The War Over the War

I miss Warner already.

Damn, I am gonna miss Warner too.

This was the best question for me of the whole day.
The only answer, obviously was NO.
The general (in my opinion) fumbled.
Thank you Senator Warner, we are going to miss you. Atleast you have a conscience.

Yesterday, with the softball questions and answers, I am sure there was celebrations at the WH. Today, however, they better have their 'depends' on.

yes - it's a key question, but outside the general's scope, and probably inappropriate for the general to try to answer.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Se. Warner tell the Gen P that the bottom up theory had not been tested long enough for the general) claim it successful. Or something to that effect?

It's inconceivable that Petraeus has never asked himself that question. He could easily have expressed an opinion in the affirmative. That he did not speaks volumes.

Could anyone ask sen. Warner who is letting code pink into the hearings so that they can disrupt them. which dem is giving codepink tickets to get in?

Thank you JD for saying that.

Warner squeezed some incredible honesty from the general. It answered Hagel's earlier, rhetorical question "What are we there for?".....it seems Petraeus doesn't really know. Does anyone?

As a commanding general that has the task of assessing the Iraqi situation, I think it his RESPONSIBILITY, especially militarily, whether the current actions in that arena are making America safer. Warner would not have asked it if he thought it was out of the General's area.

I agree with acd, it is an important question that certainly needed to be asked; however, it's more of a political/diplomatic question than a military question. Petraeus's job is to oversee the military actions in the Middle East, not to try and determine whether what he does is making the country "safer." That would be a question more suited for the Administration (which would never give a straight answer about it).

I think the pinkers got the right to be there. When you think about it: is there any other way for the avg Joe to express their opposition? Those Sen and Congressman wouldn't give one of us a glass of water or the time of day.

How can that question possibly be answered, by anyone? How can safety be quantified? Does our safety even have anything to do with what happens in Iraq? Surely it has much more to do with making sure terrorists can't get their hands on nuclear weapons; on securing our ports in the U.S.; and on keeping drunk drivers off the roads. That last one, if you ask me, is the most serious.

Vulture, its a question the President and his staff answer daily and their answer is always YES of course we are safer.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the President had to appear before this committee and these senators and have to respond to their questions? It's not about "executive priviledge" or any of that crap. Just tell us Mr President , has this whole lousy endeavor made this country any safer? What was the "mission" and was it accomplished ? How do you know? What is the mission now? When will it be accomplished and how will we know? What do you mean by "victory" and how will we know if we're there? No discussion of "state secrets" or any top secret stuff, just straight questions.No surrogates like Gates, Rice, Petreaus, Crocker or Cheney. Just Bush. If they can't be answered fully and truthfully by the president, no more money. Now that would take some courage by the Senate. Make Shrub stumble and stammer and then send him back with no more money for his folly. No more "playing for time".

This is just my impression, but it seemed that Warner got under the General's skin for a moment. He stated perfectly the deepest question of duty with his George Marshall anecdote: conducting a war means sacrificing your soldiers' lives to pursue an outcome; this horrible fact is easy to forget, yet it demands that the action be worthwhile, and it demands absolute candor by someone in Petraeus' role.

The General is no dummy and not, I think, insensitive either. While he may believe his narrowly defined mission is the best of a terrible crop of options, I sense that he may have grave though unstated doubts about the larger enterprise, those things that are beyond his pay grade.

Yes, one of the best exchanges all day. The question, in the context of talking about Gen. Marshall and President Roosevelt, was an indirect plea for Petraeus to spend some alone time and consider the affect Iraq is having om America, it's role in the world today, it's ability to deal with near-term future crises that need the military, and whether in that context it is worth the cost. Warner knows the answer, and suspects Petraeus can at least be honest with himself during those quiet times alone. Perhaps Petraeus is being prepared to deliver to Bush the news the moderates in his party want -- for the good of the Nation, you need to call it soon.

Warner's question was, in essence, "why do we fight?"

A general who cannot answer that question straightforwardly and emphatically is not fit to command. If he can't tell the Senate how this fight makes America safer, what does he tell his troops? What does he tell their families?

At least he had the decency not to simply mouth the White House line.

The question Warner ask is not one for the General to answer. The general's mission is to pacify Iraq to the point where political change in Irag might take place. He may fail, but that is still the only mission Congress and Bush has given him. It is Congress's responsibility to ask and then answer the question "is the effort in Iraq making the homeland safer." Warner and all the rest who led us into this "mission impossible" should have asked and answered this question long ago. They need to step up and make the difficult choices to lead us out of this mess. Quit trying to deflect blame by beating up the warriors. Rather, we ought to apologize for throwing them into this horrible predicament.

Senator Warner's poigant and profound question (and the General's, I believe, honest inability to answer it) requires each of us as citizens to reask that very question to our legislators, to speak the question in letters to editors, and make that inquiry to our neighbors. None of us are excluded from the moral responsiblity to do the right thing on behalf of our young soldiers and our country. AND, if the answer to that question is that our soldiers are in all probability dying in vain, we must each act hence forth as if one of those soldiers is our own children.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.