De-Institutionalization Posted by David Shorr

Matt is 90% right in highlighting the importance of international institutions and legitimacy for a healthier foreign policy. But since the 10% over which we differ is one my favorite topics, I can't resist. A few days ago, Matt took the right wing to task for their "bad faith" critique of international institutions. Couldn't agree more. In fact, the point that the UN is constantly scapegoated for the failings of the national governments that comprise it is an argument over which I have some pride of authorship (two can play shameless self-promotion). But let's follow the argument to its logical conclusion, particularly as we confront the bad-faith critics on the right.

Tribal Trauma Posted by Patrick Barry

Steve Simon's new piece in Foreign Affairs is a must-read for anyone concerned with the long-term consequences of the United States arming tribal factions in Iraq. His argument is similar to the ones made by Marc Lynch and Brian Katulis over the past few months - that the administration, by prizing security gains over political consolidation and compromise, has actually worsened Iraq's long term prospects for achieving an open, functional society. 

Simon does a pretty good job cataloging the history of the surge - though it was originally intended to be matched by a top-down political strategy of consolidation and cooperation, US leadership grew so frustrated with the apparent lack of political movement that it quickly substituted in a new policy, which embraced a series of local developments and cobbled them together under the dubious label of "bottom-up reconciliation."  I agree with Simon's argument, namely that this pursuit is dangerously short-sighted because it has stoked "the three forces that have traditionally threatened the stability of Middle Eastern states: tribalism, wardlordism, and sectarianism." 

Of course, chief among the local developments latched onto by the administration, has been the phenomenon of Sunni tribes turning on Al-Qaeda in Iraq, a move largely precipitated by the AQI's use of poisonous methods to subjugate Sunni communities.  But when it comes to tribalism, we're tinkering with an especially complex and dangerous dynamic, one that has been a force for instability in the Middle East broadly, and Iraq specifically since at least the 19th century. Here are some key passages from Simon's article, highlighting the tribes' tumultuous past:

Under the Ottomans:

"The Ottomans attempted forced sedentarization of the tribes, weakening tribal authorities by disrupting settlement patterns and replacing tribal sheiks with smaller cadres of favored leaders who became conduits for patronage."

Under the British:

"Thus, the tribal system that Ottoman rule sought to dismantle was revitalized by British imperial policy, and the power of the nominal Iraqi government was systematically vitiated."

Under the Baathists:

"When the Baathists took power in 1968, they explicitly rejected "religious sectarianism, racism, and tribalism ... the remnants of colonialism." The tribes, in their minds, were inevitable rivals of a centralizing state."

Under Saddam:

"Selected tribal leaders were allowed to enrich themselves by any means, fair or foul, and in return they were expected to defend the regime. Saddam, in effect, fostered a process of retribalization in Iraq."

Now one would think that given the obstacles posed by these tribes, that we would look for lessons from neighboring countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, which have successfully withstood similar challenges by subordinating "the tribes to the state." But once again, we're guilty of shirking history's lessons:

"Now, U.S. strategy is violating this principle by fostering the retribalization of Iraq all over again. In other countries in the region, such as Yemen, the result of allowing tribes to contest state authority is clear: a dysfunctional country prone to bouts of serious internecine violence."

Sacred Flame Protection Unit... Posted by Adam Blickstein

It's true that these guys, the official Chinese Olympic torch protection unit, scorch the earth wherever they and the Olympic flame go. It's true they are acting like thugs towards protesters and spectators alike, and appear to actually be comprised of "paramilitary police from a force spun off from the Chinese army." But it's also true that the rather distinctive moniker given to this brutish group would also be a rockin' name for an 80's revival hair band..

Just a random thought for Friday after a busy busy week

Washington Post: Page A4 Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

It has a wealth of information today that puts the Iraq situation in the right context.  I think Congress did a good job of making sure we didn't just hear from Petraeus/Crocker and instead got analysis of the broader implications for national security.  Basically, it shows that everyone from the Joint Chiefs to the Secretary of Defense is in disagreement with President, Petraeus, and Crocker on indefinitely leaving 140,000 troops in Iraq.  They will never they say that publicly because that would be out and out insubordination but some of these quotes come really close.

Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, on the Military and Afghanistan:

"The only relief valve that I see out there that would provide that would be level of forces in Iraq," Mullen said. "We'd need to come down a certain number of brigades before we could start to meet the . . . legitimate force requirements that we have in Afghanistan that we just can't fill."

Secretary Gates on troop levels

Striking a tone distinct from that of Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gates and Mullen also told lawmakers on Capitol Hill that they do not see the halt in U.S. troop reductions from Iraq as indefinite. Gates reiterated that he expects only a "brief pause" in the drawdown before it continues this fall.

"I do not anticipate this period of review to be an extended one, and I would emphasize that the hope, depending on conditions on the ground, is to reduce our presence further this fall," Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

David Satterfield, Rice's top Advisor on Iraq, summarized the view of Congress, including Republicans, on the security framework agreement that the Administration is trying to work out.

“Other than the fact that it violates the Constitution, statute law, common sense and the overwhelming judgment of the American people, this is a sensible thing to do.”

And there is this exchange between Jim Webb and Assistant Defense Secretary Mary Beth Long, regarding the Administration's promise that the agreement would not tie us to "Permanent Bases."  (Don't think it made it into the online version)

Webb:  What is a permanent base?
Satterfield:  Senator, the Administration has made quite clear that we are not seeking permanent bases in Iraq...
Webb:  Right.  What is a permanent base?  Are our bases in Japan permanent bases?
Long:  I have looked into this.  As far as teh department is concerned, we didn't have a worldwide or even a department-wide definition of permanent bases.  I believe those are, by and large determined on a case-by-case basis...
Webb:  Well, I understand that.  But basically my point is it's sort ofa dead word.  It doesn't really mean anything.
Long:  yes, Senator, you're completely right.  It doesn't...

Call it What it is: Torture! Posted by Adam Blickstein

AP has a follow-up on ABC's reporting that senior Administration officials, including Dick Cheney and Condi Rice, all were complicit in authorizing the "harsh interrogations" of detainees. While both the ABC and AP piece confirm what most assumed, that the egregious actions at Abu Ghraib and other detention facilties weren't merely the errant actions of a few low-level troops but part of a broad strategy from the White House to abrogate international law, American values, and moral decency, they both lack a crucial element: calling torture torture. They skirt around the truth, afraid of the "T" word for weak editorial reasons. The headlines of both articles are instructive:

(ABC) Sources: Top Bush Advisors Approved 'Enhanced Interrogation'

(AP) Cheney, Others OK'd Harsh Interrogations

The body of evidence is pretty clear on this that the 'enhance interrogations' were in fact torture. And while further exposing these immoral and illegal actions is essential, doing so by using the same Administration language ("harsh tactics," "enhanced interrogation")  that got us into this moral and legal morass only compounds the problem. It helps to shield the Administration from true culpability and accountability.

