SFRC Hearing with Amb. Crocker & Gen. Petraeus

[TayTay]

A much edited way to follow the hearing.
GP = Gen. Petraeus
AC = Ambassador Crocker

Sen. Biden up first with welcoming remarks.

We have to make hard choices based on finite resources. (How true!)
GP has to figure out how to allocate those resources.

Surge was but a part of what led to a decrease in the violence. There was the Sahwa or Sunni Awakening, the Sadr cease-fire, and other factors.

Violence is back to 2005 levels and spiking up again. Sunni Sahwa members are getting frustrating with the progress, Sadr could end the cease-fre (or it could end without Sadr's consent) and the gains could go away.

We have not made the political gains from the central govt. The gains have come from the bottom-up (like with the Sunni Awakening councils.) This is fragile stuff.

GP says that we can't draw down forces because we are on a fragile precipice. Gains have been made, true. If this is so fragile, then where are we and what happens next? What has the surge accomplished?

Sen Biden is going over the things that were brought out last week about the state of the military and how bad it is. (Our military is frayed and on the verge of breaking.) Biden is also doing a good job of talking about how we need to take the fight to Afghanistan and Pakistan and go after Al Qaeda, but the troops are not there right now.

[TayTay]

1. Sen. Lugar

Sen. Lugar is one sharp cookie. I like listening to him, even if I don't agree with his votes a lot of the time.

Lugar is reviewing the hearings from last week.
1: The Surge has succeeded in improving conditions on the ground and getting "breathing space" to get some political progress on the ground.
2: Security improvements derived from US military operations have reached a plateau. Any more gains are not likely to be transformational.
3: Central govt in Iraq has not demonstrated that it can construct a top-down hierarchy that can meet the needs of the country. The breathing space gained is not being used well.
4: Sectarian and tribal groups remain heavily armed. A lot of the country wants peace, but they are many who do not. Lugar mentions Al Qaeda in Iraq. (Drink)
5: Operations in Iraq have severely strained the US Military. (All the stuff we heard last week, all bad.)
Gen Cody, 4/3/08: "Available troops determine policy, not policy determining how to use the troops."

We need progress, not pleas for more time to make progress.

(Drinking game words: Al Qaeda in Iraq.)

Good points from a DKos post:

Republican Senator Lugar pretty much outlined why the "surge" has failed and what US action going forward has to be based upon.

1. Surge has had no significant impact on political or military situation in Iraq.

2. Withdrawal of US troops so that troops levels and deployments in Iraq match US capability.

3. Political resolution in Iraq NOW as best we can based on the facts on the ground. Another year, another two years, is not going to have any appreciable effect.

[TayTay]

2. Crocker

Were the Iraqi goals attainable? What did I say last Sept? Yeah, we could do it. Since then, yeah we can do it, and we have made progress. We can't give up, we are holding the line.

We have reason to stay in Iraq. (Okay, anyone surprised he would say this?)

Iraq has, in many cases, passed laws dealing with reconciliation and national building. Passed pension law, debaathification, an amnesty law and a provincial powers law. They have an agreement for elections regionally and national elections (national in late 2009.) And they have a flag! (Ok, getting that flag done was a big deal.)

The IRaqi Parliament is making progress. They still have a "sectarian bias" though. Progress is slow, but it's getting there.

The Iraqi people were headed for a certain civil war two years ago. Now, not so much. Al Qaeda was routed by the Sunnis (doesn't mention the US paying them.) Bad and dangerous spots are now better. Things are not great yet, no reason to buy a time share in Basra yet, but, maybe in 20 years. Oh boy!

Okay, it's still a work in progress. But, we have made loads and loads of progress. We almost have new laws, it's nearly safe to be in heavily armed areas and the Iraqis themselves are almost able to go out and get jobs in the sort of safe areas. Yeah! We don't know if this will continue, it depends on a lot of things and if Sadr decides to keep the cease-fire and stuff. But, maybe he will and that would be really excellent. That is a sign of progress. The strategy that started with the surge is working. We nearly have a chance to almost begin securing areas that might be okay if we keep an open-ended commitment to this war, as long as nothing really bad happens. (Woohoo!)

