Petraeus And Crocker Speak
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in War — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
At long last, the day came when General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker gave their assessments of how the surge had affected the efficacy of the American reconstruction effort in Iraq. Though, given the nature of the debate, one wonders why they had to bother:
The top U.S. general in Iraq outlined plans Monday for the withdrawal of 30,000 troops by next summer, drawing praise from the White House but a chilly reception from anti-war Democrats.
Gen. David Petraeus said a 2,000-member Marine unit would return home this month without replacement in the first sizable cut since a 2003 U.S-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein and unleashed sectarian violence.
Further "force reductions will continue," he told a nationally televised congressional hearing that was frequently interrupted by anti-war protesters.
Petraeus said it would be "premature to make recommendations on the pace," and he recommended that President Bush wait until March 2008 to make any decisions.
The cuts he outlined would return the U.S. force to levels in place when Bush ordered a buildup last winter to allow the Iraqi government time to forge a reconciliation among feuding factions.
Petraeus slid into the witness chair at a politically pivotal moment in a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,700 U.S. troops in more than four years. The Pentagon reported nine deaths on Monday.
The president invited congressional leaders to a meeting Tuesday at the White House, and is expected to make a nationwide speech on the war in the next few days. White House press secretary Tony Snow said Bush will place a lot of weight on his general's recommendations.
Snow said Bush "liked what he heard last week" when he was briefed on Petraeus' plans. "But he is commander in chief and it will be up to him to make final determinations about what he will recommend," the spokesman noted.
"What I recommended was a very substantial withdrawal," the general replied evenly from the witness chair, his uniform adorned by four gleaming general's stars and nine rows of medals. "Five Army brigade combat teams, a Marine Expeditionary Unit and two Marine battalions represent a very significant force."
Yes they do, and they amount to a removal of 30,000 troops from the theater of operations--almost the size of the surge itself. I have very strong doubts that by next summer, the situation will have improved to the point where the surge can come to an end and if they are, it will be because of the strain their continued deployment would place on the American military. But whether I agree with the proposed withdrawal or not, the fact remains that it is a substantial one. Of course, there is no chance that Tom Lantos or any of the other antiwar Democrats would accept such a proposition. This was less a debate and more of an attempt on the part of Democrats to talk over and past Petraeus and Crocker.
Read on . . .
Outside the hearing room, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said he hoped Petraeus' testimony could lead to a bipartisan consensus.
That seemed unlikely.
"This is simply unacceptable," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a written statement. Inside the hearing, Democratic Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida told Petraeus that despite his assessment, most independent experts say Bush's so-called surge in troop strength has failed.
How much does anyone want to bet that Pelosi's "written statement" was written months in advance of the testimony by Petraeus and Crocker? And there are plenty of "independent experts" who have said that the surge has succeeded in pacifying much of Iraq. The debate on this issue has, to say the least, been fierce. But there has been a debate and it has involved "experts" on both sides of the issue. To be sure, however, Wexler wasn't going to give them the time of day, preferring instead to insult Petraeus and Crocker (the latter opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, by the way) by considering them tools of the White House.
And the day was not complete without a cheap shot of bizarre and appalling proportions:
A newspaper ad from the anti-war group MoveOn.org that attacks Gen. David Petraeus has prompted a Republican outcry in Washington, D.C., as supporters of the surge strategy in Iraq change the subject from the progress in Iraq to the rhetoric used by war opponents.
"General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" reads the full-page ad (CLICK HERE), which cost the liberal group MoveOn.org approximately $65,000 and ran in section A of today's New York Times.
The ad accuses the general of "Cooking the Books for the White House" and asserts "General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts," citing optimistic statements the general has made about Iraq in the past.
White House spokesman Tony Snow called it "a boorish, childish, unworthy attack" and called on members of Congress to condemn the ad. By the end of the day, 30 Republican senators and Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., had written to the Democratic Senate Leader, asking him to "join us in making it clear that you do not share the views of Moveon.org, and that you will not join Moveon.org in attacking the character of this fine officer" and House Republicans had introduced a resolution condemning the ad.
A Democratic leadership aide on Capitol Hill told ABC News that the ad was "not helpful" because it allowed Republicans to refocus attention from "what's happening on the ground in Iraq and the fact that everyone, even Gen. Petraeus, agrees that political progress is lacking."
Actually, the ad wasn't "helpful" because it was a McCarthyite smear job from a "reality based community" that wouldn't know reality if it were mugged by it. But that observations goes unmentioned by MoveOn.org's allies in Congress. Interestingly enough, if you click on the ad referenced in the excerpt from the ABC story, you find that it has been deleted.
