Grilling Petraeus
We asked a dozen national security experts what Congress should ask the top military commander in Iraq at this week's hearings. Here's what they came up with.
His return is scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday, when he will testify before the armed services and foreign affairs committees of the Senate and the House. In recent weeks, the purported success of the surge strategy has been called into question, due to the rise of sectarian fighting with the Mahdi militia of Moqtada al-Sadr (an army also known as JAM) clashing with the Iraqi military. Before those battles occurred, Petraeus himself noted that the overall decline in violence (which in late 2007 dipped to 2005 levels) had not been accompanied by success on the political front: "No one feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation." And on Tuesday, senior Army and Marines Corps leaders told Congress that the surge of troops in Iraq has placed unsustainable stress on the U.S. military and rendered it less able to handle other conflicts. Yet Petraeus is not expected to provide Congress with testimony that will inconvenience the Bush administration or undermine its arguments for staying the course in Iraq. And there's no telling if members of Congress—including Democrats—will give Petraeus a more thorough grilling than he received in September, given that most members of Congress appear to have concluded that the House and the Senate cannot do much to slow or reverse Bush's war in Iraq.
So I asked various national security experts to provide questions that they would like to see posed to Petraeus. Here's what they want to know.
Andrew Bacevich, professor of history and international relations at Boston University:
—Many credit the "surge" with reducing the level of violence in Iraq. Yet violence continues and over the past several months has leveled out. How will you reduce violence to levels that are acceptable? What is the definition of "acceptable" in this context?
—You have written of counterinsurgency as an enterprise that typically takes 10 to 12 years to complete. Where do we stand today on that timeline? The war is now more than five years old. Are we halfway to accomplishing our mission? Or did the 10-to-12-year "clock" only begin when you took command and began to implement the army's revised counterinsurgency doctrine?
Larry Johnson, former CIA and State Department intelligence official:
—How many Iraqi army divisions are capable of conducting unilateral operations?
—Of those units, what is their ethnic (i.e. tribal) and sectarian composition? In other words, do we have mixed Sunni-Shiite units, or are we creating glorified tribal militias?
—Given that groups headed by people such as Abdul Aziz al-Hakim [leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq] are very closely tied to Iran and considered allies of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, what is the evidence that Iran is trying to destabilize a government filled by people who are sympathetic to Tehran?
Wayne White, head of the State Department's Iraq intelligence team 2003 to 2005 and an adviser to the Iraq Study Group:
—Regarding the JAM-related debacle in March, could the pitter-patter of relatively limited U.S. (and Iraqi government) attacks against some of Sadr's leaders and JAM cadres during a period in which so many of them were observing a ceasefire not only have had little impact on the JAM's overall capabilities, but also have constituted a provocation that increased the level of militancy (even a desire for revenge) among many of its fighters? Did this expand the JAM's popular base?
—With Hakim seemingly playing ball with Washington, Maliki doing likewise, and the Concerned Local Citizens [program] taking most Sunni Arab insurgents off the playing field, have many Shiites come to regard Sadr's organization as the only nationalist and anti-American force left standing? If so, what can—or should—be done about that?
Juan Cole, professor of history at University of Michigan:
—General Petraeus, you have done what you can do militarily. It’s unclear that more can be done on that front, and yet there is still a fair amount of violence. The question is, what now? This is not facetious.
Sam Gardiner, retired Air Force colonel and expert on military strategy:
—Why did Iran help broker the cease-fire with the Mahdi Army?
A research professor at a military institute who asked not to be named:
—The Sunni Muslim Awakening groups now have between 80,000 and 100,000 members, according to press reports. These groups are slated to be reduced to 20,000 or 25,000 as the crisis in western Iraq becomes more manageable. What is the likelihood that these groups will accept a 75 percent demobilization even if noncombat jobs are found for them? Is it possible that they will see a pressing need to remain under arms to protect their home communities from a Shiite-dominated government? What would be the consequences if these groups remain in existence at the current level? If they are a short-term solution to the Al Qaeda in Iraq problem, might they also be a long-term building block for an Iraqi civil war?
—There is considerable fear that a residual Al Qaeda presence in western Iraq would lead to a terrorism campaign against neighboring countries. Yet when Al Qaeda mounted the November 2005 Jordanian hotel bombings, this led to a massive backlash and collapse of already limited Jordanian and Palestinian public sympathy for Al Qaeda, according to all relevant polling. Does this situation suggest that the danger of terrorism against other regional states is not as great as originally believed since it can lead to counterproductive results for Al Qaeda?
