House Armed Services Committee Hearing (The Petraeus Report)
9/10/2007 - The much awaited day! - the delivery of the official report on the state of affairs in Iraq by Gen. Petraeus. Presented live on C-Span this afternoon. This, plus other priorities, prohibited work at the cabin.
≠
Agenda:
- ☑ AM / midday historical research
- ☑ Attention to committee Hearing
- ☑ Apartment chores / during hearings
- ☑ DEQ Sulfide mining hearings / evening
≠
David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker (ambassador to Iraq) testified. Somehow I didn't find this much heralded report to be either compelling or satisfying. Moreover, such reliance on information provided by a general at a time when people are grasping at straws is unsettling if not frightening. The waging of war is ultimately political and the overall objectives and visionary planning do not lie with the military. How this reporting will play out will be more clear as the president speaks later this week. Tomorrow Petraeus testifies before both the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committee. Is all this about a "buying time" strategy to dump the responsibility on the next administration? To quote Joe Biden: "The president has no plan - how to win and/or how to leave".
Petraeus is smart, articulate... I expect sincere... but still beholden to his Commander-in-Chief.
Anniversary of 9/11/01 Event - Petraeus Report (cont.)
9/11 - The quality and perspicuity of the questioning (and discourse) seemed to elevate today as David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker again testified - this time before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Kerry opined that the place of General Petraeus' comments in the national debate is unprecedented since the role played by General Westmoreland forty years ago during the Vietnam War (after which so many more U.S. soldiers lost their lives). Barbara Boxer's impassioned summary before her question perfectly mirrored my own conviction about the futility of a military solution in Iraq and the irrelevance of current policies as long as the administration continues its present course after such a colossal blunder in the first place in invading Iraq (and subordinating focus on Al Qaeda).
> The events of the day in the testimonies are about as close to a nuanced debate on the war as we've seen and Republican Senators Lugar and Hegel were tough in their questioning. But the bottom line seems to be that Petraeus is asking for more time, limited troop withdrawal and a force level that will roughly equate with last year's number (before the surge) in 2008. This course will likely continue to promote the perception of occupation which many believe is one of the chief causes of violence in Iraq, though not the only one.
> Most of the more nuanced, complex aspects of the discussion will be unavailable to the public and will filter through the media such as Fox News and syndicated radio as right wing spin as usual.
> Yesterday's hearing was "softball" compared to what is emerging today. For example, Senator Cardin pointed out that the criteria point by point used to justify the surge and passesd by Congress - the objective of the surge - had not really been met.
> Petraeus optimism - he was persuasive in describing pockets of success - was questioned both in light of the big picture and reports and statistics that conflicted with data he presented.
> Senators for both parties used the occasion to score political points and/or enforce positions held - and Republicans seized on the defamatory ad of yesterday sponsored by Moveon.org and apologized to General Petraeus for what they considered a disrespectful personal attack on him. Actually, as a soldier, Petraeus commands great respect on both sides of the aisle.
> Senator Webb, formar Marine, was very tough in questioning the policies now in effect about deployment of troops citing past practices of 2-1 (British at 4-1) (2yrs to 6mo.) - now with 15 month deployments with only an expectation of a year off (2/3 - 1). This gets at the broader question of the degradation of the armed forces, the stretching of personnel beyond reasonable limits with an all volunteer military.
> Biden: "I don't see anything here [of the testimony] that lends to an early and honorable withdrawal of troops" ["tactical" info - no overall strategy].
> At 2:15 PM - the second hearing of the day - convened by Senator Levin, Chair of the Armed Services Committee. Levin began with a summary of the military, political and policy content - followed by John McCain the new ranking member replacing Senator Warner Hard as he is about the lead up to the war and the policy mistakes. McCain is unequivocally opposed to any appearance of "surrender" and clearly is willing to grant Petraeus the "time" he has requested.
≠
"I wrote it myself and did not clear it with anyone in the Pentagon or White House," stated General Petraeus of his report... summarized before the Committee.
≠
Contrasting the opening statements, it is likely that anything representing the very special bipartisan relationship between Carl Levin and John Warner is in jeopardy in this Committee - especially now with McCain running for president. While Levin and McCain both deplore the policies leading to the present mess, they seem to be moving in different directions in the search for resolution.
≠
Since these past two days could mark a significant turning point in the debate about the war... it seemed important to pay close attention to these hearings. But General Petraeus in his bid for more time talks of another report - an assessment next March.
> As usual Ted Kennedy appeared to be very well prepared... pressed the purpose of the surge to enhance conditions for political reconciliation, meeting the benchmarks - addressing both Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus.
> Petraeus' drawdown plan (and chart) included no dates (it is "conceptual", based on unfolding events.) "I am not a pessimist or optimist about Iraq." "It is hard." "I am a realist." (Petraeus). This portends a presidential strategy that once again will avoid "dates" - buttressed by a McCain-like eschewing of "surrender," the term being used by Republicans to define any set date for troop withdrawal.
> Byrd: "Why should we continue to give you more time?" Crocker: "We are seeing encouraging signs." (re. the central gov't) - and gave an illustrative anecdote.
> Petraeus continued to emphasize the presence of Al Qaeda, and its instigating role in the insurgency - a rationale for own continued presence in strength.
> "I can't tell you when we'll see the meeting of the benchmarks" but there are encouraging clear signs of reconciliation (needed to pave the way) - Crocker
Imhoff pressed the power vacuum that occurs if we prematurely left - and the Iranian threat to fill the void. Questioned, Crocker agreed that Iran has already committed itself to fill such a void.
Susan Collins: "What if the political progress is not made by a year from now? What of our lives, treasure?" Petraeus acknowledged he would be disconcerted - that our lives and resources are not forever expendable... and that there was so much elsewhere to attend to!
≠
In a news interview, Senator Dodd called this all "happy talk" - that he didn't know anyone who really thought the situation is getting better. Nancy Pelosi thought the implication of the talks is a ten year stay in Iraq. "There is no change in mission; this is more of the same." - Harry Reid. "They have no motivation for change if the occupation extends indefinitely." - Pelosi. [Pelosi and Reid today (9/11) visited with the president].
A local power outage cut off access to the latter stage of the hearing. Ran late afternoon in brisk, gusty wind - staying away from potentially dangerous trees. A very windy cool day. Light night rain. The burning ban removed today by the governor's decree.
Page 7 - 17.
XXVIII Continuing 2007 September Fwd.
Sept 2007
Angling Records, Logs
Nature Observations
Cabin Work Projects
Trip Information
Related Matters
Miscellaneous
Current Events