History may look upon this Presidency's use of the 'fog of law' and 'fog of language' as central to their strategy on all the issues that have become prominent and controversial in the past decade: intelligence, war, detention and torture. But it may also look at the media (an industry where language itself is the linchpin) that has adopted the same dubious words, frames and phraseology, as simply an unassuming accomplice in the nefarious pursuits of this Presidency.

Matt's right...but Posted by Max Bergmann

I was probably a bit too dismissive of Tancredo yesterday. The problem of gangs and racist groups, as the Southern Poverty Law Center pointed out a few years back, is a real and seemingly growing problem - and is due in no small part to the Army having to lower its recruiting standards. That being said, I'm not sure Tancredo's point was to point out the general problem of gangs in the military. I interpreted him, perhaps unfairly, as being a bit more conspiratorial - ie  we let disloyal Hispanic immigrants into the military where they receive military training and when they return to the U.S. they will will rejoin MS-13 to destroy America. He may not be 100 percent wrong on this point, but this does fishtail with his general dislike of all brown people (including opposing letting Iraqi refugees into the U.S.) - a view that definitely deserves to be mocked.

Fact Check: Bush Downplays Defense Spending as Percentage of US Economy Posted by Adam Blickstein

Bush just stated in his speech that spending on defense as a percentage of the U.S. economy was around 4 percent, and cited that this is historically low as compared to World War Two and Vietnam. That is true, but unfortunately doesn't account for current American spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, funded mainly through the "off-budget" emergency supplementals that hide the true costs. The New York Times earliest this year breaks down this point:

Even considering the military budget and war spending together, however, total U.S. expenditures remain modest compared to historical levels in wartime. Shortly before the Vietnam War, in 1962, defense spending alone tallied 9.3 percent of GDP. During World War II expenditures were higher still; in 1944 the defense budget peaked at 37.8 percent of GDP. Even after recent increases, defense spending today comes to about 3.7 percent of GDP—and the combined total, even after including both war-spending supplements and “Global War on Terror” expenditures, comes to 6.2 percent of GDP. Still, today’s spending represents an increase since before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, when defense spending tallied roughly 3 percent of GDP.

Bottom line: Spending on defense, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has doubled in the past 8 years. The President is still insists on hiding the true costs of war...

Make You Look Like Stalin . . . Posted by Michael Cohen

So yesterday I attended the Pe-Crock hearings at the House Foreign Relations Committee and since I feel that llan and Max handled the substance of the afternoon's proceedings quite wel, allow me to relay the sartorial epiphany that I experienced. At about 2:36 PM I finally understood why Republicans do so well in elections - they have great hair.

I'm not even joking here. You should see some of the manes on these guys. Click here to see what I'm talking about. Jeff Flake, Mike McCaul, Luis Fortuno and don't even get me started on Jeff Fortenberry from Nebraska. Them there are some handsome fellas.

Even Ron Paul and Dan Burton have got that avuncular, grandfatherly thing down pat. The major exception here is of course Steve Chabot from Ohio who seems to have combined some sort of comb over and homage to former Ohio Congressman James Traficant that has gone horribly awry.

Then you look at the Democratic side and it looks like a before shot from the Hair Club for Men. Seriously, what kind of image are we projecting to the world as Democrats. If it wasn't for Robert Wexler and his Semitic good looks it would be a train wreck.

You know Ilan always says we need to a better job of training progressives to talk about foreign policy and national security. Yeah, yeah that's important, but how about some toupees as well . . .

On an unrelated note, one of my favorite things about the House Foreign Relations Committee is that Steve Chabot, Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul all sit together on the far right side of the dais. Insert your own joke here.

Had Enough Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

OK, we're calling it a day on this.  There is nothing new here at this point.  And Max wants to watch Manchester United Vs. Roma. 

What was Delahunt up to? Posted by Moira Whelan

Delahunt just asked Crocker to convey to the Iraqi government the concerns of Congress about the expiration of the UN mandate. Why would he do that? After all, they can probably get C-Span. I’m checking on this, but I think that based on Crocker’s commitment to do so, the US government must now formally do that in a diplomatic sense, which can be a Fairly Big Deal…but I’ll get back to you on that one.

Delahunt also dug deeper into a question Clinton asked yesterday about the negotiation of presence of US forces and the bilateral agreement between the US and Iraq. Clinton stressed that if the Iraqi parliament had a chance to pass or reject the agreement, then so should the US Congress.

Delahunt took it one better: if the Malaki government decides not to take it to the Iraqi parliament, they will be in violation of the Iraqi Constitution. The agreement, in this case, would be null and void from the Iraqi side, and therefore the US could not agree to it, and it would not be binding to protect our troops, right?

This will prove to be a pretty big point in the months to come.

Tancredo a man obsessed Posted by Max Bergmann

So Tom Tancredo has a chance to question two of the top civilian and military leaders in Iraq and what does he do? He of course asks a bunch of conspiratorial questions about immigration. Tancredo is worried about MS-13 a Latino gangs in the U.S. army in Iraq (apparently Tancredo's inside sources tell him that MS-13 graffiti has appeared in Baghdad - talk about a scandal) and he is opposed to letting in Iraqi refugees who served this country, etc., etc. I think he gets the award for worst questioner.

Tancredo... Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

So Tancredo basically decides that this is the place to ask why we are letting any of the Iraqi refugees who are being displaced, including the ones working with the United States, are being let in to this country.  Seriously... Not surprising but still.

Heads I win tails you lose Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Representative Wexler goes after Peteaus hard makes a very good point.  When we ask what is failure we get a littany of items.  When we ask what is success we get nothing.  I thinks that is exactly right and it is the fundamental problem in the entire argument.

The Other Hearing Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Shifting over to the House Armed Services Committee.  They now have the Vice Chief of the Army and the Assistant Commandant of the Marines talking about the stress on the ground forces. 

Skelton asked:  "Are you satisfied that we are ready for any military contingency right now."  Cody said no.

Chabot Just Asked One of the Dumbest Questions Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

He's got a tough reelection fight, you'd think he'd do more then literally read almost an entire Wall Street Journal Editorial and then ask a question that Petraeus has already answered four times in his opening testimony.  Just sort of embarrassing.  (But at least he does ask a question about Iraqi oil paying for reconstruction.) 

Would Petraeus Help Advise a Withdrawal? Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Had to step out for a bit.  Spencer has this important exchange between Petraeus and Tauscher

Asked by Ellen Tauscher, a California Democrat, what he would say to a new president who asked for a withdrawal plan within 60 days of taking office, Petraeus dodged like hell. Wow.

