiting for these hearings for months, expecting them to be game-changing moments. But the bottom-line message from the administration is: we’re sticking with the status quo. The bottom-line message from the Hill is: we still don’t like the status quo.

After two days of testimony before Congress, the Bush administration’s top diplomat and military commander in Iraq made few inroads in their effort to convince skeptical lawmakers that the White House war strategy was working. […]

Especially concerned were GOP senators who face reelection next year. They seemed worried by the increasing likelihood that there would be little political progress in Iraq and high levels of U.S. troops there come election day 2008. […]

Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.), who has not supported any of the Democratic measures opposing the increase in troops, strongly criticized the Iraqi government and said she would support what she called “action-forcing measures.”

Liddy Dole is not exactly a war skeptic. If she’s now open to “action-forcing measures,” it suggests the needle, if it moved at all, started leaning in the Democrats’ direction.

But is that enough? For unrepentant war supporters, Petraeus and Crocker effectively told them what they wanted to hear, reinforcing the beliefs of the already-convinced to stay the course. For war opponents, Petraeus and Crocker said what they were expected to say. For Republicans who disapprove of Bush’s policy but lack the courage to force a change, Petraeus and Crocker failed to build their confidence.

In other words, despite all the build-up and anticipation, we’re where we were in May. It feels a little anti-climactic, doesn’t it?

Not if the status quo is what you expected all along. When you live in a feudal society, the king and the nobility fight the wars they want to fight for their own reasons. The best you can hope for is to avoid being conscripted.

  • Yes, it does feel anticlimactic. “… forcing complacent Dems to back down into complacency”? They’re nearly all complacent and always have been, except for occasional immaterial bloviating for the cameras. They’ll roll over as they all always have, and no one will hold them accountable.

    The roadblock isn’t the White House. Pelosi and Reid have the power to end this occupation now. If nothing else, they can fail to introduce legislation which would continue to fund it. I’d like to know what portion of our elected representatives’ present and future incomes (which go way beyond what we pay them in salaries) derives from corporations whose profits derive from the ongoing quagmire in Iraq. I’d also like to know by what magic they manage to have the highest continued incumbency rate ever known here (or anywhere else which holds free elections). It’s certainly not due to their stellar performance at the public trough.

  • When it comes to Iraq, the four most dangerous words to a Republican going into the election year are “more of the same.” Democrats aren’t the ones who really need to move the needle. The burden of proof of any meaningful progress to justify continued commitment at present levels is on Republicans.

  • At the end of the day, it was Juan Cole’s comments yesterday and today’s NYTimes article on Iraqi sentiment that really illuminate. In Cole’s opinion, the Dems best chance (slim) of having less of an Iraqi disaster to manage when they take the presidency in 2009 is to give Petraues and Croker every chance to do the best they can do. Despite the pandering on Faux News, they are by far the best military and diplomatic minds we’ve had in charge. And the NYTimes article says that, underneath the ovewhelming Iraqi desire for us to leave, is a realization by Iraqis that they need us for a time to prevent the worst from happening and provide that political space. Two sides of the same coin, and both probably correct.

    No one thinks there is much of a chance for things to get any better, but people I respect think this is the best chance. Hell of a thing, isn’t it!

  • I can’t help but wonder if the “political breathing room” Petraeus and Crocker were referring to was really in relation to US Republicans, especially alleged ‘moderate’ types who have enabled the Pres but who are up for reelection in 2008.

  • the political world has been waiting for these hearings for months

    The point of the Petraeus Show wasn’t to “move the needle.” It was to buy a few months time over the summer, a goal it has already accomplished. If they can get the Dem congress to dither for another few months, it’ll be too late to get the troops out before the election.

  • Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski, who took a “wait and see” approach to the surge, said Tuesday she was concerned about the lack of progress toward political recociliation. She swallowed Petraeus’s promise of a troop reduction by next summer.

    Murkowski said eight weeks ago that we’d know whether it was working… it eight weeks.

  • I say the needle moved. It moves every day.

    The needle I’m talking about is the hands of the clock, and this is the key:

    Especially concerned were GOP senators who face reelection next year. They seemed worried by the increasing likelihood that there would be little political progress in Iraq and high levels of U.S. troops there come election day 2008.

    The Rethugs are scared shitless. They ought to be given what they’ve done.

  • Petraeus and Crocker reported … as they were supposed to. Like good corporate ‘suits’ they emphasized the ‘good news’ part. Then, when pressed, they admitted much of the ‘bad news’. But they left policy questions to others: the legislative and executive branches. It is up to Congress to forge a change in direction, because the White House will not.
    But, if the Dems actually pulled off a mandated start of troop reductions below pre-surge levels in the first half of 2008, then what could they expect in the fall elections when things actually get worse in Iraq while our troops are coming home? Wait til the MSM trashes Dem candidates on THAT one!
    Our involvement in this war WILL go beyond 2008, so the LAST thing we want is another Republican president. Quite a dilemma, isn’t it?