That probably says everything we need to know about how effective the ad was. Even MoveOn.org evidently became ashamed of putting it up. Either that, or it realized just how dramatically it miscalculated.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Profiles In Courage — Comments (6) »
Petraeus And Crocker Speak 13 Comments (0 topical, 13 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Calling the liberal San Francisco Congressman Tom Lantos an "antiwar Democrat" is like calling Bill Clinton a faithful husband.
This reiterates what I was saying earlier: I think that many people are framing this debate the wrong way... The Democrats are not, and have never been, the anti-war party - it's been the opposite, in fact. U.S. Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA), the current Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, is a San Francisco leftist. He is also perhaps the most PRO-WAR person in Congress, of any party. Since being elected in 1980, the ultra-liberal congressman has supported just about every single major war that has been proposed, whether there was a Republican or Democrats president in office.
His Republican counterpart (before the Democrats took control of Congress), the highly-esteemed, and now retired, ex-U.S. Representative Henry Hyde (R-IL), opposes the Iraq war, and opposes the neoliberal and neoconservative foreign policy vision, that got us into this mess. The respected World War II veteran and distinguished Republican leader refers to this left-wing utopian vision as magical thinking and "The Golden Theory."
What MoveOn.org is doing is disrespectful... and I definitely oppose that organization.
However, I am skeptical about much of what is in the General's report.
As I have pointed out numerous times in the past... The top Democrats in America today are not truly anti-war... far from it, in fact.
Prior to the 2004 U.S. Presidential election, I asserted that, if John Kerry were elected, we could actually have more warfare and military interventionism than if Bush were to be re-elected. Several others [including both supporters and opponents of the Iraq war, and of President Bush], agreed with this, as did Conservative Battleline, the publication of our country's oldest national conservative policy organization.
And before the 2006 Congressional elections, I made the same type of argument, regarding the Democrats and the Republicans.
And now, I just saw an article featured at The Hill, showing that several of the hawkish Democrats, who have gotten Chairmanships, due to their party's takeover of Congress, and who I named there, were the same ones heaping lavish praise, earlier today, on General David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker.
The pro-war, anti-war, and partisan reactionary segments of the American Left can attempt to pursue their destructive policies - many of which have been seized up, and even embraced, but today's "conservatives," along with the present White House, and much of the GOP leadership. Thankfully though, there are many on the Right, and in the Republican Party, who do not support these policies.
Ultimately, it may be the battle within the Right, over these vital contemporary foreign and domestic policy issues, that determines in what direction our nation will go.
Because before John Kerry could finish surrendering to one tinhorn Anti-American terrorist, the next one would start attacking.
Original comments, each time. If you think that a previous post summed it all up for you, feel free to create a comment that simply links to it.
Please indicate your understanding of this directive in your next post.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
he obviously wants to make sure that someone other than himself reads this thin gruel of self-validating non-arguments.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Considering that major conservative and Republican leaders (some of which are linked to RedState) have made similiar arguments, in the past and the present, your assertion falls flat. I could cite a number of sources, but I doubt it would be of any purpose. (By the way, the one organization I did cite has nearly one thousand mentions on this site alone.)
Sorry... It was about 4:00 or 5:00 AM, when I going through the Blogosphere last night/this morning, while trying to manage other stuff. I was at so many blogs, I didn't remember, this afternoon, that I had also earlier commented at Congressman Hensarling's entry.
You repeated that comment here. Your reposting of multiple paragraphs, all with their own happy links, has been deemed to be spambotting, and you will not do it again. Period. End stop.
This is your last chance to convince me that you understand this. I suggest as brief a reply as possible.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Yes - As I noted, in my correction and apology right above, I had forgotten that I had also posted that comment at the Congressman's entry. (I have been engaging in this same discussion at numerous sites, in the Blogosphere, during the past two days, and trying to also do a million other things...) As soon as I realized that I had, in fact, posted that same item at the Congressman's entry, I posted that correction and apology, right below my denial.
Once again, I do understand what you are saying, and I apologize for getting it wrong.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
conservatives who don't care for our foreign policy. As you noted, the Republican party has an isolationist streak.
BUT the overwhelming majority here believes that American prestige means something. Not in terms of national pride, but in terms of deterrence factor. To simply skip town, as the Democratic Congressional leadership seeks, is not an acceptable option.
The United States lost 6,821 men from 2/19/1945 to around 3/30/1945, thirty eight days, eight square miles more or less. Again from 4/1/1945 to 7/1/1945 the United States lost 7,000 men. Larger island took a longer time, more lives.
The world was made safe for Democracy, then. The communists currently in the US House and Senate don't care about such things today, because they have no intention to allow the world to remain safe for Democracy today.
Excellent summary of a very long day.