Tom Ricks: Liveblogging the Iraq Hearings

Why are we in Iraq?

William Kristol said:
"We are on course for a successful outcome in Iraq."

please define that successful outcome.

or start holding this gasbag's feet to the fire for once....

So why don't we admit that this is all just
another well rehearsed typical Liar in Chief George W Bush and VP Draft Dodger
Cheney Dog & Pony Show,that they dreamed
up, in order to convince us that Bush Lite,
Sen Amnesty John McCain is the smartest 2008 Presidential Candidate and a new General George S Patton and Ike all rolled
into one. And that it provides a great
opportunity for Democrat Peacenik and Fraud
Pathological Liar Barack Hussein Obama to
publically demonstrate his total ignorance
and incompetence as a "Wannabe Commander in
Chief" of our US Military,since Obama never
served in it.

I get the sense that the Democrats are in no more a hurry to leave Iraq than the Republicans are. Sure, the Democrats talk loud about leaving Iraq but yet George Bush, a very lame duck and discreditable president, keeps getting his way concerning Iraq.

I'm sure the Bush apologists will argue that this points to Bush's political acumen but I disagree. If President Bush has so much political acumen his party wouldn't be in such disarray and is poised to be reduce to super minority status in both houses as a result of his inept leadership.

I can't put my finger on it but I sense on some level both political parties are running a scam on the American people. I say this because the politics surrounding this war makes no sense whatsoever. We were lied into this war but no one lost a job. The Democrats gained a majority due in large part to the Bush Administration ineptness and untrustworthiness concerning the Iraq war but yet the Democrats keep losing to George Bush on every single issue concerning this war. Ronald Reagan didn't win as many political victories against the Democrats as Bush is now and Mr. Reagan's Administration was far more politically adept Bush's administration.

Do you think the troop pause Petraeus wants has anything to do with an upcoming offense against Iran?
http://www.thementalpugilist.blogspot.com/

mccain lambasts what he calls the democratic presidential nominees' plan for a "reckless & irresponsible withdrawal of {american} forces from iraq...."

well, this is my short take on it: what then does mccain want? would it be, for mccain, "well-thought out & responsible" if the americans send mccain himself, along with his two sons, to iraq, for the mccains to lead the american troops there in, say, fighting al-sadr's mahdi milita forces?

if mccain & his two sons will do that, i think that will sit well with the american people. at least, mccain will walk his talk.

get movin' john, pronto.

but there should be a "pause" here, to quote gen. petraeus one favorite word. ironically, it's al-sadr who's desirous of a "dialogue," which could be a preliminary talk towards a genuine peace.

yet, here's mccain wanting to prolong a war whcih the world views as nothing less than an american occupation of iraq. can mccain, then, fault the world for viewing it as nothing less than an "imperialist" war, that he wants to stay forever?

The real starting point for the testimony has to be not whether things have changed in Iraq, but whether the changes so far wrought by 4,000 lives and $1 trillion warrant more lives and money. Fundamental is the recognition that Iraq will not be a strong pro-U.S. democratic anti-Islamic outpost for change in the Arab Middle East. Iraqi society will work out its accommodations with its various factions, and we are providing the stability for this to happen. Al Qaeda is out, and now the infighting among Iraqis is on the upswing.

We've achieved the goal of unseating Saddam Hussein and his miliary ambitions, and can be pretty sure that Iraq is no base for Al Qaeda or store for WMD. Next step is to give up the notion that Iraq will be like us, and let the country fall into that Middle Eastern form of constitutional autocracy, like Qatar, Jordan, or Egypt, where strongman rule is limited and imperialist ambition contained.
Otherwise we get Lebanon, permanently cut up by unresolved sectarian groups, or Iran, with a powerful unifying theocracy that represses opposition.

No resolution in Iraq is possible as long as we are military occupiers, and no resoultion is possible if we commit ourselves to a timetable that encourages everyone to wait us out. Instead, we need in our interest to change our role on the ground more rapidly to protecting porous Iraqi borders. Within those borders, we shouldn't be the bail out forces for Al Maliki's poorly prepared and executed military attempts to shortcircuit political compromises with rival Shia groups. It's no accident that a non Arab state, Iran, which is also Shia, was called in to set up the Basra cease fire, and not the United States.