David Isenberg, military affairs analyst and adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute:
—What role do you see for both private military and security contractors in Iraq in the future?
—The surge was supposed to provide space for political reconciliation. What does the recent fighting in Basra and Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq say about the supposed success of the surge?
—What are the likely average monthly costs for the Iraq war? Will they reach a predicted peak level of $12 billion a month?
—Would you advocate a long-term presence of U.S. troops in Iraq? If so, under which of the following scenarios? A combat scenario: approximately 55,000 military personnel in Iraq, operating at the same pace and conducting the same types of missions as the forces currently deployed there? Or a noncombat scenario: approximately 55,000 military personnel indefinitely stationed there in a manner similar to the current practice in Korea or Germany, with the troops rarely, if ever, engaged in combat operations?
Page 1 of 2 
GREAT questions!
Now if only someone will read this and ask those questions.
Petraeus might be able to wiggle out of one or two but the questions above are the right ones to ask. We deserve a few answers.
What can we do to bring these questions into the spotlight? Any bloggers out there want to promote this idea?
General Petraeus is under the command of his Commander in Chief. The General was handed a mess that NONE of your armchair military experts would even attempt to correct.
Please -- lay off the General. Go after Tenet, Rumsfeld, Bush and the -- to lazy to read the briefing -- Senators and Representatives who are the ones responsible for this disaster. No one in the General's position would or could have done any better PERIOD.
First of all, if you just take a quick look at the people who wrote those questions, a great many of them are actual military veterans with long years of service. Others are intelligence officials. These aren't armchair experts.
Second, while I agree that GEN Patreaus was handed a mess and has done the best he can, the fact remains that someone needs to be asked the hard questions. It is the right and the duty of the Congress to get the candid truth about the situation in Iraq. That much is owed to the American people. If it becomes clear that we have far to go in Iraq, then we have that to take to the commander in chief. The President has consistently said he listens to his commanders on the ground. If his commander on the ground says there are problems, then we can pin that on the C in C. Otherwise he will dodge the question as he as always done.
Sadly, the Bush Cartel won't ever stop babbling their phony lines about bringing Democracy to the Middle East, and General David Petraeus is their poster boy for disinformation! What's really terrible is John "Wayne" McCain will skate into the oval office and immediately start with Dick Cheney's attack Iran plan. American voters are not engaged in what is happening to them, and mostly they don't seem to care much about anything othe than the price of a gallon of gasoline. 8 out of 10 still don't know who the Vice President of the US is. Many guess its that guy named Rumsfeld.
Corn, you must be joking. Why on earth would half these idiots refuse to give their names if their questions weren't nothing more than typical left-wing garbage.
Another national embarresment of democratic congressmen who were used by Sadaam for photo ops in Bagdad calling an esteemed General a liar in public. Hell if I was a terrorist i'd just wait it out because the democrats in congress and the US media do their propaganda work for them. Shameful.
Here's a question for you David Cornhole - will you ever be brought up on charges for outing Valerie Plame? I guess it's not outing if you were on orders from her husband.
General,
When can we leave? Our job is done, please provide a timetable for a possible withdrawal. A contingency that should obviously already be available, one that the next President should have on his desk on Day One.
One of the two possible Presidents next years wants out in 16 months. Not providing this contingency now is irresponsible.
uhhh huhhhh hhuhhh
You said "grilling corn"
--Beavis
Here's a question
Since democrats took control of both the house and senate in 2006(?) - they have the paower to stop this war today - immediately. Since they have not, does this mean:
(1) Its now THEIR war
(2) Perhaps democrats admit that America is not as "anti-war", "anti-Bush" - you pick, as some would hope?
Isnt it true - if "America" truly believed the demo's claptrap, the troops would have been home yesterday?
Given the usual content of Mother Jones, I am shocked at the legitimacy and value of the vast majority of these questions. Only a couple of yahoos in the bunch. Well done
From the RDD Revised Standard Liberal Dictionary
Le-git-i-mate (adj) Someone who agrees with me. See il-le-git-i-mate (adJ) Everyone else.
