Stay the course

There were some brave and intrepid souls who endured every word of the six-and-a-half hours of testimony before the House Armed Services and House Foreign Affairs Committees. They heard Gen. David Petraeus point to impressive charts that looked encouraging — as long as you didn’t look too close. They heard Ambassador Ryan Crocker struggle to highlight non-existent political progress. They heard Republican lawmakers throw softballs, and Democratic lawmakers try to avoid being overly aggressive.

But the truth is, we could have skipped the six-plus hours of the joint hearing and allowed the Bush administration to issue a three-word press release: stay the course. That was the message — the only message — Petraeus and Crocker came to the House to deliver. We’re supposed to take a leap of faith, based on practically nothing, and hope that a policy that hasn’t worked suddenly will. I’m at a loss to explain why anyone would find this persuasive.

Slate’s Fred Kaplan explained that if you missed the hearing, you didn’t miss much. He called the political theater “mainly a disgrace.”

Petraeus’ testimony was predictable, Crocker’s was almost pathetically strained, and the legislators’ questions were by and large weak-kneed, even by House standards. […]

It was a pro forma session. All involved had their say. There was nearly no intellectual tussling or back-and-forth, very little real discussion of policy, strategy, or tactics. (Only a few of the junior members, whose turn came toward the end of the hearing, even broached such matters as whether there even is, or soon will be, an Iraqi nation, thus raising the question of just what is the war’s political goal.)

I wasn’t at the hearing. Like most people, I watched it on television. But a pall of paralysis and gloom seemed to drape the room. Nobody could have been surprised by the questions or answers. Nobody could have been satisfied by what anyone said. The situation is indisputably grim. Nobody seems to know what to do about it.

Regrettably, that includes Petraeus and Crocker.

Among the other things worth keeping in mind this morning about what we learned (and what we didn’t) yesterday afternoon:

* McClatchy reports that what Crocker and Petraeus didn’t say was as noteworthy as what they did say.

A chart displayed by Army Gen. David Petraeus that purported to show the decline in sectarian violence in Baghdad between December and August made no effort to show that the ethnic character of many of the neighborhoods had changed in that same period from majority Sunni Muslim or mixed to majority Shiite Muslim.

Neither Petraeus nor U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker talked about the fact that since the troop surge began the pace by which Iraqis were abandoning their homes in search of safety had increased. They didn’t mention that 86 percent of Iraqis who’ve fled their homes said they’d been targeted because of their sect, according to the International Organization for Migration.

While Petraeus stressed that civilian casualties were down over the last five weeks, he drew no connection between that statement and a chart he displayed that showed that the number of attacks rose during at least one of those weeks.

Petraeus also didn’t highlight the fact that his charts showed that “ethno-sectarian” deaths in August, down from July, were still higher than in June, and he didn’t explain why the greatest drop in such deaths, which peaked in December, occurred between January and February, before the surge began.

And while both officials said that the Iraqi security forces were improving, neither talked about how those forces had been infiltrated by militias, though Petraeus acknowledged that during 2006 some Iraqi security forces had participated in the ethnic violence.

* The NYT had a strong editorial on the testimony.

For months, President Bush has been promising an honest accounting of the situation in Iraq, a fresh look at the war strategy and a new plan for how to extricate the United States from the death spiral of the Iraqi civil war. The nation got none of that yesterday from the Congressional testimony by Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. It got more excuses for delaying serious decisions for many more months, keeping the war going into 2008 and probably well beyond.

It was just another of the broken promises and false claims of success that we’ve heard from Mr. Bush for years, from shock and awe, to bouquets of roses, to mission accomplished and, most recently, to a major escalation that was supposed to buy Iraqi leaders time to unify their nation. We hope Congress is not fooled by the silver stars, charts and rhetoric of yesterday’s hearing. Even if the so-called surge had created breathing room, Iraq’s sectarian leaders show neither the ability nor the intent to take advantage of it.

* Many of the claims presented as facts at yesterday’s hearing didn’t stand up well to scrutiny. The Senate Dems and House Dems both did some fact checking.

* Petraeus and Crocker move on to the Senate today, where they will speak with the Senate Armed Services and Senate Foreign Affairs Committees. Unlike the House, the two hearings will be held separately. Given that some of the participants will be presidential candidates, the hearings should be more engaging than yesterday.

If you wish for something hard enough, maybe it will become true. That’s the magical thinking of children, not a foreign policy strategy.

  • More of the same broken record. More excuses for putting Iraqi National Security ahead of American National Security.

    They’re bankrupting our country and breaking the back of the U.S. Armed Forces, all in the name of the Global War on a Psychological State. But I have a question. How does occupying Iraq prevent hijackers from boarding planes and using boxcutters to invade the cockpits of aircraft, then piloting those aircraft into various targets, including the U.S. Military Command Center?