Far from forcing Al Maliki to reconcile political differences,we have given him the ultimate big stick in the form of control over the largest deployment of U.S. forces anywhere in the world. As long as he doesn't face defeat from failing to compromise with his rivals, he'll continue to believe he can treat Iraqis the way we treated Al Qaeda fighters who came to Iraq after we invaded.

So what is success in Iraq? Getting out and leaving Iraqis to settle their own affairs without having us preside over a blood bath. Not having an Iraq that is the largest, best armed and best trained anywhere in the region except for Iran, Iraq's most natural strategic ally against the Sunni Arab world. A country that not only won't act against U.S. interests, but can't. We should use the last days of our occupation to be sure that Iraq signs on to every arms cotrol and dual use technology agreement in force around the world. Then we should let an Iraq without international ambition become the nation it is destined to be.

Tom...love your work, and I know it's early in the morning, BUT:

I don't know about the best comment of the week, but your final comment about letting the games begin may be one of the worst. Surely you're not quite yet that cynical? Or maybe you need to distance yourself emotionally as you personally have good reason to need to.

But still, this is life and death, not a game. Even if it IS a game in Washington.

Congressman Moran ( 9/07) and now Sen Specter ask: " Is there light at the end of the tunnel?"

That same question was repeated "ad nauseum" by the politicians during the Vietnam War. ENOUGH! There is no light.This war will continue until a new dictator comes along or until a civil war partitions that country. There is only more death for the Americans and Iraqis. The real question is when will we as a nation have the guts to prosecute the perpetrators of this immoral war.

The real question is do the American people have any power at all? We were a nation of laws, we were a nation responsible to the people, are we still?
What right does a President, a General, a Congress have to continue actions which the people oppose? Does being elected to represent the people give Congress the right to do whatever it wants? Does a President, who is not the CEO, but rather the Chief Administrator, required to carry out the wishes of the people...have any right to declare that he is the Decider, that only he has the right to decide on the course of the nation, that he has the right to keep whatever secrets he chooses, that he is above and outside the laws of the nation?
We the people for numerous reasons have called for this immoral, unjustified occupation of another nation to end...NOW!

Mr Ricks: because it is election season I am inclined to be cynical about these hearings. The last one got side tracked by the MoveOn Ad. This one will get lost in the election skirmishing. I Petraues and Crocker can only put forward a case for continuing the war, never mind the recent troubles in Basra, and for trying to nail all problems on Iran.

As for the Senators: their sense of self importance will outweigh any other consideration. I shudder to think of the games that will be played by McCain and Graham with the pompous Warner playing the role of the great poobah. I don't think Clinton can do much. And Joe Biden has already made sure Obama will not steal his five minutes of fame.

Yes, regardless of all the political hype and rhetoric, intelligence was manipulated to such an extreme that we are now fighting over how to withdraw ourselves from a war that should never have been faught "by us." The ebb and flow of events in Iraq will always be such that either side of the debate can claim success on any given day. I say let us take a chance, remove our forces, and see what happens. We know that the presence of our forces only results in more bloodshed. Our treasury and our military have already paid too great a price for the follies of this administration. I say again and again that our homeland is deteriorating around us and no one in Washington is sounding the alarm except for a few. Yes, there is a place for diplomacy, but this administration cannot even spell the word.

Here's a question for McCain to ask Petraeus:

General, will you tell us how you plan on making Iran stop training al-Qaida?

Petraeus and his buddy will hit at least one home run to finish off this game. Congress will not even get to swing the bat.

These hearings would only be valid if Congress has already voted to close down the war with a specific time table.

In past Petraeus testimony, he limited his answers to tactical military issues in Iraq. He would not answer questions concerning whether continued American deployments at 130,000+ in Iraq were straining military resources and compromising American security elsewhere. He said it was up to others to make assessments like that (and I believe you said he was right to avoid questions like that.) I don't understand why Congress hasn't assembled the full panoply of people who can make those assessments, all at once, so all issues can be addressed. It seems Rice (State), Gates (Defense), and Mullen (Joint Chiefs)should be present at the same time as Petraeus and Crocker in order to fully address these issues. Then there is no question about individual responsibility for any issue; all cracks are filled.

