Petraeus and Crocker: Iraq Wrong War with No Way Out
Posted by
Kevin
That was horribly depressing testimony yesterday. Crocker and Petraeus might have tried to put a sunny spin on the matter, but at the the end of the day the only thing you conclude was that the US is fighting in the wrong place and doesn’t have the first clue how to get itself out of this mess.
When Ambassador Crocker was asked which Al Qaeda group he would consider most important to eliminate, the real Al Qaeda or the splinter group Al Qaeda in Iraq, he choose the real Al Qaeda in Pakistan:
SEN. BIDEN: Mr. Ambassador, is Al Qaeda a greater threat to US interests in Iraq, or in the Afghan-Pakistan border region?
AMB. CROCKER: Mr. Chairman, Al Qaeda is a strategic threat to the United States wherever it is, in my view–
SEN. BIDEN: Where is most of it? If you could take it out? You had a choice: Lord almighty came down and sat in the middle of the table there and said ‘Mr. Ambassador you can eliminate every Al Qaeda source in Afghanistan and Pakistan, or every Al Qaeda personnel in Iraq,’ which would you pick?
AMB. CROCKER: Well given the progress that has been made again Al Qaeda in Iraq, the significant decrease in its capabilities, the fact that it is solidly on the defensive, and not in a position of–
SEN. BIDEN: Which would you pick, Mr. Ambassador?
AMB. CROCKER: I would therefore pick Al Qaeda in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area.
SEN BIDEN: That would be a smart choice.
Crocker tried to make it seem as if we have struck a massive blow against Al Qaeda in Iraq and so we could now turn our attention to Pakistan/Afghanistan. Some war defenders may rush to use that hedging as support for the notion that even if Crocker admits that iraq is not the central front in the war against Al Qaeda that it once was. That, of course, is nonsense. Al Qaeda in Iraq did not exist until we invaded so it could not have been an important front in the fight against Al Qaeda until our own stupidity allowed Al Qaeda the opportunity to make it so. And if Crocker is right, if we have had significant enough success against Al Qaeda in Iraq that we are free to turn our attention to Pakistan, why, precisely, is there still so much violence in Iraq? It must be because of other factions, factions that have nothing to do with Al Qaeda in Iraq. But both Crocker and Patreaus said we cannot leave Iraq, so, by Crocker’s own words, Iraq is a colossal distraction from the real fight: Al Qaeda.
Crocker admitting that Iraq is preventing us form dealign with and defeating Al Qaeda is bad enough, but Petraeus and Crocker had even worse news In essence, they have no idea what victory would look like. When Asked by Senator Clinton what victory would look like, General Petraeus gave this rambling answer:
With respect to the conditions, Senator, what we have is a number of factors that we will consider by area as we look at where we can make recommendations for further reductions beyond the reduction of the surge forces that will be complete in July. These factors are fairly clear. There’s obviously an enemy situation factor, there’s a friendly situation factor with respect to Iraqi forces, local governance, even economic and political dynamics, all of which are considered as the factors in making recommendations on further reductions.
Having said that, I have to say that again it’s not a mathematical exercise. There’s not an equation in which you have co- efficients in front of each of these factors. It’s not as mechanical as that. At the end of the day, it really involves commanders sitting down, also with their Iraqi counterparts and leaders in a particular area, and assessing where it is that you can reduce your forces so you can, again, make a recommendation to make further reductions.
And that’s the process, again.
He cannot say what conditions would trigger a draw down of troops — apparently his field commanders would just one day magically know that everything was friendship and light and flowering ponies and they could all go home. Saying now what that magical land of happy-happy would look like is, apparently, impossible. Just trust in the Mighty Power of the Patraeus and He will come down from the mountain and present us with the Ten Dates For Withdrawal.
Crocker was just as bad. When asked by Senator Obama what constituted success, Crocker replied:
CROCKER: And that’s because, Senator, is a — I mean, I don’t like to sound like a broken record, but this is hard and this is complicated.
I think that when Iraq gets to the point that it can carry forward its further development without a major commitment of U.S. forces, with still a lot of problems out there but where they and we would have a fair certitude that, again, they can drive it forward themselves without significant danger of having the whole thing slip away from them again, then, clearly, our profile, our presence diminishes markedly.
But that’s not where we are now.
Again the double talk: we will leave when things are good but we cannot tell you right now how things will look when things look good. Success in Iraq is just like pornography: it is whatever Republicans are pointing to when they say “victory”.
But it gets even worse. When Senator Levin specifically asked Petraeus what the number of troops would be at the end of the year if everything goes according to his plan, Petraeus could not answer:
LEVIN: Now, next question, if all goes well — if all goes well, what would be the approximate number of our troops there at the end of the year?
Let’s assume conditions permitted things to move quickly. What, in your estimate, would be the approximate number of American troops there at the end of the year?
Can you give us a — just say if you can’t give us an estimate.
PETRAEUS: Sir, I can’t — I can’t give you an estimate on that.
LEVIN: All right. You’re not going to give us an estimate on that.