  • How does occupying Iraq prevent hijackers from boarding planes and using boxcutters to invade the cockpits of aircraft, then piloting those aircraft into various targets, including the U.S. Military Command Center?

    You think that’s what happened JKap #2?

  • In yesteryear the Texas Rangers exercised their option to dump their inept and mistake-ridden baggage, but alas, we seem to have no such option today. -Kevo

  • Just another bloody Kabuki Theater.

    Blah Blah More FUs blah blah more soldiers blah blah we are winning blah blah look at my shiny medals blah blah we have a plan blah blah.

  • That’s the official government explanation, Haik #3, isn’t it?

    But my intent was not to preempt CB’s fine post. I’m sure we’ll have plenty of opportunity to discuss 9/11 today.

  • I listened to (but didn’t watch) about 80% of the hearing yesterday. I had been looking forward to the fireworks, but I’ve never heard anything so boring. Apparently the Democrats were as bored as I was – none of them was awake long enough to ask an intelligent question. As for the Republicans – well, they were about what you would expect.

    If I hear the phrase “thank you for your service to our country” one more time I’m going to lose it completely. Everyone on both sides seemed dazzled by those eight stars on Patraeus’ two shoulders. Gen. P’s tone of voice is somewhat sleep-inducing, but Crocker’s is the cure for anyone’s insomnia.

    Will the Senators do more than prostrate themselves before this legendary military hero? I hope so, but I’m not very confident.

  • It seems clear the presentations of Petraeus and Crocker were aimed at congressional republicans on the fence, and in that it may have been successful., Those who were desperate to hear some good news talking points got them. Those looking for cover got that, facts and reality be damned.

  • I can’t fault the Bush administration for continuing with this BS – the Dems keep falling for it. Not a single Dem will have my monetary or voting support unless and until they start having the political courage – if that’s even the right word in light of 70% opinion polls wanting us out of Iraq – to end this fiasco.

    I finally lost it when the Dems voted to reauthorize the warrantless wiretapping. I always defended Dems to my more conservative friends that the Dems do have a spine and will stand up for what they believe. But never again. Never again. How many thousands of American men and women will die, lose limbs, commit suicide, and rip apart their families for these pathetic excuses for statesmen take their political future into their own hands rather than relying upon Bush, etc. to define it for them.

    -Homer

  • What Homer said, but I will support the Dimocrats. Because if we blow out the Republicans properly in 2008, THEN we’ll be able to roust the Dimocratic deadwood.

    I hope.

    At the very least I want to see the Republicans buried, even if it’s by a bunch of spineless idiots.

  • We are truly fucked. Tom Ricks of the Washington Post on Charlie Rose (9/10/07), “I was surprised at what an easy time General Petraeus had of it. The most striking moment to me was, he put in front of the committees, a chart that projected US troops in substantial numbers in Iraq for years to come, which means that American troops will be fighting and dying in Iraq for years to come. And not a single Democrat seemed to engage him on that. Seemed to challenge him on it, let alone object to it. So, I think effectively what General Petraeus got today was a ratification for American combat in Iraq for years to come.”

  • “I always defended Dems to my more conservative friends that the Dems do have a spine and will stand up for what they believe”

    Lol! Since when does a politician stand up and actually vote for for what they really believe instead of say what they think will get them elected the next time around?

    “At the very least I want to see the Republicans buried, even if it’s by a bunch of spineless idiots.”

    It’s so nice that we all have such respect for our government these days.

  • Some things became crystal clear yesterday:

    After 4 years we still do not know the reason the United States invaded Iraq. None of the stated reasons make any sense. So in spite of all the politicking and partisan bickering on the Hill – Congress doesn’t actually know what the mission is, consequently we don’t know WHY Bush is so stubborn about keeping the troops in there until the end of his term in office.

    Bush has never said that Americans would come home – under any circumstances. He is presiding over the construction of the world’s largest embassy and many military bases – Obviously, we are in it for the long haul.

    Since there is an absolute blackout on the REAL reasons we are in Iraq – it must be for Cheney Reasons. Bush bought into the Freedom and Democracy crap – and Cheney’s probably happy to have this idiot running around the world spouting nonesense – it doesn’t matter. Outside of the VP’s office no one else knows why we are there.

    Way back at the beginning of the war it was Cheney who had Ahmed Chalabi flown to Kuwait – against Bush’s orders – was it his intention to install his own personal Hashamite King on the Persian Throne?

    I believe that if the reason the US in an occupying force in is a huge X-Factor, it is impossible to formulate any policy.

    What a mess!


  • JRS Jr.: Lol! Since when does a politician stand up and actually vote for for what they really believe instead of say what they think will get them elected the next time around?

    Here’s one of those rare occasions in which I agree with you wholeheartedly. This is the pivot point of the love/hate relationship with politicians who support your opinions. None of them (the successful ones, anyway) act on conviction. Politics is truly a popularity contest and both sides advance their careers by pandering and adapting to the widest possible constituency.