"I would back up," he said, "and ask  what's the mission, what's the desired endstate. And then you advise on resources..." Tauscher said the goal would be to keep the security gains of the surge, fix the readiness problems of the military and cut U.S. costs in Iraq.

"My response would be dialogue on what the risks would be. And, again, this is about risk." Petraeus sounded a lot like he was saying he would not be willing to advise a President Obama or a President Clinton on withdrawal  -- something that, unless he was willing to resign, is very Constitutionally dubious.

Andrews hammers Crocker on lack of progress on benchmarks - Crocker put on defensive Posted by Max Bergmann

In questioning from Congressman Andrews, Crocker was on the defensive. Andrews hitting on the debathification law points out that this law hits the Baathist Sunnis hard and prevents them from working in the defense and interior ministry which will prevent them from reconciling with the Shia dominated government. In short its a law that does nothing to facilitate reconciliation. In addition Andrews notes that there has been no progress on a hydrocarbon law - ie the law that divides oil revenue.

In general Crocker has had to squirm much more in the hearings than Petraeus. If you by the notion that these hearings are like a "job performance review" then it is clear that Crocker has a lot more to squirm about than Petraeus due to the inability to achieve any real political progress, while Petraeus seems a bit more assured because of the security improvements.

Crocker - the dog ate my benchmark homework Posted by Max Bergmann

Cong. McIntyre asks Crocker what happened to the benchmarks? Crocker stutters and then says we are working on evaluating them and pledges to get an assessment to Congress next week. Talk about not bringing your homework. You would think you would have gotten this done before the hearing.

Security Forces Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

A central question that was just asked.  When will the Iraqi Security Forces be ready to take responsibility?  I have another question.  Petraeus is arguing that there has been a dramatic improvement in Iraqi Security Forces.  But if that is true then why do we still have 150,000 American troops in Iraq?

Congresswoman Sanchez hits on the General Jones report last Fall Posted by Max Bergmann

Congresswoman Sanchez smartly brought back the report from General Jones that was released right before Pe-Crock testified last Fall. The General found that the national police is:

85 percent Shia. It is associated with some pretty bad things that have happened in the near past. It is sectarian, and it is not trusted by certainly the other ethnicities in the country...And I believe it should be disbanded and re-tasked.

Petraeus responded saying that the national police force "are pulling their load" and that their had been substantial progress in the interior ministry. This again seems to go against what has been widely reported.

Choosing Shi'a Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Crocker says that the "way Iraqis are viewing the battle between Sadr and Maliki as between the government and extremist militias."  Really?  How does he know this?  To me this is how the Bush Administration is viewing / spinning it.  But there is nothing to substantiate that argument.

Has he been out and about among the Iraqi people in the last week?  All of the reporting from reporters on the ground and in the fighting seem to contradict Crocker's statements.   

Petraeus Plays Along Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Spencer Ackerman points out something important.

A New York Republican named John McHugh conflated Al Qaeda with Al Qaeda in Iraq and asked the leading question: "We are really talking about the primary security interest of each and every American or do I have that wrong?"

Petraeus: "That is correct." Unbelievable. He really cherry-picks what strategy-level questions he wants to answer, doesn't he?

Let's be clear.  Al Qaeda Central is on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.  The NIE said that the major threat to the homeland comes from this group and that AQI is a separate organization.  Petraeus and Crocker's willingness to on the one hand correct very specific details and on the other let broad generalizations slip is irritating.  Coincidently they also seem to pick and choose, based on whether the generalization is in line with their policy or not.

I'm Impressed With Snyder Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

He tells Petraeus.  It's about resourcing.  It's your job to do your job, which is Iraq.  It's our job to figure out how to manage our resources, and when Admiral Fallon is here he says we need 2,000 more troops today.  And members of Congress have to make that decision.

Also, says that we hear a lot about  being able to walk through this neighberhood or that neighberhood, but nothing about what is going on behind those doors.  Are living conditions actually getting better.  Is electricity increasing?  Health metrics?  etc...

Unknown Republican Congressman Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Says that the forces that are in Iraq have been killing Americans for 30 years.  But which forces?  The Sadrists?? - No.  Al Qaeda in Iraq??  No.  Al Qaeda central?  Umm...  We were funding their predecessors in Afghanistan against the Soviets.

Maybe he's arguing that Iranian supported Hezbollah attacked American forces in the 1980s and 1990s.  True.  But the groups who were most closely aligned with them at the time is SCIRI and the Badr Corps.  But they are currently the leading party in the Iraqi Central Government. 

Basra? Why Worry? Posted by Patrick Barry

Hey America, stop fretting about Basra!  I know it may have looked bad that over 1,000 Iraqis threw up their hands and refused to fight the Sadrists, and it may not have been so great when our man in Iraq personally oversaw a failed operation, but the Iraqis are "in the lead" there so we have absolutely nothing to worry about.

Readiness Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Congressman Ortiz asks about readiness to the overall forces. Petraeus responds that our troops are better equipped in Iraq then they were in 2003.  But he also says that from the perspective of the strategic reserve we are at the lowest point that Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, General Cody has ever seen. Petraeus says this can be addressed over time.

But how do you address this over time if you still have 140,000-150,000 troops in Iraq?  It's really not possible.

Spratt - points to the cost of war Posted by The Editors

Congressman Spratt laid out the cost of war argument really well and also pointed out all the budget shenanigans from the Pentagon and the lack of long term budget projections.

Looking for the positive on the Iraqi army... at least they have people Posted by The Editors

In another example of Petraeus trying to put things in the most positive light, under questioning from former Presidential hopeful Duncan Hunter, Petraeus says it's impressive how many troops the Iraqi Army was able to muster to send down to Basra. Hmmm... Hmm... but didn't that not go so well.

Iraq is Hard Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Phil Carter has a great wrap up of yesterday's testimony.

So what is our strategy in Iraq? And for that matter, what is "victory?" How does a "victory" in Iraq relate to America's larger national security interests? Petraeus and Crocker effectively punted on these grand questions, as they did last September, offering only that we needed to persevere and succeed to avoid vague Somalia-like predictions of what might happen if we don't.

That's not a good enough answer for me. I don't think that Petraeus and Crocker justified our enormous investment of blood and treasure with their testimony yesterday.

But I also think that responsibility is above their paygrade. The real answers to these grand questions must come from the White House and Pentagon -- and they must be argued convincingly enough to earn the support of the American people and their elected representatives.

Yesterday's testimony highlighted our strategic drift, and how Sisyphean our efforts in Iraq have been for the past five years. We owe something more to our men and women serving in Iraq, and to the Iraqis. 