It's easier to get into a war than to get out of one, isn't it?

I have this notion that David Petraeus will be John McCain's VP choice.

Petraeus should be asked just one question: Does he recommend the continuation of the Bush policy in Iraq?
Any equivocations and evasions in his answer should be bluntly confronted.

The troop escalation referred to as the "surge" was presented as a way to help reduce violence in some areas of Iraq which would in turn give the Iraqi government the space it needed to stabilize the country and begin to govern.
Our military and our president say that the surge has succeeded. However, the Iraqi government continues its own internecine struggles, the Iraqi people are still living in fear and without basic services. Violence continues. It appears that Muqtada al Sadr has more influence than the government.
As the stated goal still appears to be out of reach, will you be willing to acknowledge that we cannot sustain these troop levels indefinitely and that new solutions must be found to stabilize the country that we broke and allow us to carefully extricate our forces?
If so, would you, Gen. Petraeus, be willing to present a plan that would do this even if it involved timelines for withdrawal? If not, please explain what you expect to accomplish that would warrant the loss of more American lives?

Interesting point, Mr. Ricks:

"I'll also be keeping an eye on Sen. Lindsay Graham (R.-S.C.), a witty fellow who sometimes seems like McCain's "Mini-Me" and Sen. James Webb (D.- Va. and USMC), who knows his military stuff."

Comparing James Webb to the current gang running our military is not fair. James Webb, the Captain, was the type of leader we snuffies worshiped and still admire to no end, but who was so shot up, he had to leave active duty. What remained, the lessers, became the leadership. The '70s were such a sad place in the military for the grunts. The leaders, for the most part, gone, and the remainders not able to fill their shoes. Sad indeed. Are we now seeing a replay?

James Webb did the ugly war at the up-close-and-personal level, so expect him to be less understanding than those who caught quick glimpses of an ugly war through a bomb sight. I hope for, and expect a fight.

My only question is will the sound of gunfire from the tranquil and pacified neighborhoods of Baghdad drown out those who are trying to speak in Congress? Just a thought. Semper Fi

One of the great unpoken ironies of our military grip on the Iraq tar baby is that it might prevent an even worse disastrophe from happening ater the next president is installed and handed the nuclear trigger.

If McCain gets elected, and if he's the unstable, warrior-president wanna-be that some fear he is, a peaceful Iraq might encourage him to launch an even dumber, costlier, bloodier military adventure, or adventures, elsewhere.

Was it Klausewitz who said that sometimes we should consider not what we think will happen but what might happen?

If that's so, then let's pray we stay bogged down in Iraq for a while more -- i.e, either until the end of time or until we and our leaders start to act as rational human beings, whichever comes first.

Which,I suppose, means we should pray that we stay bogged down in Iraq forever.

Interesting assessment of the idea of a surprise, Mr. Ricks. Petraeus is a masterful general but has he mastered politics as well? I suppose you can't get to the general staff level without some mastery of politics.

I find it interesting that people think a Democrat in the White House will alter the political calculus that has provided for the current stay and escalation in Iraq in the face of a Congress, whose leadership changed specifically because of a public fatigue with the war in Iraq.

Politicians have longer memories than the public. Democrats know that the public blamed them for the fiasco in Vietnam and did not trust them on security issues thereafter for a generation. They fear the same result if we withdraw from Iraq.

On October 10, 2002, Clinton spoke to the Senate in favor of a use-of-force resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq, saying: "The facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt."

On December 15, 2003, when it was clear there were no large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Clinton's support was unwavering. "I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force," she told the Council on Foreign Relations. "We have no option but to stay involved and committed."

On April 20, 2004, Clinton told CNN's Larry King that she did not "regret giving the president the authority," noting that Saddam Hussein "had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."

In October 2005, amid growing anti-war sentiment, Clinton still told the Village Voice: "I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal . . . I don't think it's the right time to withdraw."