They don’t have a plan beyond hope. If they had areal plan, they would be trumpeting it and would take every opportunity to tell a disgusted and worried American public “here, here is what the end looks like and here is how we intend to get there.” Crocker and Petraeus bobbed and weaved like Ali in his prime every time someone tried to get them define success and victory. People who know where they are going aren’t afraid of questions about the destination. Clearly, all they have is the vague hope that if they hang around long enough, things will somehow sort themselves out.
By the end of the day Crocker and Petraeus had made it clear that the war in Iraq was not keeping the country safer, they don’t really have any idea what they are trying to accomplish in Iraq but we cannot leave no matter the cost until they have accomplished the accomplishment that they cnanot define.
I can understand your frustration with the answers, but look at it this way. If there is anything concrete stated and it is missed by even one little bit, they will be crucified by the same people asking the questions. If he were to say “if all goes according to plan, we should have 25,000 less troops there”, then if only 22,000 troops get pulled out, the media will go nuts attacking them over how they misled the country or how they failed so miserably.
And yes, I know there is a little thing called accountability, but the media has shown that it has no interest in intelligent thought on anything political, just what sells papers. And for the most part, the majority of politicians are only interested in scoring points.
Comment 4/9/2008
Big U
I don;t find that credible. The media that does this, that to this day almost entirely excludes anti-war voices form the discussion, is not a media that is going to crucify a general because a counter-factual did not play out. Heck, you can barely get our media to cover anything so boring as the actual results of a policy under any circumstances.
Thats just an excuse to avoid any accountability from the Bush Administration at all.
Comment 4/9/2008
[…] matter the cost until they have accomplished the accomplishment that they cnanot define. Lean Left « A survey in Florida showed that some teens believe drinking a cap of bleach will preventHIV and that a shot of Mountain Dew will stop pregnancy. Lawmakers in the state say the myths are a direct result of Florida’s abstinence-only sex education. […]
Pingback 4/9/2008
Kevin,
The criticism will come from the politicians and it will be reported by the newspapers. That is what I was referring to.
I do understand what you are saying but after following politics as long as I have, I am convinced that if any politician gives a solid time frame for anything, if that time frame is missed, regardless of the reason, he will get ripped by his opponents who are more interested in points scored than facts.
Comment 4/9/2008
So, for instance, if you start a war and it turns out that
1) the reason for starting it was bogus
2) the cost in lives and gold is far greater than alluded to
3) the duration is much longer than originally stated
4) the outcome remains in doubt
then the media would be all over you, right? Apparently not.
Comment 4/9/2008
Not necessarily Ted, but the politicians would and should be. And it seems I have read and heard a lot about how messed up the whole Iraq thing isbut from what you are saying you seem to think everything is being swept under the rug?
Comment 4/9/2008
Big U, I am suggesting that the MSM does not report on the reality of the war.
Comment 4/9/2008
The KISS rule has come full circle…
Everything about the initiation of the war was dramatically oversimplified, the auspices, the context, the challenge, the number of parties involved - everything. This was done to get public buy-in, which is easier when the concept is simple - bad brown people over there don’t like us, they want to hurt us, we can kick their asses, we’re asking you to support our doing so. Now, a bunch of simple people who were told a simple story are requesting a change of course, and a simple resolution. The people who oversimplified things in the first place are backtracking, saying, “it’s not so simple” and getting angry when the media doesn’t cover the situation with enough nuance.
They are trying to bite the hand that fed them, because had the whole situation been covered in sufficient detail in the first place, there may not have been sufficient public support to justify going in (though I doubt the administration would have actually cared). You can’t give somebody the Cliff’s Notes and expect them to be well versed on the finer points of the story…
Comment 4/10/2008
Thing is, whose got enough of the “Cliff’s Notes” to give us enough of a detailed description for the public to be
able to reach an informed position. Dubya said in the beginning of the “Twilight Zone” Wars period, in 2001, that we might not be informed of all events and strategy. Mainly, because the enemy might get an inkling of our war strategy.
In my opinion, the troops were inadequate to begin with, especially in Iraq. They were unable to secure the armories such that the places were looted. They weren’t able to “interfere” with looting of museums and so on.
There was no plan to secure the peace beyond a “gut reaction” to the insurgency. No efforts have been made, that I can see, to disarm these insurgents during rallies.
Guns are fired indiscriminately in the air, which is a dangerous habit of all these Mid East folks during rallies. Opportunities to seek out these militants are presented in full view of the TV. Why don’t the police get off their duffs and do something in these countries. To me, it looks like thugs are rulling the streets. In our country, if a bunch of thugs start firing off guns at a political or religious rally, we go in with swat teams and paddy wagons and disarm and arrest them.
Comment 4/13/2008
[…] • Lean Left: Lean Left: They have violated laws and common decency with impunity. They will probably get away with it — our press refuses to cover it and our Democratic leadership refuses to act. Plus: Petraeus and Crocker: Iraq Wrong War with No Way Out […]
Pingback 4/13/2008