Skelton Gets the Broader Context Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

How do I know this?  Because this afternoon he is holding a hearing on the state of the Ground Forces with the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, General Richard Cody and Assistant Commandant USMC, General Robert Magnus.  Here's what he said last week:

“We’ve been down that road before and we know where it leads,” he said, concluding that “when the crystal ball fails and the unexpected conflict happens, soldiers pay the price in blood when we as a nation are unwilling to be prepared.”

This hearing in the afternoon is just as important as the Petraeus and Crocker hearing.  But it will obviously get much less coverage.  If we can find it we'll throw in some blogging and coverage. 

Mush Posted by Max Bergmann

I think that pretty much summed up the testimony of Pe-Crock yesterday, as well as the questioning from administration supporters like McCain and Graham. Chris Matthews actually hit the nail on the head when he said "he got nothing out of it." This was echoed by Michael Ware who described the hearing as a "waste of oxygen." If you were looking for answers, looking for direction from Pe-Crock you got none.  Last year we were told that the "surge" was a strategic shift to give the Iraqis breathing space to reconcile. Even if you deem the surge a success - now that it is clearly ending as we draw down to pre-surge levels - the question becomes what is the new strategy? That I think is a reasonable question to ask - and all we get is that 'we can't make projections into the future'...But isn't that what strategic thinking is all about. In fact I looked it up. Strategy - "the art of devising or employing plans...toward a goal." So what are those plans? And as Obama pointed out what is the goal?

Actually they admit that they have no idea what to do now. How else can you describe their call for a "pause" to reassess.

What are the conditions? Posted by Patrick Barry

Petraeus keeps reiterating that he's "looking at the security and governance conditions" and that his assessment of those conditions will determine the future pace of withdrawal, but he refuses to say what criteria he is using to determine if those conditions have been met or even what they are in the first place.  Lacking such conditions for withdrawal, we've deprived ourselves of the ability to set expectations for the Iraqi government, settling for an incrementalist approach that prizes ambiguous improvements over substantive achievement.

Petraeus and Crocker are in the House... Posted by Max Bergmann

They're back...we're back for day 2

For more coverage check out Spencer Ackerman over at the Washington Independent.

Who You Gonna Call? Posted by David Shorr

As I was looking through David Corn's Mother Jones column of questions he collected, one of them jumped out at me as placing a slightly different emphasis on Iran's recent mediating role. Retired Army Colonel, and blogger, Patrick Lang suggested Petraeus should be asked:

Why did the Iraqis go to Qom for mediation of the recent crisis at Basra?

Most of the attention has been put on Iran's links to multiple factions or whether Tehran is closer to Maliki or Sadr. Then there's the irony of the peacemaking role played by someone on the official US terror list. And of course, the "who won?" question.

But this is different. The answer, of course, is obvious. Same as in any mediation, Qom has the trust of the parties. And so (depressingly) obvious, too, is the virtual irrelevance of the US occupation that made Iran's role so critical. It might actually be heartening if we learned that Amb. Crocker had some connection and involvement in Iran's mediation effort. (Ah, what strange times we live in.)

This angle on the issue is sort of like the did-Maliki-share-his-plans-with-us question. Gee, with so many American forces there, shouldn't we be involved in major moves like this? It's even closer to Gordon Adams' excellent set of questions in the same David Corn piece:

Why do you and the administration continue to plan policy as if we have any leverage in Iraq? Don't American forces have precious little to do with the "frozen" character of the conflict? Sunni peace is dependent on the sheikhs, not us; Shiite peace is in question because of the decisions of militia we have little influence over; and Baghdad has already purged its mixed neighborhoods, which has solidified the barriers between hostile neighbors. A dysfunctional government we prop up has virtually no impact on the country's security or economy outside Baghdad, and 70 percent of the people want us to leave. It seems the U.S. is completely unable to influence the fundamentals of the situation. So why should anyone assume that more or fewer U.S. troops are the key factor in Iraq's future?

I mean, we're not being too wonkish to wonder about America's leverage, are we?

Summing up the hearings end of day 1 Posted by The Editors

(From Max and Ilan)

Here's a wrap up of the entire day of hearings. Only 14 hours til tomorrow...

1. Petraeus and Crocker refuse to tell us what our long term strategy is in Iraq, holding to the weak excuse that they can't make predictions into the future. But they have no problem making scary predictions into the future about what will happen if we withdraw. Contradiction? We think so.

2. Senator Biden made Crocker admit that the threat from Al Qaeda central along the Afghan-Pakistan border is a higher priority than Al Qaeada in Iraq.

3. John McCain still seems to be confusing his Shi’a and his Sunnis.  He seems to have this recurring problem and if he becomes President and does this in some international forum it will be REALLY REALLY bad.

4. Iran is the new Al Qaeda. A large portion of the questioning from Martinez, Lieberman, Graham was based on trying blame Iran from what happened in Basra.  But as Senator Jack Reed pointed out the Iranians are actually supporting all of the various Shi’a groups in Iraq, including those in league with the central government.

5. Petraeus and Crocker repeatedly quoted Osama Bin Laden and his deputies that Iraq was the central fron in the war on terror. But as Senators Bayh and Feingold pointed out we shouldn't take our marching orders from Al Qaeda, as their strategy is to bleed and bankrupt the United States in Iraq.

6. Ryan Crocker continues to present a rosy picture of what happened in Basra last week, saying that it has strengthened Maliki’s hand.  But news on the ground today seems to undermine this claim with Sadr actually picking up support from various religious leaders.

7. When asked by Senator John Warner whether Iraq was making us safer Petraeus kept hedging and stated that it would ultimately be up to history.  Not very comforting.  And for those who argue that it’s not his job to answer that question.  The President has made it his job, but ignoring the advice of other more senior military leaders and going straight to Petraeus.

8. Crocker claims that there has been a "diplomatic surge" by the United States. But as Chuck Hagel pointed out these claims are "thin." A real diplomatic surge would entail Rice, Gates, or a special envoy - people from the highest levels of the government - reaching out to Iraq's neighbors and being able to talk not just about Iraq but all regional issues.

 

9. Petraeus and Crocker can't tell us if political reconciliation, the whole point of the surge, is actually happening.

Obama's cordial smackdown of Crocker and Petraeus Posted by Max Bergmann

While it seemed very cordial, Obama was able to hit Petraeus and Crocker very hard. Obama took them down a path. First, on Al Qaeda on Iraq. He got Petraeus to agree with him that the total elimination of Al Qaeda is an impossible standard for withdrawal. Next he goes after Crocker's points about Iranian influence, pointing out that both Iran and Al Qaeda  are in Iraq because we invaded and that we can not expect to eliminate Iranian involvement.