By November 2005, Hillary was softening her stance, saying in a letter to constituents: "If Congress had been asked [to authorize the war], based on what we know now, we never would have agreed."

On December 18, 2006, Clinton went even further, saying on the "Today" show: "I certainly wouldn't have voted that way."

On January 13 of this year, Clinton spoke from Baghdad about President Bush's call for a troop surge: "I don't know that the American people or the Congress at this point believe this mission can work."

On January 17, Clinton called for a cap on the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, and suggested withholding funds for the Iraqi government.

Finally, on January 27, Clinton hit the campaign trail in Iowa and demanded that the president "extricate our country from this before he leaves office."

The Journal opines: "What's troubling about Mrs. Clinton's record on Iraq is that it tends to follow, rather than lead, public opinion . . .

Would Petraeus explain why speaking arabic only in Iraq is not the first order of business for the US occupation forces? I watched a news vid of a US Army soldier in Sadr City screaming instructions to his Iraqi Army trainee's interpretor as things blew up around them. The interpretor dutifully relayed the instructions, in Arabic to the Iraqi officer. The Iraqi answered to the interpretor. The interpretor relayed an English translation to the American soldier. Repeat. Ridiculous.

Without showing the basic respect of talking directly to the Iraqi's in their language and not ours, we'll only have a repeat of the training fiasco of 2003. And 2004. And 2005. And 2006. And 2007. And probably 2008.

We continue our own internecine political struggles here. Luckily, we have acculturated to the idea that ballots are better than bullets, a novel idea that we are trying to install in the Arab/Muslim world, with mixed results so far.

History repeats itself and Americans are very slow learners. In Vietnam the warning was if we fail the dominoes will fall and communism will triumph. In Iraq if we fail it will de-stabilize the Middle East and terrorism will triumph. Therefore, the politicians counseled we must stay or certainly the sky will fall and we will be in mortal danger.
Consider, the US was very mistaken for the reasons it went into Iraq, it likely is just as mistaken for the reasons it now wants to stay. In Vietnam we learned that Vietnamese had no desire to be a dominoe of China. If we ever get out of Iraq we may learn that we do not know everyting about that country and its future.

Until next January, "staying the course" or "on course to victory" are sufficient mantras. Markets for US bonds should hold out until then, even if the dollar slides to 0.40 euros. After that, the current office holders can high-five, cash in, join lucrative boards, or just whack golf balls. Some other clowns will then have to fill in the blanks. WaPo, Kristol, Kagan, Murdoch, and Pearle will then start to bemoan the lack of definition and intractable stalemate. They will agitate to attack Iran as the "only sound solution." Any of the three contending White House occupants will be only too likely to comply. To abandon the Iraqi mega-bases or let Kurds and Basra sign oil contracts with Chinese, French, or Russian firms would corporate America and its pundits-for-hire go ape.

Bushistas' final battle is being fought - the battle for control of Iraq's oil.

Job One: Gain control of the Port of Basra, where 80% of Iraq's oil leaves Iraq.

The US military and al-Maliki's forces quickly gained control of the port, despite the fact that Iraqi troops and police couldn't desert fast enough.

al-Maliki then asked al-Sadr for a ceasefire, which al-Sadr agreed to.

Job Two: Eliminate the al-Sadr voting body (who are in favor of nationalizing Iraq's oil) ahead of the elections.

The solution?

Al-Maliki announced a few days ago that al-Sadr's millions of followers (and army members) will not be allowed to participate in the upcoming election, unless they disband their militia.

Iraq must be put in context of US interests around the globe. Is it in best interests of US to keep military forces in Iraq? What benefits do these forces bring? What is the cost? What are we unable to do while in Iraq?

IMO, Iraq costs too much, there is not a gain and it is time to get out. The US made a mistake to go in, and staying in does not help situation.

We could continue in same scenario for 10 more years except the volunteer army and national guard would be depleted. If John McCain wins election and continues the current policies the end result will be the US will create some sort of compulsory service.

I would like to know why the theater commander(s) are never involved in these hearings. Is he not the person best suited to inform the Congress of the larger (strategic!) situation?