As a supporter of the war to this point, I welcome these questions and scoff at the left thinking these questions would challenge Patreus. The problem you have here is not that the tough questions haven't been asked, but that the far left doesn't listen to the answer. Even today, many on the left fail to ack that the surge has reduced violence, instead they keep shifting the ball, now its cost. So, I think most if not all of these questions are fair game, but I would expect that once Patreus answers them honestly and fairly, the left would still ignore the realities that coming home before the job is done would make todays Iraq look like a cake walk. The problem the left has had on this issue is everything has been prefaced by a political philosophy of pinning a loss on Bush, not a win for the country. If the dems would have been smarter, and not so invested in defeat, they could have thoughtfully designed/forced change more quickly.One seems to recall their support for the surge, prior to their rejection of it once Bush adopted it.
Looking at the evidence that history provides for the patterns associated with the birth and growth of democracies, I can only conclude that we have set out on an adventure in Iraq (to form a democracy) that was doomed from the beginning. Historically, democracies only develop after a broadly distributed economy has come into existence and after sources of concentrated power, be they political, economic, or religious, have been mutually neutralized. With those pre-requisites, broad tension becomes the mechanism that keeps things in balance. Whenever an economy is largely concentrated in one area (such as with the nationally held oil resources in Iraq) and whenever political power is linked to that concentrated resource, then too much power becomes available to those who win the battle for control. It may be that we made our decision to remove Saddam from Iraq without doing our homework . .. and it is likely that we never really intended to supplant a democracy there . . . but we should stop waiting for it to happen now, unless we think that religion is on our side and miracles are in the offing.
What would you say to convince a patriotic young American to volunteer to fight in Iraq today?
These are all great questions. Unfortunately, it's a cinch that congressional Democrats will use the opportunity instead to make partisan speeches and accuse Gen. Patraeus of being in the tank for President Bush and the GOP simply because he doesn't offer a message of doom & gloom that they can exploit for their own political gains.
Democrats suck. They are an embarassment to the nation.
Oh, and I couldn't let this one slip by ..
Q: "Why did Iran help broker the cease-fire with the Mahdi Army?"
A: Because the Mahdi Army was getting its a$$ kicked by the Iraqi Army and Iran didn't want to watch the proxy force into which they've invested so much time and money get totally wiped out!
Next question, please?
Folks, don't overlook the obvious -- and most important question: Gen. Petraeus, as you've acknowledged, without political reconciliation, there is no point to our military efforts. Do you agree that political reconciliation, after all this time, has been minimal, and why should we expect that to change enough to make our military efforts and sacrifices worthwhile?
Are these are all retired, anti-Bush names? How about some active duty leaders?
That should read "anti-Iraq" but it's the same thing today.
What is with all these gutless wonders submitting anonymous questions.
Specifically in response to Dan R.'s earlier post:
Q: "Why did Iran help broker the cease-fire with the Mahdi Army?"
A: Because the Mahdi Army was getting its a$$ kicked by the Iraqi Army and Iran didn't want to watch the proxy force into which they've invested so much time and money get totally wiped out!
With all due respect, I have to strongly disagree with Dan R's "answer" and his ready dismissal of the tremendous implications of Iran's role in brokering the recent ceasefire between the various Shiite factions in Iraq and the insights it offers.
While it is certainly true that Iran has supported Al-Sadr and his militia at some level- the greater truth is that Iran has hedged its bets and has essentially supported ALL the major Shiite political and militia factions in Iraq.
Al-Sadr and his followers are are probably the Shiite faction that Iran has supported LEAST- and also the faction that Iran has significantly less influence over because of the strong nationalistic (Pro-Iraq, Anti-Iran) bent of many Al-Sadr followers.
In fact I would pose the possibility that Dan R. got it completely backwards:
Iran helped broker the ceasefire, not to protect its minimal investment in Al Sadr and the Mahdi Army, but to protect its much much GREATER investment and influence in the MALIKI Government and the "Iraqi Army".
It was the Maliki government and "Iraqi Army" that was in serious danger of getting its ass kicked in Basra. And though we - the US - provided some belated support to the effort, it was not an venture we authorized or welcomed.
I am fairly certain that when it started to fall apart, Petraeus told Maliki in no uncertain terms that our troops were already over-extended and that US forces could not move on Basra in any meaningful way without jeopardizing the tenuous control we have asserted in other parts of Iraq.
Therefore, having gotten himself in the pickle, Maliki sent representatives to his other patron- IRAN- and sough assistance in brokering a ceasefire with Al-Sadr and his forces.