Then came the hammer. Obama pointed out that if the definition of success is put so high - no Al Qaeda, no Iranian influence, a prosperous diverse democracy we will be there forever. He then points out that we still, after 8 hours of testimony, have no definition of success. And he points out, something that we have been saying all day, they have no definition of success.

Crocker's weak response its "hard and complicated."

Al Qaeda and Iran Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Obama makes a central point.  The two reasons we are now in Iraq.  The two reasons that are constantly referred to:  Al Qaeda in Iraq, and growing Iranian influence are both didn't exist before the war and are a direct result of the war. 

He also asks for the end state.  Is the end state a messy Iraq like it is today which doesn't pose a threat to its neighbros with a small number of American troops?   Or is it to eliminate A Qaeda and Iranian influence altogether and build a democracy.  Something that will never ever happen and is impossible.

Voinovich gets shrill Posted by Max Bergmann

In one of the most passionate moments of the hearings today, Republican Senator George Voinovich goes off on Petraeus and Crocker. He basically tells them that they are living on another planet: "we are on our way out" he says and the "country has had it up to here." And he also points out that no one else in the region has any urgency.

The Kid Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Sen. Voinovich just said he read a book by a "kid named Miller."  I haven't read the book yet, but I have a copy and it's supposed to be very good. But, the "kid" was an adviser to six secretaries of state from 1978-2003 on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.  Just sort of amusing.  I'm sure he enjoyed being called a kid.

Boxer on Iran.. Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Why is it after everything we've invested and spent in Iraq, that the President of Iran gets the red carpet treatment and our President has to sneak into the country.  (I've written about this before)

Crocker's response is that Iran has lost credibility and Maliki has gained support in the last two weeks because of Basra.  There is absolutely nothing to back that up.  But Crocker continues to push this hard.

Feingold: It's not about winning or losing Iraq... Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

...But whether we are winning or losing in the battle against Al Qaeda.

He argues that it would have made more sense to have others with Petraeus and Crocker to answer broader questions. Couldn't agree more.

Feingold argues that given that Petraeus says the key is to deal with Al Qaeda in Iraq. Why do our intelligence agencies say that the danger is getting worse not better? Petraeus responds that Bin Laden and Zawahiri say the central front in the war on terror is Iraq. Feingold responds that they have also said they want to bleed and bankrupt the United States and aren't we just doing that.

Crocker also says that everyone except for Sadr supports the U.S. presence in Iraq, to witch Feingold points that a majority of Iraqi Members of Parliament voted to oppose the U.S. presence... Snap.

Petraeus: Iraqi Army is an integrated force Posted by Max Bergmann

Umm... can I call bull on that one... from all accounts the security groups in Iraq are not integrated. As Brian Katulis and Ian Moss wrote in the Philly Inquirer:

The U.S. initiative to work with these new Sunni militias has undermined the goal of reconciliation between Iraq's competing factions. Since the United States started working with these irregular forces, Iraq's central government has grown increasingly suspicious of this U.S. initiative. As a consequence, the Iraqi government has been a major impediment to integrating these members into Iraq's state security structures.

Hagel rips Crocker, calls diplomatic surge "thin" Posted by Max Bergmann

Senator Hagel goes after Crocker. He points out that Crocker's evidence on behalf of a "diplomatic surge" is incredibly thin. "Where is the surge? What are you talking about?" Hagel asks.

Crocker's defense is very weak. He points to low level meetings and discussions. In terms of talking to Iranians, Crocker points to limited discussions at lower levels of government. What Hagel is talking about though, is that there has been no concerted effort on the part of this adminstration to enact a "diplomatic surge." A real diplomatic surge would entail Rice, Gates, or a special envoy for the region - people from the highest level of the government - reaching out to Iraq's neighbors and being able to talk not just about Iraq but all regional issues. That just hasn't happened and to claim that there has been a diplomatic surge is, as Hagel says, very very "thin."

Petraeus says equipment situation is better today than it was in Iraq Posted by Max Bergmann

That, in large measure is due to  Democrats in congress, who have funded equipment reset for the Army and Marines at impressive rates. The equipment shortages that were so prevalent in the first few years of the war were due to the poor planning of the Bush administration and the complacency of conservatives in congress.

Conservative Gun Laws Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

We aren't arming the "Sons of Iraq".  Every Iraqi is allowed one AK-47 in their home by law.  Oh lord.

Hypotheticals Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Ambassador Crocker again refuses to engage in hypotheticals with Senator Biden.  Unless we hypothetically talk about leaving Iraq, in which case he is absolutely sure that everything would fall apart and the world would end.

Biden is asking Good Questions Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

This isn't the exact transcript.  But basically.

Biden:  If you could eliminate all Al Qaeda personal in either Iraq or Afghanistan and Pakistan, which would you choose.

Crocker:  Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Well.  Good to know that the Ambassador to Iraq has his priorities right.  Too bad the President doesn't have those priorities.

Update:  Ackerman has more.  Wonk Room has the video.

The Crocker Strategy Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

If I talk for long enough maybe they won't ask me any questions.  Seriously couldn't all the Senator have just watched the opening statements of the Armed Services Committee so that we didn't have to listen to all this again.

What do you do when you have a job performance review? Posted by Max Bergmann

You spin. You put things in the best possible light. You fail to mention those four hours you spent devoted to fantasy baseball research, those two hours you slipped out to watch Arsenal play Liverpool in the Champions League (I can't believe they scheduled these damn hearings today!), and that 1 hour period every day after lunch when you sit at your desk in a massive food coma. You don't mention these things, because they call into question your job performance. You highlight the good stuff that you have done, or you highlight the reasons why you haven't produced more good stuff - ie you lost internet connection when you were about to write that article or those pesky Iranians keep interfering.

So what we are watching today is a job performance review. This is what I have accomplished and here are the reasons (excuses) why more has not been accomplished, and this is why I deserve to keep my job. Job performance reviews are important and worthwhile but they must be put in context.

Update: Ilan wrote this same post last May...we clearly spend too much time together.

Biden Presents the Costs Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Joe Biden summarizes the costs Iraq is having on our national security, our ability to fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the military, and our economy. 

Biden also makes a very very important point.  More then a month ago the Senate Foreign Relations committee asked for testimony from Gen. Dan McNeil and Ambassador William Wood - the Petraeus and Crocker of Afghanistan.  But the Administration has not produced them and doesn't seem to have any intention to make them available. 

That is inexcusable.  We can't have an honest conversation about weighing Iraq and Afghanistan if the Administration won't even make these guys available.