Congressional paralysis simply reflects the dilemma of the American voter. Two views are held simultaenously and widely:
1. Iraq was a mistake and poorly managed. We should get out.
2. Precipitous departure is contrary to the American self-image. We don't abandon folks in a pickle and we don't leave the battlefield while the fighting is still going on.
We resolve the dilemma by thrusting ourselves on both horns.
Since the people cannot make up their minds, the politicians are free to emphasize one point so long as they nod to the other.
End result: Withdrawal starts symbolically a year from now no matter who is elected. The pace and end result of that will vary by potential President and conditions on the ground.

The truly tragic question is, why didn't we have this debate before the war?

There's a lot of talk about who knew what when. But let's face it, most Democrats were afraid of Bush's poll numbers and afraid of looking weak with an election just weeks away. It was political cowardice, not botched intelligence, that lies at the very heart of this American tragedy.

There were 20 or so Democrats who voted against it, they are the real heroes.

Why should we believe what Petraeus says now given his failure to predict anything but the obvious? No political success has come from the surge.

President Bush said we would wait for the Iraqi Army to "Stand Up so we could Stand Down".

Is the Iraqi Army ready to Stand Up?

If they are not ready, why not? Who is responsible?

If not now, when?

... at least 1,000 Iraqi soldiers and policemen, or more than 4 percent of the force sent into Basra, "abandoned their posts" during the fighting, including "dozens of officers" and "at least two senior field commanders."

... perhaps 30 percent of government troops had "abandoned the fight before a cease-fire was reached."

... 50 percent as an estimate for police desertions in the midst of battle in Baghdad's vast Sadr City slum, a stronghold of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia.

(according to tomdispatch.com)

Question for The Man Called Petraeus and Crocker too:

Is there anything you can do, or we can do, or the world community can do, to get this wrapped up?

Why do the Media and Congress continue to ignore the crazy repetition of failure? The Bush administration has no learning curve.

Petraeus said "More Time"

More Time is absolutely WRONG !!!! if time is not on OUR Side. Look spiegel.de
type keyword "gefechte" look at 6 images the ILAV burned down sunday in Sadr City.

WE have to act now, immediately after the last words are spoken on Capitol HILL. Select a

PLAN . PLans have been hammered out and refined

for YEARS . Some are classified. Some even TOP SECRET.GEN Hemphey has it.

More time means a weaker $$$

More time means more casualties.

More time means less enlistments in Infantry.

More time means troop levels shrinking.

More time means more trauma's among troops (medical hon.discharges

may come up in an earth slide effect)

More time means ,more RPG's stacked up behind the couches of

iraqi and Afghani living rooms and/or backyardstorages etc. .

More time means more enrichment(higher % -grade) in IRAN/SYRIA/SadrCity and wherever.

RPG's can be used to (destroy vehicles and aircrfts) avoid US Troops from getting to the US

SHips

waiting 100's of miles away (Re: GEN ODOM few days ago)

Holding US troops as "Guests " has been seen in 1990 in Iraq before

and brings enormous advantages to the holders.

OPen borders IRAN/IRAQ

Eastbound: Refugee flow

Westbound : Insurgents and Iran conscriptee's
in civilian clothes with Arms/cellcamphones and RPGs.
Millions westbound and Eastbound day and night.

This is the reason for US Troops to move ,
Move into safer Bases.No more embeddements
and joint missions only with safe distance from NON-US elements ,about 14 km buffer.

SURGE

is a nonsense joke . A Dumming . Why ? we just learned from AL - Sadr demands
we shall maintain security in the city where
he is holding the Power. He threatens to
terminate his/our cease-fire. He is just
setting up a horrible trap, look at the
pictures sunday ,skyhigh black smoke out of
an US manned ILAV33 (armed personel carrier)and Sadr Combatants jubilantly dancing for the Cellphoncam Photographer
www.spiegel.de keyword "gefechte" "irak"

The event Sunday reveals Al-Sadr is in control , not Petraeus. This implicitly
also reveals he is in control of the surge.

The 30.000 men should operate from safe distance , to secure a possible withdrawal
to the mainpart of Garrisons.