[TayTay]

3. Patraeus

Finally.

It is better. Iraq was on the brink of civil war when last you saw me in Sept. We surged, the Iraqis surged their forces and things are, well, better.

The Sunnis have had their "Awakening" and it dawned on them that they had to get rid of Al Qaeda. (No mention that we are paying the Sunnis.)

Lots of AQi (Al Qaeda in Iraq.) Drink. I think Sen. Kerry said last week that he hasn't met a single Iraqi who thinks that Al Qaeda is a problem in Iraq. The Iraqis don't want the foriegn jihadists in Iraq.

The Special Groups get a mention. The Special Groups are the sectarian factions like Sadr, the Badr forces and the different tribal factions that each have their own militias. You know, the guys who would actually fight a civil war. Hey, we are dealing with these folks. (Ah, those hearings last week seemed to indicate that the "Special Groups" that the US is paying to stay on the quiet side, are the cause of the trouble. Not the AQI. Geez, that said, I'll drink. Oh,boy!)

We need that Supplemental money. It costs a lot of money to pay off, er ah, make patriotic contributions to the Sons of Iraq fighting forces. (If they are so good, why do we have to pay them to fight for their own country?)

We can't have too big a draw down of Us troops. We have made progress. We have the bad guys just where we want them in Iraq, on the brink of something or other.. If we draw down our forces now, then, it might all fall apart and then our progress would have been for nothing. (Not that our progress is fragile or anything.) We have trained the Iraqis but they are not ready yet. So, keep paying $12 billion a month for the forseeable future and we will let you know if and when anything changes enough to consider turning things over to the amazing and incredible Iraqi troops that are almost ready to stand up. Another few years, give or take a decade or two, and a few more trillion dollars and we might just get there. No promises though.

[Muttocracy]

4. thanks for this - I can't listen right now at work but will catch up later! nt

[TayTay]

5. Bring libations

This is difficult to get through without a toddy or two.

[Muttocracy]

12. Oh dear, just tuned in to protestors being removed and Boxer kicking butt nt

[Muttocracy]

13. there are other discussion threads on DU too - will check out later

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3126487#3126735

glad others are paying attention!

[YvonneCa]

14. ...

... :7

[karynnj]

6. Biden made a strong point that just informing Congress

of a long term agreement that would bind the next President is not enough.

[TayTay]

7. Questioning rounds: Biden

Biden: "You need to do MUCH more than inform Congress (on the agreement)." Nice!

How many forces can we draw down?

GP: We are drawing down forces. To what we had before the surge. And we have the same problems we had before the surge. So the Surge worked.

Biden: On a scale of 1-10 that says how soon we can begin to draw down, where are we?
GP: about a 6. (We are more than half-way there! Woo hoo! that might mean only 4-5 more years of the same at a cost to be named later in blood and treasure.)

Biden: Amb, where is Al Qaeda?
AC: Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Biden: How much of this progress can we sustain at the price of $12 billion a month, 120-140,000 troops in-country, 30-40 deaths and 220 wounded a month? What can we do to reduce all these costs?
GP: Well we have to have progress in local areas. Ah, stuff needs to happen. Big good stuff then we can off-ramp troops.

Biden: Ah, what? Okay, what if in Nov or so things fall apart and the Sunnis go back to fighting, deaths go up, the Shia militias are in open war with each other, then under those conditions would you still want to stay the course or would we begin to withdraw?
AC: Ah, I can't answer those kinds of "just supposing" scenarios. We only deal with the facts here. Ahm, should such hypothetical bad, bad things happen, we will come up with something then. I can't answer these kind of trick question based on, ick, educated guesses.

