Presidential Candidates Pounce on Iraq Testimony
All three of the remaining presidential candidates took a break from the campaign trail Tuesday in an effort to earn their paychecks in the Senate. They heard testimony from Gen. David Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, on the status of the "surge" in Iraq.
Petraeus and Crocker offered cautious optimism on Iraq but said the U.S. hadn't made enough progress to consider a troop draw-down in the immediate future. Clearly, violence has been reduced. The candidates pounced on the chance to use this testimony for political purposes.
Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) had an advantage over his Democratic rivals. The ranking Republican member on the Senate Armed Services, he gave a prepared statement in addition to questioning the administration officials.
McCain's opening statement trumpeted success of the "surge" in Iraq along with recognition of challenges:
"The job of bringing security to Iraq is not finished, as the recent fighting in Basra and elsewhere vividly demonstrated. We are no longer staring into the abyss of defeat, and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success. Success -- the establishment of a peaceful, stable, prosperous, democratic state that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists -- this success is within reach.
Interestingly, Petraeus did not say that progress was certain. Both he and Crocker hedged significantly and painted of picture of "fragile" progress.
When will the conflict end? McCain suggested that a troop withdrawal would come "perhaps sooner than many imagine." But Petraeus gave no clear answer on that question. Petraeus recommends that when the surge ends in July: "We undertake a 45-day period of consolidation and evaluation." He did not commit to a more significant troop reduction after July. Despite the "progress," Americans remain in the dark as to an endgame.
Recent fighting in Basra revealed some of the complex problems in Iraq. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki precipitously attacked a powerful renegade Shi'ite militia backed by Muqtada al-Sadr. It turned out poorly. Al-Maliki's newly trained troops were ineffective in combat, and reports of desertion surfaced. Conditions forced al-Maliki to request a cease-fire, which was negotiated and finalized in Iran.
Petraeus admitted that the planning of the al-Maliki government fell short in terms of coordinating with U.S. forces. The Basra debacle demonstrated the weakness of Iraqi forces, and the influence of Iran has grown.
McCain addressed these problems immediately in his questioning of Petraeus. The general made it clear that problems occurred because of al-Maliki's haste but stressed that the Iraqi troops continue to improve security in the region.
McCain also asserted that al-Qaeda in Iraq remains a danger. Petraeus testified: "It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was, say, 15 months ago." This was not the answer McCain wanted. So he asked Petraeus a yes or no question instead, forcing the general to say that yes, al-Qaeda in Iraq is a threat. However, the testimony clearly suggested a lessened threat in mostly the Mosul area.
McCain largely ignored the mention of an agreement between the Iraqi government and the Bush administration to stay in Iraq. But it was of keen interest to Sen. Hillary Clinton (D., N.Y.).
Clinton has introduced legislation in the Senate that would require the administration to bring any agreement with the Iraqis before the Senate. She's worried the administration plans to overstep its boundaries. Crocker tried to assure Clinton that the agreement would not require the "advice and consent" of the Senate.
Clinton spent most of her time making statements. She charged that time and again, Americans have heard statements of progress in Iraq yet have seen little progress on the political front.
"You know, the lack of political progress over the last six months and the recent conflict in Basra reflect how tenuous the situation in Iraq really is. And for the past five years, we have continually heard from the administration that things are getting better, that we're about to turn a corner, that there is, finally, a resolution in sight. Yet each time, Iraqi leaders fail to deliver."
She points to the opportunity cost of focusing on Iraq. It comes at a cost to our military: The vice chief of staff of the Army, General Cody, testified last week that "the current demand for forces in Iraq and Afghanistan limits our ability to provide ready forces for other contingencies."
Clinton thinks the time has come to withdraw our troops and focus on other challenges facing America, including terrorists in Afghanistan.
Sen. Barack Obama (D., Ill.) agrees with Clinton. He has long issued calls to refocus our efforts on al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. He questioned Petraeus further on the threat from al-Qaeda in Iraq:
"Our goal is not to hunt down and eliminate every single trace, but rather to create a manageable situation where they're not posing a threat to Iraq or using it as a base to launch attacks outside of Iraq. Is that accurate?"
Petraeus responded: "That is exactly right."
Obama then moved on to the threat from Iran. He wonders why the U.S. doesn't have a holistic policy that includes input from Iran:
"Nobody's asking for a precipitous withdrawal, but I do think that it has to be a measured but increased pressure; and a diplomatic surge that includes Iran. Because if Maliki can tolerate as normal neighbor-to-neighbor relations in Iran, then we should be talking to them, as well. I do not believe we're going to be able to stabilize the position without them."
Crocker has concerns that Iran offers a pernicious influence, saying, "The problem is with the Iranian strategy of backing extremist militia groups and sending in weapons and munitions that are used against Iraqis and against our own forces."
Obama sees things differently. He closed with a rhetorical question all policymakers might want to consider when dealing with Iraq: If we never get to a perfect endpoint, how long will we stay there:
"I'm trying to get to an endpoint ... the problem I have is 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 multiethnic, multisectarian functioning democracy, no Iranian influence, at least not of the kind that we don't like, then that portends the possibility of us staying for 20 or 30 years."