This is what most Americans have not readily comprehended:
The US and Iran are not currently picking different sides in the Iraq civil war - they are essentially backing the SAME side - the Maliki Government and its supporting coalition of certain Shiite factions. What is happening is the US and Iran are both waging an intense behind-the-scenes battle to influence and control the current governing Shiite Coalition that they BOTH have invested considerable time and $$$$ in. (Though Iran's investment has been near negligible compared to ours)
The dirty little secret is that sadly Iran is winning this behind-the-scenes battle, because they are playing the game way better than we are. Their influence over Maliki and the governing Shiite coalition is much stronger than ours at the moment and they clearly are winning this battle without having to make anywhere near the kind of sacrifice in blood and treasure that we are making in Iraq. And in truth -they would not have anywhere near the kind of influence and control in Iraq BUT FOR our presence there.
That is why Iran's role in brokering the recent ceasefire is so relevant and revealing -and why so many thoughtful people with knowledge of the region are posing some variant of this question Dan R. dismisses out of hand.
Frustration with this reality is also why there is so much saber rattling from this Administration against Iran.
Other questions prepared by Consumers for Peace (see website for full report) include:
(1) The use of attack helicopters and aerial bombing against individuals and buildings under circumstances where it is virtually impossible to ensure that the targets are combatants and that
use of the weapons will not kill and injure civilians. The devastating explosive force of the aerial weapons almost ensures that human targets will not only be killed but in many cases will be so pulverized or incinerated as not to be able to be buried or counted.
(2) Wholesale detention of Iraqi civilians without charge, a practice that has increased in 2007 – 2008 by both United States and Iraqi forces.
(3) The continuing avoidance by the United States of its responsibilities under humanitarian law to provide for the basic human needs of the Iraqi people.
These questions are all softballs. Not a single question even comes near the elephant in the room.
I would want to know what is the count of American bases and what percentage of expenditures go towards construction of bases. Yes great questions, hopefully they are being read by those who will be asking the questions.
Beau...Don't leave us hanging...What is the elephant in the roo?. Show us you've got some intelligence there guy/gal.
PacificaHarry:
How do you define a "win for the country"?
The reality is whether we leave Iraq today or in 100 years, the shia will slaughter the sunni-to the winner belong all the spoils!
I would say to a young american considering the option of joining the fight in Iraq, do your homework, see what history says about the chances for us to succeed in leaving Iraq with a democracy intact. . . and if the evidence from history shows the ingredients to be present, go for it. . . fight and die for what you believe to be possible.
Why is it we have to pay the Iraqis to
help stabilize a country that is theirs?
I mean I read where the U.S. has paid ex-militiamen fighting against the U.S.
forces previously and now, we pay them to fight by our soldier's side. I'll tell you this, I'm a Vietnam vet and I didn't trust the South Vietnamese army
fighting by my side. I think you know what I'm saying.
There is a very good reason why many of the questioners will not give their names. The Bush administration has proven so intolerant of dissenting opinion within the ranks that they have cashiered or even illegally attacked those who have dared speak up. General Shinseki? Forced to retire early for giving Congress an accurate assessment of troop strength required to hold down Iraq. General Taguba? Forced to the sidelines and then forced out when his investigation turned up illegal activity in the handling and interrogation of detainees. White House economic advisor Lawrence B. Lindsay? Sacked when he predicted the war could cost up to 200 billion dollars. And we all know what happened to Valerie Plame when her husband pointed out that part of the Bush administration's case for war was fraudulent. By the way, outing an undercover intelligence agent is an act of treason, especially in wartime. If you're going to tell the truth these days, you may be better off whispering it from the shadows.
Yet the administration continues to fill their mouths with assessments so ridiculous they stagger the imagination. Remember how "oil profits were going to pay for it all"? Or how about "the insurgency is in its last throes"? This was after, of course, they finally got around to admitting there was an insurgency.
Even military commanders on the ground are being very cautious about the results of the surge, often openly describing the situation as reversible and fragile. Some success. After five years we are holding on to a situation where the US Army and Marine Corps are exhausted, the costs of the war continue to increase with no sign of abatement, renumeration, or even cost leveling (thanks to Bush tax cuts) and the Iraqi Army is still so incompetent they got their asses handed to them by a bunch of rag-tag militia members.
US forces in Iraq are doing the work of heroes holding that place together, and General Petraeus is doing the best he can with what he's got. The problem is that the commander in chief handed him a pile of dog crap and told him to make chocolate cake. It ain't happening.
By the way, before any of you start calling me a clueless leftist and an armchair general, be advised I am a former Army officer who served twice in Iraq doing theater level intelligence, and I'm still employed by DoD as an intelligence analyst.