Biden hits the mark... Posted by Max Bergmann

"The costs of staying are totally knowable." And as we pointed out a few weeks back, the costs are very very steep, as he goes on to point out. "We can't keep treading water without exhausting ourselves." Indeed.

Summing up the hearing Posted by The Editors

(From Max and Ilan)

Here's a wrap up of the morning hearings. Only four more hours to go...

1. Petraeus and Crocker refuse to tell us what our long term strategy is in Iraq, holding to the weak excuse that they can't make predictions into the future. But they have no problem making scary predictions into the future about what will happen if we withdraw. Contradiction? I think so.

2. Iran is the new Al Qaeda. A large portion of the questioning from Martinez, Lieberman, Graham was based on trying blame Iran from what happened in Basra.  But as Senator Jack Reed pointed out the Iranians are actually supporting all of the various Shi’a groups in Iraq, including those in league with the central government.

3. John McCain still seems to be confusing his Shi’a and his Sunnis.  He seems to have this recurring problem and if he becomes President and does this in some international forum it will be REALLY REALLY bad.

4. Ryan Crocker continues to present a rosy picture of what happened in Basra last week, saying that it has strengthened Maliki’s hand.  But news on the ground today seems to undermine this claim with Sadr actually picking up support from various religious leaders.

5. When asked by Senator John Warner whether Iraq was making us safer Petraeus kept hedging and stated that it would ultimately be up to history.  Not very comforting.  And for those who argue that it’s not his job to answer that question.  The President has made it his job, but ignoring the advice of other more senior military leaders and going straight to Petraeus

6. Petraeus and Crocker can't tell us if political reconciliation, the whole point of the surge, is actually happening.

The Iranians are Coming Posted by Michael Cohen

I am struck today by the focus of Petraeus and Crocker on the "Iranian threat" because it dovetails nicely with the Lieberman/Graham op-ed in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. Check out some of the incendiary language they were using and the conflation of Iran with Al Qaeda:

Iran also continues to wage a vicious and escalating proxy war against the Iraqi government and the U.S. military. The Iranians have American blood on their hands. They are responsible, through the extremist agents they have trained and equipped, for the deaths of hundreds of our men and women in uniform. Increasingly, our fight in Iraq cannot be separated from our larger struggle to prevent the emergence of an Iranian-dominated Middle East.

We will not fare well in a world in which al Qaeda and Iran can claim that they have defeated us in Iraq and are ascendant.

It used to be that "defeat" in Iraq meant the raise of an Al Qaeda led caliphate; but now that the Administration is trumpeting the demise of AQI as a result of the Sunni Awakening they need a new bad guy - enter the Iranians!

Apparently, now its an Iranian-dominated Middle East that we have to fear -- even though a Sunni-dominated Middle East pretty much ensures that this apocalyptic scenario is a chimera.

I don't think this sort of Iranian bashing is accidental. If AQI is no longer a huge threat in Iraq then we need a new bogeyman to defend keeping US troops there indefinitely. It seems as though the Iranians will do just fine.

Evan Bayh Slaps Crocker Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Bayh asks why should we be focused on Iraq when Al Qaeda Central's safe haven is actually in  Pakistan's northwest territories. 

Crocker responds that Osama Bin Laden says that Iraq would be a perfect base for Al Qaeda (Of course that doesn't mean that it is or will be, but just that it would make the perfect base).

To which Bayh responds that "we shouldn't be taking our marching orders from Osama Bin Laden,"  and that perhaps we should consider the fact that Bin Laden would like us to stay there for as long as possible. 

Saxby Chamblis... And AQI Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

I think he had the dumbest question of the morning.  What is AQI's position in Iraq as opposed to where it was in late 2006? 

Well, that's convenient.  I have a question.  What is AQI's position in Iraq relative to where it was in 2003 before we invaded? 

One bad guy at a time Posted by Patrick Barry

Ilan's post on the latest development of identifying Iran as our new enemy in Iraq underscores an important flaw in the way conservatives have approached Iraq in general.  It's demonstrative of a failure to grasp the fact that forces in Iraq opposed to the United States are comprised of multiple movements, with shifting motivations and intentions. If we follow the logic of focusing solely on AQI, or Iranian-backed special groups, or any other entity, our troops will never be able to do more than play dutch-boy as the occupation drains our country of blood and treasure. 

Claire McCaskil is on the Money Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

McCaskil makes the point that JAM was the political winner of the recent fight with the Iraqi government because at the end Sadr was the political winner by not losing.

Crocker says that it's actually strengthened support for Maliki.  But then how does he explain this (Via Matt)?

Iraq's top Shiite religious leaders have told anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr not to disband his Mehdi Army, an al-Sadr spokesman said Monday amid fresh fighting in the militia's Baghdad strongholds.

Update:  It's really important to note that this completely discredits what Crocker has been saying today.  He continues to argue that this was somehow a political victory for Maliki, but the religious leadership, which may actually be just as influential or more influential then parts of the government, is lining up behind Sadr.

Al Qaeda is Out, Iran is In Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Probably the single largest trend that's come out of the Republican side of the hearing is the attempt to substitute Iran for Al Qaeda.  In the fall and for the last year the reason we need to stay in Iraq is Al Qaeda.  But now it seems like all the emphasis is on Iran.  This is either because Al Qaeda in Iraq has gotten weaker and we need someone new to fight so that we can justify staying in the middle of what is essentially an ethno-sectarian conflict.  Or it's because the Iran NIE has made it much more difficult to vilify Iran's nuclear weapons program, and so it's time to drum up the "supporting terrorists" card. 

Petraeus admitted sectarian cleansing played a role in decreasing violence Posted by Max Bergmann

Petraeus admitted that “sectarian hardening” has played a role in reducing violence. Spencer rightly points out that when saying "hardening," Petraeus really means ethnic cleansing. Walling off neighborhoods and the ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods is usually critical in reducing violence levels in ethnic conflicts. Following bursts in ethnic violence, groups seek protection in neighborhoods of a uniform sect. Targets of opportunities become rarer, as the conflict moves toward stalemate. Violence doesn't stop, but becomes more targeted and a sort of military stalemate takes place. The other major implication though of sectarian cleansing, is that the possibility for reconciliation substantially decreases as the trust between groups totally collapses.

The point being that a down tick in violence does not mean that the war is resolved or even improving. It can easily continue as a stalemate or, as we are experiencing, get much worse. These types of wars don't have to end.  For example, just yesterday 54 were killed in Sri Lanka in a quarter-century long conflict that is not dissimilar to the one in Iraq. Not every conflict has a solution.