    Racerx: “At the very least I want to see the Republicans buried, even if it’s by a bunch of spineless idiots.”

    JRS Jr.: It’s so nice that we all have such respect for our government these days.

    This sounds snide but you could not possibly have meant it that way given the initial statement with which I just agreed. Call it a conditioned reflex. ;o)

  • I vented on those silly, inept, self-serving charts yesterday.

    On topic, but with a different and more important slant: Whatever happened to Ms. Pelosi’s promise to hold War Profiteering hearings, modeled on those conducted by Senator Harry Truman during World War II?

    There was a lot of discussion of this before and after the elections, e.g., Huffington, but no one now seems interested.

    Every time I see a Sunday gasbagger question some reputed patriot, war booster or “expert” (corporate news regards them as equivalent), I wonder what that person stands to gain from continuation in the Quagmire. I also wonder why the gasbagger doesn’t ask the guest that question.

    Last night I saw the tape of Jon Stewart “interviewing” (pandering to) Lt. Col. John Nagl, author of Counterinsurgency Field Manual. I fully expected a “Crossfire” moment which never materialized. I wondered (and wish Jon had wondered) what kind of income or promotion (with future defense contractor board position) Negl expects to enjoy from the Iraq Quagmire. I wondered why even Stewart seems to quiver and salivate in presence of military garb bedecked with fruit salad.

  • Petraeus and Crocker did their job of trying to sell the continuation of a military solution to Iraq when it is as plain as day that solving this mess is a political problem. Petraeus, I have the feeling, is one of those generals that loves his job so much that he hates to see conflicts end. Maybe it’s because he loves the smell of C-4 in the morning, but as Marketplace’s broadcast on NPR noted yesterday, when our troops start to withdraw, it will only mean ramping up the private contractors who will take their place. Petraeus wants to continue the hemorraghing of either blood or treasure to fuel his testosterone addiction for battle. It’s time to cut off the purse that is allowing Petraeus to live his wet dream.

  • It’s so nice that we all have such respect for our government these days. — JRS Jr, @12

    Respect has to be earned. There’s neither a law nor a biblical injunction to honor your government no matter what.

  • bcinaz

    Many people have concluded that Bush intends to leave American troops in Iraq “for security reasons” as long as Iraq has oil fields that the oil giants can develop.

    There’s this:

    Iraq has the world’s second largest proven oil reserves. According to oil industry experts, new exploration will probably raise Iraq’s reserves to 200+ billion barrels of high-grade crude, extraordinarily cheap to produce. The four giant firms located in the US and the UK have been keen to get back into Iraq, from which they were excluded with the nationalization of 1972. During the final years of the Saddam era, they envied companies from France, Russia, China, and elsewhere, who had obtained major contracts. But UN sanctions (kept in place by the US and the UK) kept those contracts inoperable. Since the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, much has changed. In the new setting, with Washington running the show, “friendly” companies expect to gain most of the lucrative oil deals that will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars in profits in the coming decades. The Iraqi constitution of 2005, greatly influenced by US advisors, contains language that guarantees a major role for foreign companies. Negotiators hope soon to complete deals on Production Sharing Agreements that will give the companies control over dozens of fields, including the fabled super-giant Majnoon. But first the Parliament must pass a new oil sector investment law allowing foreign companies to assume a major role in the country. The US has threatened to withhold funding as well as financial and military support if the law does not soon pass. Although the Iraqi cabinet endorsed the draft law in July 2007, Parliament has balked at the legislation. Most Iraqis favor continued control by a national company and the powerful oil workers union strongly opposes de-nationalization. Iraq’s political future is very much in flux, but oil remains the central feature of the political landscape. Oil in Iraq.

    So the real reason may not be as mysterious as you think. What do you think Cheney was talking to his secret energy committee about in 2001? I believe he told the US oil giants at that meeting that the Bush administration intended to invade Iraq and set up a post-war government that would hand over control of Iraq’s undeveloped oil fields to them if they’d just support the upcoming war.

  • The McClatchy story picks up on a point about Petraeus’ visuals that was made originally by unbossed.com yesterday (though they didn’t credit us).

    Specifically, Petraeus depicted an alleged decline of sectarian attacks upon maps of Baghdad that were grossly dishonest. Petraeus’ maps pretend that there has been no ethnic/sectarian cleansing in Baghdad during the last year. Quite the opposite is true, and Petraeus clearly wanted to divert attention from that central fact.

    To admit that Sunnis have been driven headlong from Baghdad right under Petraeus’ nosee is to acknowledge that the military justification given for the “surge” (to establish security esp. in Baghdad and to protect Iraqis from sectarian attacks) has failed utterly. It also suggests that any drop in violence in Iraq may be due not to the “surge”, but to the Shiites’ success in driving the Sunnis into exile.

    Here’s the link at unbossed:

    Progress in Iraq, again

  • Comments are closed.