Endgame, Like Porn: Know It When You See It?

Gaming an end was the organizing principle of today's hearings. Republicans recognized this as much as Democrats. Democrats grew frustrated that the strategy pursued by Petraeus and Crocker and run up the flagpole to the White House has no reasonable or conceivable end point; neither the general nor the ambassador seemed to be willing to give an opinion about just what constituted sufficient progress and, in importantly, what the intersection is between the finite resources and patience of the US and a realistic scenario for Iraq.

All three presidential candidates stuck largely to their campaign stump speeches.

The only thing Petraeus would say is that "local solutions" were the key, although he failed to explain, as Sen. John Kerry noted, how, if those solutions were not available today, how they've be viable with even fewer troops -- would more be required? This isn't a Democratic talking point -- Sen. Lugar asked the same question.

But, of course, there are no more troops to send.

** Joe Biden's questioning resulted in the admission from Adm. Crocker that U.S. security interests would be better served if Al Qaeda in Pakistan were eliminated more quickly than AQI. Biden really shined today... he was strong and knowledgeable and a better prosecutor than the Democratic presidential candidates.

** Crocker and Petraeus denied the obvious: by giving money to the Sons of Iraq, they're arming Sunnis. And paying them not to be violent. Will those payments breed dependence? Will they continue indefinitely?

** Clinton's tone was senatorial as were concerns: her main issue was the agreement the White House wants to sign with the Maliki government over the legal authority to keep troops in Baghdad, an agreement the Senate will not be privy to.

Senator Clinton: Does the Administration plan to submit this agreement to our Congress?

Ambassador Crocker: At this point Senator, we do not anticipate that the agreements will have within them any elements that would require the advise-and-consent procedure. We intend to negotiate this as an executive agreement.

(B) Obama called for a "diplomatic surge with Iran." He was focused on an end-game: "The problem I have is that if the definition of success is so high, no traces of Al Qaeda and no possibility of reconstitution, a highly effective Iraqi government, a democratic multi ethnic, multi sectarian functioning democracy, no Iranian influence, at least not the kind that we like, then that portends the possibility of us staying for 20 or 30 years."

Comments

Obama's approach to ending the occupation in Iraq by defining the criteria for success and engaging in a "diplomatic surge" is brilliant.

Posted by TT | April 8, 2008 6:32 PM

Obama's approach to ending the occupation in Iraq by defining the criteria for success and engaging in a "diplomatic surge" is brilliant.

Posted by TT | April 8, 2008 6:32 PM

Biden handed the Democrats the best talking point regarding Crocker's admission that Al Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan was a bigger problem and Sen. Boxer's comments about Iran already having a free hand reinforced by Obama and spread out to illustrate that the administration has no hope to fulfill all the Republican's wish list.

I thought the stronger momment Clinton had was getting Petraus to squirm a bit on what he envisions would be circumstances he would recommend a change in strategy to Bush.

Overall, I think the Democrats clearly picked up FAR more ammunition to clearly undercut the McCain/Republican talking points on Iraq. And a lot of that was thanks to Biden, ITA. The Foreign relations committee as a whole did far better pressing the issue I thought than the Armed Services committee.

Posted by Rhoda | April 8, 2008 6:49 PM

only one of the candidates is serious about getting out of Iraq

Posted by alison | April 8, 2008 7:40 PM

Did anybody else cringe when Obama was spelling out the metrics of success and he framed it in terms --and I paraphrase-- of having the general situation under control but not extending to the absurdity of verifiably having eliminated every last AQ fighter in Iraq?

That's the kind of thing that the right-wing attack mob loves to clamp between their jaws and go running with to the cadre of literal-minded nitwits who reliably vote for their candidates --remember how they did it to Kerry four years ago when, in a truthful answer to a question, he stated the commonsensical fact that "terrorism" is unlikely ever to be eradicated, at least in a world that any of us will live in.

If all else fails, maybe they can make the claim that the Democratic nominee has refused to commit to protecting the public from random lightning strikes. In any case, Petraeus said the same thing that Obama did later on during the hearing. We'll just see if it makes it into any Y'allTube clips...

Posted by Bracing myself for another round of the usual | April 8, 2008 7:53 PM

McCain sounded like Robert Duvall "I love the smell of Naplam in the morning"- very delusional.

Clinton sounded like Majority Leader.

Obama sounded like a President talking to his Joint Chief of Staff Cabinet members.

Posted by sonya | April 8, 2008 8:04 PM

biden is the man.

Posted by eric | April 8, 2008 8:20 PM

McCain handed the Democrats another gift by
wondering out loud if al Qeada is Shiite.
Has MSM picked up on this yet? I've been
away from TV since noon.

Posted by yellowdogD | April 8, 2008 9:30 PM

Biden is the man.

Another of the commenters mentioned that Obama criticized the extraordinarily high bar for "success" that has been thrown out there, that realistically speaking, isn't attainable. I envision right-wing attack ads with him talking about "hope" and that "America can do anything it sets it's mind to" contrasted against the Obama line referred to. Pretty weak stuff, IMO.

