After three hours of testimony — at times grueling testimony — I’ve some initial reactions. (As it is, I have to get ready to give a speech this evening.)
My first thought is MoveOn.org lost this political battle — the chumps went an “ad too far” with the paid newspaper ad (in today’s NY Times) personally attacking GEN David Petraeus as “General Betray Us?” Remember, the hard left riles at Coulter-style attacks calling them traitors. (I won’t even bother linking to the ad — I have a copy of the paper on a chair near my desk — it’s as hideous as it is stupid.)
REP. Illena Ros-Lehtinen’s use of the ad was tremendous political theater — or, more accurately, a political gesture in what is really the vast political play called “the 2008 US national elections.” (And I see Jim Saxton brought it up again, which led to another outburst in the chamber by leftist nutroots– Code Pink?.) The 2008 elections and the fight for political power in Washington are the powers that move the “the Washington clock,” which ticks at a very different speed than “the Baghdad clock.”
GEN Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker are trying to realign those clocks, for the benefit of both the Iraqi and American people, and –I believe– for the benefit of everyone who wants a more peaceful and prosperous 21st century. “Realigning clocks” is adesriable political effect — “breathing space” in the US akin to the “breathing space” in Iraq Chairman Ike Skelton mentioned as the hearings began. (”The surge is designed to provide breathing space” for political reconciliation and development in Iraq.)
The hard left in America is afraid of GEN Petraeus, so they smear him. MoveOn.org and its ilk practice “the paranoid style” in American politics — and their smear is as noxious as the smear campaigns run by Senator Joe McCarthy (smears which are properly damned by the civil and decent).
The other big loser is Iran. GEN Petraeus’ and Ambassador Crocker’s detailed discussion of Iranian malfeasance is damning. (Petraeus and Crocker’s comments on the captured the captured Quds force and Hizbollah trainers was startling. At the moment GEN Petraeus is telling REP Donald Manzullo that Prime Minister Maliki thinks this kind of attack may be a greater long term threat to Iraq.)
The US Congress is sending a message to the Iraqi government– up to a point a useful one. The US isn’t a colonial power. There is a limit to US commitment. However, some of the attacks on Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki strike me as political posturing. Some of these same congressional complainers once claimed the US had suffered a military defeat in Iraq — now they have moved to attacking the Iraqi political process. In an ironic way, that’s progress. It indirectly acknowledges that Iraq now has an open political process where the Prime Minister can be removed. Compare this to the situation that existed in say, March 2003.
Ike Skelton’s comment when GEN Petraeus’ microphone failed to work is something of a metaphor both for Washington and Baghdad: “Are we fixed yet?”
That mike failure — as incidental as it was, and as easily solved as it was– is a useful reminder. General Murphy is always at work. If it can go wrong it will. Murphy’s Law affects everything but it rules warfare. War is the effort where everything goes wrong — Clausewitz’ concept of friction recognizes this. It’s why perseverance and will are the traits of victors.
I’ve dealt with Iraq’s creaky infrastructure –it’s frustrating. But from now on every mid-level Iraqi ministry is going to smile when a US diplomat or reporter asks him how his reconstruction and maintenance operations are going. The sharp tongued will say: “Our parl,ament’s microphones work.”
Oh well.
General Petraeus said many important things. I don’t have a transcript, but I do have some rapidly typed notes. The material in quotation marks is direct quotation or near direct– material outside quotation marks is a paraphrase.
“Military objectives of the surge are by in large being met…Coalition and Iraqi security forces have achieved progress in the security arena.”
“One reason for decline is that coalition and Iraqi forces have dealt significant blows to Al Qeada and its affiliates in Iraq…We have gained the initiative in many areas. We have disrupted many Shia extremists…caught the heads of Iranian extremist groups and Lebanese Hizbollah (trainers) working for Iran in Iraq.
“Iraqi security forces have continued to grow and shoulder more of the load” though violent sectarian actors remain a problem.
The coalition has used “Non-kinetic means to exploit opportunities provided by our kinetic activities…” The big plus in this effort is the “arrival of additional provincial reconstruction teams.” [Petraeus and Crocker later add at the number of PRTs has increased from ten to 25 since the surge began.]
The “most significant development in the last six months is likely tribes and local citizens rejecting Al Qaeda and other extremists…(Anbar) is a model of what happens when local leaders and citiziens reject Al Qaeda and its ideology.”
GEN Petraeus also said he was basing his recommendations on “more than gut” and cited several metrics that he thought demonstrated incremental progress — weapons caches, drop in attacks, etc. (Finding more weapons caches are, in my view, an indication that intelligence has improved and in some places “local confidence” is increasing– people turn in the terrorists and the caches because they are confident Iraqi security forces will protect them.)
In his operational assessment Petraeus concludes “that military aspects of the surge have achieved progress and momentum…” but “Mission focus on…population security alone will not achieve our objectives…” The mission still “Requires conventional forces as well as speial operations forces…” (meaning the US still cannot move to a “support only” role.)
A “strategic consideration”: “political progress will only take place if sufficient security exists.”
Petraeus also recommends “…a draw down of surge foces in Iraq” to 16 brigade combat teams (BCTs) by July 2008. (That’s a pre-surge level.)
“A premature draw down of our forces would likely have detrimental consequences…” These include a “degeneration” of Iraqi security forces, Al Qaeda regaining ground, “a marked increase in ethno-sectarian displacement,” and “exacerbation of already challenging regional dynamics, with respect to Iran…”
Ambassador Crocker then testified.
He began with several riect, tough-minded statements:
“I intend to demonstrate that it is possible for the US to see its goals realized in Iraq “and Iraqis taking control…A secure stable democratic Iraq at peace with its neighbors in my view is attainable.”
The trend (in Iraq) is upwards “though the slope of that line is not steep.” Those trend lines will be “punctuated by setbacks as well as achievements” and continuing the process “will require substantial US involvement.”
And this remarks is the truth rendered as epigram:
There will be “no single moment when we can claim victory. Any turning point will likely be recognized in retrospect…”
Likewise: “Iraq is experiencing a revolution not just regime change…It is only (by) understanding this can we appreciate the situation in Iraq…”
I’ve got to cut this post off. That revolution Crocker mentions is a strategic revolution that benefits the civilized world.
I wrote this in February 2003:
Removing Saddam begins the reconfiguration of the Middle East, a dangerous, expensive process, but one that will lay the foundation for true states where the consent of the governed creates legitimacy and where terrorists are prosecuted, not promoted.
That is what Ambassador Crocker means by the Iraqi revolution.
UPDATE: One other quick thought — Iraq has become the strategic and operational graveyard for Al Qaeda. Petraeus and Crocker have not overemphasized the importance of Sunni tribes turning on Al Qaeda. This is “huge news” in the ideological battle with Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda’s harsh demands on the tribes proved to be too much. (The cigareete ban has been discussed in several venues — I see Faoud Ajami mentioned it in the Wall St Journal this morning. Al Qaeda even failed sex –see this column for details.)
That strategic trap for Al Qaeda may not have been laid by the Bush Administration, but a few analysts saw it (from January 2003).
UPDATE 2: In a torrent (surge?) or words a nervous REP Kathy Castor delivers the left-wing of the Democratic Party’s talking points.
