The Hearings So Far: Some Thoughts

(a) Republicans play up the threat of Al Qaeda; Crocker seems to be measuring success by the progress against Al Qaeda in Iraq and the reduction in violence; Neither Petraeus nor Crocker is willing to sketch out a vision for an end-game; it seems as if their 45-day pause request will be extended -- how much political progress can be made in 45 days? ... Lieberman says the Basra conflict showed Maliki's willingness to confront Iranian presence in Southern Iraq.. other Republicans use the Basra affair to show that Maliki is developing some spine and independence.

(b) Democrats are bent on portraying metric-based progress as ephemeral; security gains are elusive and based more on temporary internal politics than on durable political agreements; it was Sen. John Warner who asked the political question: "Are we safer?"

(c) Maliki has threatened to prevent Mokdata Al-Sadr's political party from participating in the fall provincial elections unless the Mahdi Army disarms. Al Sadr has said that it only would be possible with Sistani's permission; for a while now, he and other clerics have been hesitant to inject themselves in politics. So far, only Sen. Jack Reed has engaged Petreaus on this question: what happens if the most popular political party in Iraq is banned from participating in the fall elections?

(d) No real debate yet about the state of readiness of the Iraqi forces; about the extent of Iran's support for US allies

(e) Sen. Olympia Snowe: "Why should American troops continue to take the lead in combat operations at this point?"

Comments

"... Lieberman says... other Republicans..."

Lol

Posted by Anne J | April 8, 2008 12:08 PM

I think it was Senator Collins of Maine rather than Senator Snowe who made the comment about American troops.

Has Lieberman lost it? He argued that the American political scene is more fraught with conflict than Iraq's. Does this mean we can expect mortars to start falling on the DNC office any minute?

Posted by James Augustus | April 8, 2008 12:21 PM

It is a pity that a uniformed General instead of giving an honest independent view represents the Administration's position on Iraq. Shouldn't the generals be giving their viewpoint from army's angle rather tha a political angle?

The Senators (both Democrats & Republicans) have a total disconnent with the American public. 71% of the public wants the troops out of Iraq. The testimony should be about how to and when to pull the troops out.

Posted by Ajaz | April 8, 2008 3:24 PM

Sen. John Warner who asked the political question: "Are we safer?"

John Warner should know better, since he lived through WWII and the Cold War, where battles and high stakes strategic maneuvering and shifting diplomatic alliances slowly accumulated to defeat of one side, but at any step along the way, just about any action could be dismissed as "not making us any safer from Japanese Torpedo Bombers, which are the real threat, not the Nazis in N Africa or the Jap Army in Guadacanal..And in the Cold War, why we "wasted so much money on DARPA when only 2 of 19 inventions panned out when our Negroes could have been given better TVs.."
All the actions had only a few that could satisfy Warner's metric isolated down to a single act, battle or front as "making us safer from Japanese or Communist attack in our country." The rest seemed tangential but it wasn't....it was inherent in the strategy, not making us safer, but the enemy drawn off in an unproductive direction, tied down, or weaker..

Same with the current mostly ideological, not military or "criminal justice" struggle with radical Islam. AQ is just one of 60 or so lethal "tip of the spear" jihadi terror groups that arise out of 300-400 million disaffected Muslims. They aren't even in the top 10 in lethality.
Fighting radical Islam and thwarting Muslim terror means far more than getting the last 6 or so AQ members responsible for 9/11...like WWII, the Cold War, it must be fought on many fronts.

**************
71% of the public wants the troops out of Iraq. The testimony should be about how to and when to pull the troops out.
Posted by Ajaz

It's a stupid question when asked by pollsters in a way that does not pose any negative consequences to "cut 'n run" from Iraq. I would say 71% of the troops would answer the stupid poll question the same way - if they could leave tomorrow with no negative effects, let alone profound negative consequences.

Posted by chris ford | April 8, 2008 5:09 PM