Skip all these questions. Retired LTGEN Odom has the answer, a unilateral withdrawal of ALL U.S. forces.
Not to knock the questions, but it's time for action, not more talk.
If you do anything today read Odom's statement to Congress. Then write your congressman and senator and demand they support Odom's recommendation.
I won't lay off the boy genius because deep down he knew this was a holding action, not a solution. And it cost us more blood and more treasure and produced zero permanent results.
It's also no secret he's a Republican with his eyes set on politics after he retires. My guess is he hoped his legacy in Iraq would propel him to the national scene. He guessed right but it certainly didn't confirm his genius.
Anyone who calls for withdrawal is a leftist? Get real. As a retired combat veteran I look to Generals Zinni, McPeak, and Odom for wisdom. Odom's statement to Congress yesterday makes a powerful argument for why it's time to unilaterally withdraw. Read it!
Wrong again. Iran is actually more closely allied with Maliki's political party and Hakim's. All Iraq's Sunni Arabs need to recapture power is for Shiites to have a civil war among themselves.
More poor reporting and analysis on the part of the mainstream media.
Ask Petraeus the same question Warner asked last year. Question: Does the Iraq war make us (the U.S.) safer? Answer: I don't know. If the answer is still NO, George W. Bush should be charged with treason and impeachment proceedings should begin.
General, recent polls show that 70% of Iraqis want the U.S. to leave and they want us to leave NOW!! They refer to the Iraqi government as "the traitor government". Why do you want to go against the will of the Iraqi people?
In a war that has lasted longer than WW2 and with far fewer Iraqis than Germans, Italians and Japanese. Why are we still in Iraq? Why, when the very explanations were made over 10 years ago, were they ignored by the Administration? The Pentagon were aware of these very reasons and had plans for these; so why was the Pentagon ignored?
Why should we trust you?
and if your president had any cahones, he would have had a draft.....
and Enron and Katrina and Trillion Dollar deficits and Bear Stearns and NO FAMILY JOBS added in the last 8 years...
Sorry about these comments, they do not follow the comments I wanted to respond to.
But you get it, I am a LIBERAL and proud of it.
It is time to leave, as in now. So what if the place burns down, actually, it already is. Have idiot boy declare victory and then we leave, end of story.
Dude, you are a moron. You said that half of the questions were anonymous. 12 people submitted questions. 3 declined to state their names. If your general intelligence is as poor as your math (and I believe it is), why should anyone listen to a frickin' word you say?
The question for General Petreus is this:
"General, you want to keep American troops in Iraq, even though almost all Iraqis want them to leave, and the respected U of MD PIPA poll a while back revealed that over 62% of Iraqis, clear majorities of both Sunnis and Shias, even favor the violent attacks killing our troops. Is there some higher percentage of Iraqis favoring the attacks killing our troops that would change your mind, or would you still want us to stay even if every last Iraqi was in favor of killing our troops?"
Petraeus should be asked about Col Ted Wersthusing and his complaints about his superiors at the time of his suicide---Petraeus and Fil.
Petraeus should be asked about Col Ted Westhusing and his complaints about his superiors at the time of his suicide---Petraeus and Fil.
Westhusing's mission under Petraeus was to help train Iraqi's and deal with the US contractors , many of whom are now under investigation for failing to do their job and wasting taxpayer dollars---and possibly killing people illegally.
Bo
You are a pinhead and an embarrasment to conservatives everywhere. My position is very similar to pacificaharry - please ask these questions of the general; he will kick your skimpy liberal asses with his answers. Read between the lines re: my comments about Mother Jones itself (I am SURPRISED at the legitimacy of many of the questions) and my subsequent support of Bob's post.
By the way, Whatsnotso, the correct answer to your question is that people who base their opinions on polling data are lacking both intellectual prowess and personal integrity. this goes double for anyone who thinks an opinion poll taken in a country recently run by thugs has any relationship with the real opinions of the people polled.
If is RRD not RDD, Pinhead
PS to Bo - you have every right to slam me for taunting you about a typo with a typo of my own - LOL at myself
for all the Odomites out there, Mcclellan was a well respected PEACETIME general too. good thing he was not allowed to continue to run the Federal army during the civil war.
How many people were killed by Sadam for each of the last three years of his gov.?
OK make it 5 years....
How many Iraqis were killed in each of the last three years? OK make it last 5 years?
