Tom Ricks: Liveblogging the Iraq Hearings

How is the US thinking strategically now? The only strategy seems to be to find a way to stay, and the troop levels required are unsustainable to do that so far.

What's the grand strategy? McCain's still talking about a democratic Iraq as a pillar in a new Middle East.

I'm not saying we have to trust Iran, but can anybody tell me the last time Iran invaded another country to unilaterally begin a conflict?

I'd like to see someone go through the benchmarks that were supposed to be achieved during the surge and ask Petreus and Crocker about each one.

So What? I do not question the wisdom, honesty, or integrity of Crocker or Petreaus. Even if they are 100% correct in their assessment - they are putting the Iraq War in the context of the American economy..........
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/04/08/iraq-in-context-april-8-2008/

Well at least Bush is thinking strategically: drag this thing out for 8 more months without a stunning defeat, and dump it on the lap of whatever poor sucker is unlucky enough to get elected and inherit his war mess, his banking system mess, his forclosures mess, his economic mess, his tax mess, his deficits mess, his worn out demoralized military mess, his health care system mess, his worthless dollar mess. Aren't we lucky to have such a strategic thinker in the White House?

Patraeus is FAILING as a strategist. Tactically, he succeeds. Strategically, Iran, Maliki, the Sunnis, and Sadr are handing him his butt. Look at the "conditions" that Patraeus says need to be achieved before he can withdraw troops. They're all things the Iraqis have to accomplish. Not Patreaus.

What kind of general allows their opponent(s) to control his course of action? Are we going to continue paying the Sunnis for Maliki? Are we going to continue following their "Army" and "Police" around and do their jobs? Are we going to continue to let Iran be the broker of peace between Shi'ites in Iraq?

Patraeus should be fired.

The Iran remarks are remarkably stupid. Funny, when the Saudis were financing the Sunni insurgency, which killed a good half to two thirds of the American dead, did one hear a peep, a gentle word about our buddies? Of course not. Oligarchs are gentlemen - their oligarchs and our oligarchs have set rules for what can and can't be spoken. And the Post, of course, reports all the news that the oligarchs allow. Which is why we have the incredible situation that we have - one unnecessary war, one occupation that is a disaster, and seven years after 9/11, the normalization of OBL's escape, just as we have normalized his ability - as the head of an at most 10 thousand person paramilitary, spending maybe 5 million per year - to defy the U.S. and provide an excuse for the Pentagon to spend the 4 trillion it has spent over the last six years. The ancient greeks called it 'Ate' - mental blindness. We are so mentally blind that it is painful. And we keep doing the same old, same old.

The question should be: since withdrawal does have hazards for us, should we coordinate withdrawing from Iraq with recognizing Iran, starting economic relations, and generally giving Iran an idea of the benefits it can accrue by not overreaching in Iraq?

I'm going to say this again about this supposed "misspeak" of John McCain's about Iran training soldiers and sending them to Iraq-MCCAIN WAS BY NO MEANS INCORRECT-AND IT WAS RYAN CROCKER, WHO WAS MEETING THIS PAST SPRING WITH THE IRANIANS, WHO PUT THE ISSUE POINT BLANK TO TEHRAN!

It has been your STATE DEPT. TO SAY THE VERY THING MCCAIN WAS CASTIGATED FOR, BY THE KNOW-NOTHING LIEBERMAN, WHERE IT WAS THEN DISTORTED BY THE MSM TO MAKE MCCAIN LOOK LIKE HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT: (NOTE TO MCCAIN: DON'T LISTEN TO JOE LIEBERMAN, HE'S DEMONSTRATED TIME AND AGAIN THAT HE KNOWS VIRTUALLY NOTHING!)

If you don't believe me, DO SOME RESEARCH -GOOGLE "RYAN CROCKER AND IRAN," AND YOU WILL SEE WHAT I MEAN!

Of course, the Post could have done some research into the matter of Iran and al-Qaeda in Iraq as well, but they're above doing research-that's for the readers-they just go with their "instincts' over facts, that is, and then act all surprised when they hear Crocker providing information supporting McCain's words.

Why is Iran the enemy? Iran has not invaded any other country every ten years the way the militaristic United States has done. Iran has not used atomic bombs on cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Iran does not threaten other nations.

True Iranians are predominantly Shiites and support their fellow co-religionists in Hezbollah. But is this a reason to make Iran the bad guy?

Let Israel make peace with Hezbollah and its Arab neighbors. Resist Israel's call for bombing Iran.

Your article gave me a chuckle. It brought back the memories from Viet Nam where soldiers pretty much said the same thing. Then it was "what are they gonna do, send you to Viet Nam"?

From Reuters, July 2007:

U.S. accuses Iran over support for militias in Iraq

Tue Jul 24, 2007 7:31pm EDT

U23 Jul 2007
FACTBOX: Ups and downs in U.S.-Iranian relations
24 Jul 2007
FACTBOX: Security developments in Iraq, July 24
24 Jul 2007
FACTBOX: Military and civilian deaths in Iraq
24 Jul 2007

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The United States accused Iran in talks on Tuesday of increasing support for militias involved in bloodshed in Iraq but, in a rare sign of cooperation, agreed with Tehran to set up a panel to improve security.

In their second round of talks on Iraq this year after a long diplomatic freeze, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker said he also challenged Iran over its suspected support for other radical groups in the Middle East such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran rejected all of the accusations, he said.

"We expressed concerns over Iranian activities and support of violent militia elements through both arming and training," he said after meeting Iranian Ambassador Hassan Kazemi-Qomi.

"The fact is, and we made it very clear in today's talks, that over the roughly two months we have actually seen militia-related activities that can be attributed to Iranian support go up and not down."

I ask you, WHY IS IT THAT THE MSM PUMMELED MCCAIN FOR HIS STATEMENT ABOUT IRAN, WHICH EVERYONE OTHER THAN THE MSM KNOWS IS ARMING AL-QAEDA IN IRAQ, AS WELL AS NOW ASSISTING THE TALIBAN, ANYTHING TO UNDERMINE THE US?

Farfalle needs to lose the cap lock on his keyboard. And why does he assert that what the US is asserting is true vis-a-vis Iran? This, afterall, is the same administration that gave us WMDs and Scooter Libby. Farfelle needs to stop asserting that what any Bush apologist says is iron-clad proof of anything, other than proof of the Bush administration's willingness and proclivity to lie.

Farfalle, if you calm down just a minute, take a look at the article you posted. The claim is Iran is arming and training "militants". Militants are not the same as Al Queda. Try to be a little bit better informed so you can make a rational judgement.

It seems like Iran's doing a much better job of thinking strategically than we are-- arming both the Shiite-led government and the Shiite-led Sadr brigades, while we Americans are left footing the bill for the Sunni corps whom we can't convince Maliki to incorporate into the national army.

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.