The Numbers Simply Don't Match Up... Posted by Adam Blickstein

A graph (which is pasted below) Petraeus presented today seems to paint a diametrically opposite picture for March in terms of Iraqi civilian casualty numbers than what has been broadly reported. The graph suggests that civilian casualties in Iraq stayed somewhat level during March, and in fact the coalition numbers seem to demonstrate a dip in overall civilian deaths. This clearly doesn't jive with what has been broadly reported. The Washington Post, for instance, reported on the deadly month that was March as thus.

A total of 923 civilians were killed in March, up 31 percent from February and the deadliest month since August 2007, according to data compiled by Iraq's interior, defense and health ministries and obtained by Reuters.

Petraeus' graph clearly doesn't show anything close to a 31 percent spike in March from February, no where near the 923 deaths in the Post report, instead showing a virtual plateau. It also clearly doesn't put civilian deaths in March 2008 on par with August 2007. Of course, the important question for Petreus is: why the discrepency?

Is Political Reconciliation Happening? Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Spencer Ackerman points out that Crocker and Petraeus don't really know if political reconciliation is actually happening or refuse to give a straight answer.

It is with a great deal of respect and deference to you," Nelson said, that he pressed the issue: the point of the surge was to create political reconciliation. "Has political reconciliation happened?" 

Petraeus: "As the Ambassador laid out, there has been agreement among different political parties on a number of pieces of important reconciliation laws, if you will, that represent reconciliation... [laws on] de-Ba'athification, a provincial powers law, a pensions reform bill..."

But have the laws been implemented?

Petraeus: I believe the pensions law is in the process of being implemented. De-Ba'athification --"

Nelson wondered: To the extent of bringing about political reconciliation "that is the goal in the first place?"

Petraeus kicked it over to Crocker. (I called it!) Crocker: "I noted in my testimony, obviously how it's implemented is going to be key. The amnesty law, part of the legislation package passed in February, is being implemented. There have been 24,000 applications for amnesty received, and 17,000 approved. The provincial powers law comes into effect after the forthcoming provincial elections -- it's prospective, and does not apply to the current provincial council..."

Nelson whacked Crocker's weeds.  "So you think we're moving toward political reconciliation?"

Oh, for a straight answer. Crocker: "I think various elements that I mentioned -- national legislation -- the way parliament works, there's a lot of cross-bloc horse-trading that goes on,... that process is as encouraging as the results. Yes, I think there is movement in the right direction." Whether it's 4,000-lives-and-counting's worth of movement in the right direction, he couldn't say.

Petraeus says withdrawing a brigade a month is "doable" Posted by Max Bergmann

After Lindsay Graham spends a significant portion of his time saying that the surge had achieved great success and highlighting all the progress that has been achieved – he gets caught in a massive contradiction.

Graham asked Petraeus what would happen if we withdrew a brigade a month. The goal of the questioning was no doubt to get Petraeus to say it would be a disaster. But Petraeus went the other way, responding that, “If conditions were good it would be doable.” So if things are going so well as McCain, Graham, and Lieberman say, then isn’t it “doable,” as Petraeus says to begin withdrawing.

This is where there “surge” cheerleading runs into a lot of trouble for them. If things are going so well then we should be able to begin the process of withdrawing our forces. But they say we can’t – not yet, because... The logic eats itself.

McCain mixes up Sunni and Shi'a Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

So, I've watched this video a number of times because I really wasn't sure at first.  But McCain did genuinely mix up Sunnis and Shi'a again.  Saying that Al Qaeda was a Shi'a group before quickly correcting himself.  Now, I know that there is a bit of gotcha going on here.  But this man claims that his greatest qualification for the Presidency is that he understands foreign policy.  But the differences between Sunni and Shi'a matter.  They matter a lot!  And this nasty habit of mixing it up just seriously needs to stop.

Akaka hits on readiness and military strain Posted by Max Bergmann

Iraq is destroying our ground forces - and subsequently weakening this country. 2 points come out of Akaka's questioning.

First, Petraeus admitted in his response that strain on the force played a role in advocating going back to 12 month deployments. Nothing shocking there, but when the President tries to spin the decline in deployment times, we should all remember that it was done much more out of necessity than due to events on the ground.

Second, Iraq has eliminated our strategic ground reserve and we now have no ability to respond to other contingencies such as in North Korea or to protect the homeland.

I hate the six minute rule Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Senator Reied was pursuing a great line of questioning and unfortunately was cut off.  Basically asking if the Mahdi Army was the only force getting support from the Iranians.  Crocker responded by stating that Iran actually has a relationship with all the Shi'a groups in Iraq, including the central government and ISCI.  He also said that the Badr Organizations had now been integrated into the Iraqi security forces, but that it still has close ties to Iran.

In other words.  This idea that the Iranians are just taking Sadr's side in the intra-Shi'a fight is just inaccurate.

Spencer Ackerman has more.

Warner's Question Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Warner asked the big question.  Is Iraq making America Safer?  Petraeus after a bunch of hmming and hawing says that only history will tell us if Iraq is making us safer and that the more important question is whether we are making progress in Iraq in attaining our interests.  I completely disagree with that, the question is strategic.  But at the end he said that it is worth it but that it's not his job to make that determination. 

Crocker referenced the fact that we are defeating Al Qaeda.  Drawing no distinction between AQI and Al Qaeda central in Pakistan and Afghanistan.  He also ignores the fact that Al Qaeda wasn't even there before the United States invaded.

Progress to what... They have no exit strategy Posted by Max Bergmann

Harping on a point I made below... Petraeus and Crocker have no problems projecting out the potential implications of leaving Iraq - but they refuse to make projections of what staying will look like. That double standard is absurd. Is there a strategic plan for our presence in Iraq? If so what? The answer is pretty clearly no. They have no end game. There is no exit strategy. The Bush/McCain/Petraeus/Crocker plan is simply to stay and to stay a very very long time in the hopes that things slowly get better.

Crocker and Petraeus - Thread 2 Posted by The Editors

11:09 (Max) No one, not Crocker or Petraeus can describe what success looks like. When asked by Levin, if all went well what would be an optimistic projection of U.S. troops levels at the end of 2008. Petraeus refuses to answer, saying he can’t know. So he won’t make projections of what success will look like. But both Crocker and Petraeus have absolutely no qualms about projecting the future if we withdrawal from Iraq. This to me is ridiculous. What is the plan for "victory"? What are the projections? They should have to answer those questions, especially when asking for a blank check.

10:59 (Max) - Kennedy points to the circular logic of staying - when violence is up we can’t leave and when its down we can’t leave.

10:52 (Ilan) - Did McCain just confuse Shi'a and Sunni?  Again.  Not sure.  Need to take a look at the video, but seriously?