Posted by socctty | April 8, 2008 9:47 PM

Your comments on Biden show what a lightweight you are Marc. As one of the Cornerites remarked, Biden showed absolutely no interest in the consequences of withdrawing, or the consequences of staying and winning in Iraq. I suspect you have no interest either. Biden is a pompous lowlife and the fact that you thought his small minded questioning was he highlight of the hearings reflects so poorly on you.

Bleh

Posted by Kate | April 8, 2008 10:05 PM

Also, maybe you could explain to your readers why you see the role of the Dems as prosecutors. What screwed up idea do you have about the role of the Senate Dems-they are prosecutors and Petraeus is the accused? You perfectly illustrate the anti-military mindset (and anti-America) role you in the press have played.

Pathetic

Posted by Kate | April 8, 2008 10:11 PM

The Bush administration can't even describe what a victory in Iraqi would look like. Does it have to be a thriving democratic nation which would take forever since the Iraqi people never known what a democratic system ever looked like. They have no history with the concept only tribal alligence.

Posted by sonya | April 8, 2008 10:36 PM

The fact that "success" was never defined before the invasion was the original sin of this whole Iraq fiasco. And creating some kind of utopian liberal democracy free from anti-American or religious leadership was not a valid goal.

For starters, it is quite possibly contradictory. The fact is, in this part of the world, if you want a democracy where the people determine their own leadership, you're quite likely to end up with an anti-American and/or Islamic government. Hence our habit of propping up pro-American dictators that suppress Islamism (Hussein himself being neither the first nor the last).

Posted by TH | April 9, 2008 12:34 AM

Kate,

Hard to address all that's wrong with your post, so let me just address the most obvious: how is criticizing the Iraq war, along with the needless loss of American soldier's lives and the bevy of problems from KBR mismanagement to stoploss shenanigans, anti-military? And, how is that, by extension, anti-America? How is maintaining a costly and endless war, years after the mission was "accomplished" no less, while our economy tanks pro-American? Get real, and while you're at it, get a dictionary and come to terms with the fact that patriotism is not the same thing as warmongering.

Posted by TheSteve | April 9, 2008 2:53 AM

I find it interesting and perhaps illuminating that none of the previous comments mentioned the Ambassador's reasoning behind his statement.

He stated that AQ in Afghanistan/Pakistan represented a larger threat than AQI because coalition forces had dealt AQI such a crushing blow.

This isn't an instance of we're focusing on the wrong place look how foolish we are, but instead look how we're being successful here and now we need to be equally successful there.

The reason of course for the success against AQI is the surge which Senator Biden, bloviating notwithstanding cannot acknowledge.

Posted by John Smith | April 9, 2008 12:01 PM

socctty said... I envision right-wing attack ads with him talking about "hope" and that "America can do anything it sets it's mind to" contrasted against the Obama line referred to.

Let 'em go for it. That would illustrate the GOP strategy in Iraq with crystal clarity; hope.

TH said... The fact that "success" was never defined before the invasion was the original sin of this whole Iraq fiasco.

Not true. First it was WMDs, but that failed. Then it was a thriving democracy, but that failed. Later it was a set of political benchmarks, but they've failed. The fact is that "success" has been defined down so many times that they've finally given up.

And Kate, well as soon as you went to the "un-American" comment, you lost all credibility. You're still calling for "success" without defining it. We can't compare the potential outcome if we withdraw with "success" because Bush, McCain, Patraeus, Crocker, and you all refuse to define it.

Posted by LFC | April 9, 2008 1:11 PM

He stated that AQ in Afghanistan/Pakistan represented a larger threat than AQI because coalition forces had dealt AQI such a crushing blow.

No, it's because this region has, and continues to be, THE center of power for AQ. If you haven't figured that out yet, you know nothing of AQ. (Do you know that AQI is nothing more than a nameplate?) Feel free to list all of the AQI attacks that have occurred outside of Iraq and compare them to those perpetrated over the years by the real AQ.

This isn't an instance of we're focusing on the wrong place look how foolish we are, but instead look how we're being successful here and now we need to be equally successful there.

We created a problem (AQI didn't exist before the invasion) that still exists to some degree, but because it's not as powerful as it was, we win? That is seriously messed up. BTW, cooler heads have shown that insurgents have been a bigger problem than AQI since the start. AQI is used as an excuse for the GOP to run around and justify a failed war.

The reason of course for the success against AQI is the surge which Senator Biden, bloviating notwithstanding cannot acknowledge.

Funny. I didn't know that the Anbar Awakening was manned by our troops. Oh, right. IT WASN'T. Two things happened. First, they got sick of AQI killing their people so they took back power. They would have done this without us since they were paying the price. Second, we encouraged this by paying them, as Patraeus readily admits. Did we need tens of thousands of extra troops to hand out that money?

Pull your head out of your AQI and learn a bit about the complexity of the situation in Iraq.

Posted by LFC | April 9, 2008 1:19 PM

porn asian teen

Posted by asian black porn | June 14, 2008 7:23 AM

free asian porn

Posted by porn asian asain | June 14, 2008 10:49 AM