Sometimes, I'm not sure everyone has received a well rounded education on civil society and government in a representative democracy.

1) Why the Democrats haven't shut down the war even though Pres Bush is technically a "lame duck": Because it might come back to haunt them the next time they decide to do something humanitarian in Haiti, Kenya, Somalia, etc, etc, etc. I mean to say, if they play games here, having shunted their responsibility for voting for it off to the Republicans (though they can't totally hide from that), the next time around the Democrat president might find himself in a tight bind, fighting for his presidential powers from a Republican congress.

2) Why don't the representatives do what the people want them to do and pull the plug on the war? First of all, who are these "people" that want them to do that and what is their actual representation in the districts and areas that these congressmen serve?

Once they are elected to office as your representative, they choose by their conscience and by what they find out locally from the people they represent, not national polls (which have ambigous language that is then skewed by those reporting on it) and they make their decision accordingly. Your choices to change their minds include writing letters or other correspondence with your representative to change their minds; getting enough district signatures for a recall from congress or not voting them in the next election.

Of course, you can pretend that it is somebody else's fault for the politician not following your demands so you can easily vote for them again in the next election. Blame it on the "administration" that always works.

The Democrats are going to make it tough on Petraeus and crocker. They are going to speak loudly and long about the pain and agony of the war, but they are not going to stop funding it, nor do they have the means or reason to actually stop the war. To do so, they would immediately look weak on national defense in the next election. thus, they let it run its course.

If it turns out that it is doing better when they get in office, they can claim some sort of bizarre victory because they "demanded a change in course" (isn't that what they were doing with the surge? trying to claim some small part of the victory while keeping their distance). If it turns out that is doing worse, then they can blame it on the previous administration.

I guess I just find it humorous that folks are so ideologically immature that they believe there is some sort of principle to these actions beyond self preservation.

at least 1,000 Iraqi soldiers and policemen, or more than 4 percent of the force sent into Basra, "abandoned their posts" during the fighting, including "dozens of officers" and "at least two senior field commanders."

... perhaps 30 percent of government troops had "abandoned the fight before a cease-fire was reached."

... 50 percent as an estimate for police desertions in the midst of battle in Baghdad's vast Sadr City slum, a stronghold of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia.
*************************

tom dispatch does not know what he's talking about. Try reading thelongwarjournal.com.

The "1,000" Iraqi troops did not all abandon their posts, refuse to fight Sadr on political grounds or all surrender to Sadr. That is the worst propaganda ever because in fact, that did not occur in Basra alone nor was it all about the politics of Sadr or those forces.

A newly minted 500 man battalion, not even five weeks out of boot camp and being stood up, broke when they were assaulted and retreated out of the city. Not because they were all bought and owned by Sadr, but because they were not that good.

The other 500 were from multiple units all over Iraq including some 20-30 officers that actually did refuse to fight and who were arrested.

However, I think the most interesting aspect is the "more than 4%" that you are quoting as if it were the end of the world.

4%. From a brand new, supposedly sectarian, broken army. you would have trumpeted even 1% I'm sure as the end of the world to try and prove your point. Frankly, 4% is an extremely good number when it came to moving 20,000 troops and security forces to confront a political rival from inside their communities.

Can you name or indicate the percent of United States officers who resigned or left their posts in order to join the confederate army?

Can you name or indicate the percent of officers or militia that joined the British as Loyalists or changed sides during the entirety of the Revolutionary war?

How many French military swore allegiance to the Vichy government and how many joined the Free French forces?

My whole point is that, 4% is an amazingly low number considering how "infiltrated" these forces are reported to be. We aren't talking 25% or 50% or anything else that you might have been hoping for.

4%

is a nonsense joke . A Dumming . Why ? we just learned from AL - Sadr demands
we shall maintain security in the city where
he is holding the Power.
*****************************

So, Petraeus is a liar but you'll suck up Sadr's propaganda without a question?

Of course, you can't ask Sadr any questions because he is in Iran and wouldn't consent to having you or anyone else do so because then you might find out exactly what he does or does not have.

Try some salt with it next time.

So when will Afghanistan have the spot light of the the ring circus?

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.