[TayTay]

8. Questions: Lugar

SL: How are we going to maintain the armed forces that we have? Do we have enough troops to carry out this kind of open ended commitment in Iraq. There are other problems in the world that might require a US involvement. Isn't Iraq a big drain on our forces in light of problems elsewhere? What if we withdrew a significant amount of forces from Iraq, what would happen? Would other countries join in to prevent chaos, or would Iraq degenerate into civil war and a real deadly mess? Are we making plans for the dire circumstances of Iraq descending into total chaos?
GP: If the progress is put into jeopardy, then Al Qaeda regains lost ground and influence and spreads further. (drink) (We have our teeth into the jugular of Al Aqeda and we need to keep it there. Nice quote.) We need to talk to other countries. OMG, he mentioned Syria! (We need to talk to Syria. Does Bush/Cheney know he said this? It smacks of "diplomacy" to me.)
Iran is involved with the Special Groups. (Those who fight in Iraq under some other banner than "Al Qaeda.") We are asking for help for the Special Groups. (OMG, 99% of the fighting in Iraq is in the Special Groups. GP makes it sound like this is the nerd group left out of gym practice. No, seriously, they are the faction waging civil and sectarian war in Iraq. Really. Doesn't he know this?)

[TayTay]

9. Questions: Dodd

SD: GP, We want our troops to know that our concern for them is real and non-partisan. Soldiers are 60% more likely with each deployment to suffer combat stress. What impact is this stress of repeated combat tours having on our military ability to conduct our counter-insurgency program? How can our soldiers do their jobs with these stresses. (Good question. Calls into question the policy of stop-loss, 15 month deployments and so forth, but in a very nice frame.)
GP: Our troops understand the importance of this mission. Iraq was much worse in 2007 than when I visited it before that. Our troopers understand the problems and are better off because of changes we instituted to engage the Iraqis on the ground. Yes, there is pressure on our troops, but reenlistment rates are up. So, the answer to your question is that our troops are grittily gutting it out. No Problem. They are tough guys. (OMG, he completely evaded the question. Didn't even come into the same neighborhood as the question. If I watch this later, I'll drink.)
SD lets him off on this.

GP says we don't arm these Sons of Iraq. (But we do pay them. What they do with the money is there concern.)

[TayTay]

10. Questions: Hagel

SH: We have lost over 1,000 Americans since the surge was announced in Jan of 07. We have had over 6300 wounded. So, given these sacrifices, the price as it were, where do we go from here?

(Hagel is off his game today. His question is lost amid a lot of pre-statements.)

We need a diplomatic surge. Our actual diplomatic efforts are pretty thin. We some action from Turkey, Kuwait and Syria. That's not a surge, it's a trickle. Where is this diplomatic surge?

AC: The Neighbors Process is predicated on biannual meetings. Ahm, we just missed one that happened recently. We have subcommittees meeting on various things all the time. We have vehemently pressed the neighbors to meet more and will do so again.

[TayTay]

11. Questions: Kerry

JK: Where is the political progress? Our open-ended commitment without deadlines tells the Iraqis they can dawdle on resolving their differences. Is this true?

We couldn't give the Iraqi's security with 160,000 troops. How can we do it with 120 or 140,000 troops?

GP: No real answer. In Anbar Province we have progress. This is not just because we are paying them, but because they are involved in determining their own future.

JK: Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before we got there. Most Iraqis say that Al Qaeda can be dealt with by the Iraqis.

From DKos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/8/121933/9726/25/492213

I see a fundamental equation that essentially stays the same notwithstanding progress. Fundamental sectarian power struggle over which we don't have much control, and Iranians have increasing amount partly BECAUSE of our presence. Fundamentally Iraqi government incapable to deliver services, constitutional changes, etc. There is a decreasing ability of our military to sustain this over a long period of time. We've heard it, our opponents have heard it, our troops, and the rest of the world. Issues is how do we see our way to conclude this successfully? Has been misinterpretation, sloganeering about what people are saying. You yourself say war is not the determinant of what will happen in iraq - you yourself say it's political, and there's not sufficient progress there.

Kerry has good point about militia we pay (0 / 0)

We are paying (mostly) Sunnis to not kill us and the Shia, but making no effort to integrate them into the Iraqi army (or anything else for that matter).

How long can we pay them to do nothing? Will the Shite leaders in Iraq pay them to do nothing?

Hardly a plan for peace.

ACK, I lost the feed. Will watch and update this thread later.