  • I am struck by the parallels with Westmoreland’s testimony to Congress forty years ago. He was the Patraeus of his day, extolled, lauded, with charts and promises of gains,etc etc. General Patraeus ought to be named General Bullshitus for that’s what all this dog and pony show is about. How can a nation go through this stupidity again? It may hasten me to my grave. The old cliche about a nation that doesn’t know history is bound to repeat it, is happening before our very eyes, noses and ears. Maybe that’s why cliches are so accurate. Never in all my nearly seven decades on this planet have I been so despairing of our political system. Never have we had such an awful, dangerous and mad fool in the White House. It’s like a nightmare. Wake me when it’s over

  • I am struck by the continued fantasy life of those who believe that the democrats in congress have the power to end the war. they do not, and anyone who thinks they do is kidding themselves, on two grounds: first, there will never, ever be a 2/3 vote in congress, so bush can continue to veto indefinitely, and in the absence of an overridden veto, continuing resolutions of some sort will fund the war; and second, anyone who at this late date thinks the unitary executive, commander-in-chief trumps all administration cares whether or not congress funds the war is truly not paying attention.

    they would continue on anyhow and dare the courts and congress to stop them.

    i appreciate the frustration; i don’t think the dems have played their hand all that well; but the notion that sure, reid and pelosi could end the war tomorrow if only they weren’t so spineless is just plain silly.

  • Has our whole world gone insane?

    1) Ill advisedly we invaded Iraq for regime change and access to Oil.
    This was 4 effing years ago. Our government lied to congress and us
    about the rationale for the invasion. The same administration remains in
    power and is grabbing even more power.

    2) We destroyed the precarious balance of government in Iraq where a ruthless dictator ruled and did not replace it when we brought it down.

    3) Consequently there is massive civil war & turmoil raging in Iraq: Some 4 million have fled the country, I don’t recall how many thousands of civilians have died, nor how many armed combatants have died. Their infrastructure is fractured badly. The Iraqi’s do not want us there. Did not ask us to rescue them.

    How is success measured given this scenario?

    Have we forgotten that Petraus is a general, not a statesman or policy maker, much less nation builder? his business is killing and weapons of mass destruction. He is irrelevant to what we should be doing which is addressing the failed policies that keep us there. And maybe the UN should be there to keep PEACE instead of the US waging WAR on an occupied poplulace?

  • I heard that Harry Reid labeled this “Bush’s War” yesterday. He’s being far too diplomatic. This is the Republican Party’s war. And the entire population of this nation needs to understand that.

    Fault the Dems for failing to use their slim majority to end this silliness, but the monolithic Republican party is the roadblock the Dems have to overcome. Hang this useless conflict on every Republican running for every office in the land. The started this, they enabled this and they have utterly failed to assuage their party’s leadershipto stop driving us all off a cliff. When Sam Brownback said that this war is about having the Republican Party’s honor at stake, he was being increadibly honest. Every dead soldier, every blown-up body and every killed Iraqi is a campaign contribution to these guys to say we can’t leave now for honor’s sake. This is now all about the Repubs being able to claim they “kicked ass” in Iraq while drinking martinis at the country club. And they didn’t care how many dead Americans it took to claim that.

  • petorado, you’ve got it: while i don’t think the dems can stop the war in the current congress, they can most assuredly hammer those responsible for continuing the waste.

  • “i appreciate the frustration; i don’t think the dems have played their hand all that well; but the notion that sure, reid and pelosi could end the war tomorrow if only they weren’t so spineless is just plain silly.”

    yet that does not mean they should not go through the proper and right steps and force bush to take the steps (vetoes, etc.) he feels he needs to take. Let bush continue this war on his own, with the rest of his GOP congressional enablers voting against Dem attempts to promptly and safely end this war and have our treoops brought home to deal with real threats. the dems may not be able to end this thing, but they will look good trying, and a large chunk of those GOP congressfolk who chose to side with the president will then no doubt hear their constituents’ frustration with them next november.

  • bubba, i’m with you: i’d play it that way too (that’s my reference to “i don’t think dems have played their hand all that well”), but that’s different from the kind of assumption that ed stephan has that the war can be stopped by an opposition congress.

    it’s a fine but significant point: i think the dems should fight it out and be willing to enter into the veto/override path not because i think it will “work” to end the war but because i think it positions the dems better to win the presidency in 2008 (and enough additional senators that lieberman becomes an irrelevancy), and then end the war.

  • Geez what is wrong with these people? There was never any build up of anticipation for Sept. Most people could tell you 6 mos ago exactly what would be said in Sept. They were not disappointed nor did they expect to be. Bush will never leave Iraq, not matter the cost in lives or treasure, nor the failure of an Irag government, nor the outbreak of sectarian murders no matter what, Bush will never leave Iraq unless he is forced to….GOT IT?… said it 6 mos ago, say it again in 6 mos and another 6 mos etc. Unless Bush is forced out of Iraq by withholding the funding, or impeachment, or a massive stampede of republicans to the democratic side…unless congress and the senate force Bush to leave he will never leave Iraq…period.

    • Comments are closed.