10:47 (Ilan) - Not giving estimates.  Petraeus refuses to give an estimate on roughly how many troops we might have in November 2008.  This is part of the same pattern.  He, Crocker and the Administration can't predict anything.  It all depends on the situation on the ground.  The only single thing they can predict is that if we leave Iraq, Iran and Al Qaeda will take over and that the country will fall apart.  Why do they know this with such certainty, if they don't know anything else?  It's really intellectually dishonest.

10:38 (Max) - Both Crocker and Petraeus have played the regional meltdown genocide fear card... (via Kevin Drum) Gregory Gause in testimony points out that the scenarios that are noted are already in play and that wider regional war is unlikely:

The Iranians already have what they want in Iraq — substantial influence both with the Baghdad government and with major actors in border regions to the south and the north. The Turks do not want to occupy Iraqi Kurdistan or annex it. The Saudi army is hardly capable of serious cross-border operations. Foreigners will play in Iraqi politics as long as Iraq is weak and Iraqi parties seek foreign support. They are doing it now, with the American military there. They will continue to do it. But they do not appear to have the desire (in some cases, like Turkey and Iran) or the means (Saudi Arabia) to intervene in a direct, sustained military way that could lead to a wider regional war.

10:33 (Ilan)  Here’s what Crocker said on the Security Agreement.

“The agreement will not establish permanent bases in Iraq, and we anticipate that it will expressly foreswear them. The agreement will not specify troop levels, and it will not tie the hands of the next Administration. Our aim is to ensure that the next President arrives in office with a stable foundation upon which to base policy decisions, and that is precisely what this agreement will do. Congress will remain fully informed as these negotiations proceed in the coming weeks and months.” 

Here’s what he didn’t say:  “The agreement will not offer any security guarantees to the Iraqis.”  Someone has to ask him about that.  This is a crucial question.

Crocker and Petraeus hearing - Thread 1 Posted by The Editors

This is Max and Ilan blogging together.

10:28 (Ilan) -     I gotta say.  Crocker is much more of a spin man then Petraeus

National Level politics– Crocker has a very rosy picture of Iraq’s politics.  He cites some pieces of legislation such as the De’Baathification law and provincial elections.  But what about the implementation? The de’Batthification law may have actually put more people out then brought people into the government.  He also argues that the Parliament has become a civil place, but still have trouble even getting a quorum and large segments are still boycotting the Cabinet. 

Basra -  Crocker is really spinning this hard saying that Basra was progress for the Iraqis.  We’ve already been through this.

10:23 (Max) - Crocker pushes for status of forces agreement in attempt to keep U.S. forces in Iraq indefinitely. Says the agreement will not tie the hands of next President or dictate troop levels. But by committing the United States to Iraq you are tying the hands of the next administration. If you are not, what then is the point of such an agreement and why bring it up if it is so meaningless?

10:17 (Max) - It is as if all of this testimony was written last month when everything was rosy. Crocker is putting even more of an optimistic spin then Petraeus - saying that the Iraqi flag is flying everywhere around the country and that political leaders are ready to work together, and every Iraq politician is happy in the green zone.

 

10:12 (Max) - Petraeus decides to promote himself to CENTCOM  commander now that Fallon is gone. He starts talking about the general strategic implications of leaving Iraq. I'm sorry General that is not your job. Someone should ask him Ilan's question "In your conversations with President Bush has he ever asked for your advice regarding the broader strategic questions surrounding Iraq (The strain on our military, attention away from Afghanistan, empowering Iran, etc...)? If so, what advice did you give him?"

 

10:09 (Ilan) -The blame Iran game begins.  Petraeus puts the emphasis on the violence in the last two weeks on the “Special Groups” that are being trained by Iran.  But it’s not clear which groups that fought in Basra were “special groups” and which were part of the Mahdi Army.  If the Sadr ceasfire ends the “special groups” will be the least of our problems.  As Max points out, the problem with Petraeus’s testimony thus far has been the emphasis; Blame Iran for the worst things that are happening;  Talk about the advances against Al Qaeda in Iraq; but spend little time on the most important question -  sectarian violence and tensions in the country.

10:01 (Max) - Petraeus started out talking about how the big challenge remains sectarian division and lays out pretty clearly the challenges. But then the meat of testimony is all about AQI and what our military is doing to combat them. This is no doubt important, but is peripheral to the challenges of the Shia v. Sunni sectarian divide. The key point is that there are no American military solutions to that problem, the key problem.

9:53 (Max) - McCain talks about "achieving our goals in Iraq" but he never tells us what those goals are. Talks about success but never defines it. Someone needs to ask McCain to define "success" and "victory."

9:52 (Ilan)  - So more important then anything going on in Washington today is the fact that Sadr now looks to be threatening to call off the ceasefire.

9:47 (Max) - McCain fear-mongering about what may come... Iraq could descend into civil war, Iran could have influence, Iraq could become a failed state...Senator all of these things have already happened. Take off the rose colored glasses.

9:44 (Max) - McCain keeps pushing the view that civil war did not happen in Iraq... umm why are there mass graves all around Iraq then? Iraq was and is in civil war - levels of violence fluctuate in civil war.

9:41 (Ilan) - Levin is going towards the Iraqi Dependency argument.  I agree Iraqis have to step up and take responsibility, but as I said earlier I would have liked it if he started by framing Iraq in the broader strategic challenges we faced.  Opponents of the war have to consistently emphasize this frame. 

9:35 (Max) - Levin hits on the problems of Iraqi dependency on the U.S. right off the bat

9:30 (Ilan) - And away we go

Pre-Testimony Thread Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

So,

Max and I will be liveblogging the testimony here all day.  So will Spencer Ackerman over at the Washington Independent and the Iraq Insider. 

Here are some things to watch for as we get rolling.

1.  The ultimate question.  Is Iraq Making America Safer?  Senator Warner asked General Petraeus this question back in the fall and got a wholly unsatisfactory answer.  It was probably the most dramatic moment of the hearing.  He's signaled that he plans to ask the question again, and I expect other Senators to also go in this direction.  The candidates who are running on the "Responsible Plan" have also put out some interesting questions as has Mother Jones.

2.  On a related note Democrats are going to try to make this hearing about the broader costs to our national security and whether the Iraq War is making us safer.  Petraeus and Crocker will try to avoid these questions saying it's outside their duties, but as I've said before if the President is going to bypass more senior advisors and take your advice directly, you should be thinking about broader strategic questions.

3.  As Spencer Ackerman points out, what violence numbers is the General going to show?  Few people actually realize that the real dramatic drop in violence came after the testimony in September but that Petraeus still used the states from the one to two weeks before the hearing to make his point.  According to those same measures, the situation today would have to be considered deteriorating.

4.  All eyes on Crocker.  The real question is political reconciliation and the primary focus should be in Crocker.  But I doubt that will actually be the case.

5.  What r