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.
A former intelligence analyst who handled Middle Eastern issues for years and who asked not to be identified by name:
—What is your candid assessment of the chances that the Maliki-led regime can survive without Sadr's backing and having failed to convince both the U.S. and Iran that it has the capability to govern?
—What do you make of Sadr's cease-fires? And are the positive remarks you and other Americans have made whenever Sadr shows signs of cooperating truly justified?
—What does the most recent Iranian intervention—the commandant of the al-Qods Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard intervening and getting Sadr to sign another cease-fire—say about Iran's role in Iraq and its ability to orchestrate events?
—How do you assess the military capabilities of the Iraqi forces used in the Basra campaign? Who were they, and are the stories of defections of these troops to the other side true?
Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell:
—As a military man with some strategic acumen, you must realize how badly positioned the U.S. military is to protect and secure America's fundamental strategic interests in the Middle East, interests such as the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, the security of Israel, relationships with Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Cooperation Council [of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates], and the real fight against Al Qaeda, which is largely in Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan, not Iraq. How much concern does this malpositioning risk give you? And how swiftly do you believe the U.S. must move to correct it?
—Clearly, the U.S. destroyed the old balance of power in the Persian Gulf when it invaded Iraq, so that now the U.S. presence in Iraq sits, as it were, upon the scales, balancing Iran. Since it is inevitable that the U.S. presence in Iraq will be diminished over time, how would you reestablish the balance of power in the wake of that diminishment? —
Gordon Adams, professor of U.S. Foreign Policy at the School of International Service, American University:
—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?
Retired Colonel W. Patrick Lang Jr., former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency's human intelligence service:
—Why has Colonel H.R. McMaster not been promoted to brigadier general? McMaster is arguably the most successful officer of the war. His command of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment at Tal Afar was brilliant. But he was not promoted, while the usual conformist dullards rise to the top. The failure to promote McMaster shows the Army has learned little from Iraq. After all, you were president of the promotion board that should have promoted McMaster.
—Why did the Iraqis go to Qom for mediation of the recent crisis at Basra?
A former Army colonel and planner who asked not to be identified:
—In Field Manual 3-24, Counterinsurgency, you wrote that forces that learn counterinsurgency effectively have regularly challenged their assumptions, both informally and formally. What assumptions did you make in the course of planning for surge and postsurge operations and how have you challenged them?
—You wrote that long-term success in counterinsurgency depends on the people taking charge of their own affairs and the government eliminating as many causes of the insurgency as feasible. So then how are the latest Iraqi government operations in Basra and Baghdad—which target Sadr's competing militia, which is associated with a political party—eliminating the causes of an insurgency, especially when you've said that Al Qaeda in Iraq is enemy No. 1? If the Baghdad government has to use force against a competing power center, isn't this evidence of a nascent civil war?
—In Rick Atkinson's account of the invasion of Iraq, In the Company of Soldiers, you are depicted as constantly asking Atkinson, "Tell me how this ends." After five years of war, do you have any better idea of how this all ends?
My question would be, "Did Admiral Fallon really call you 'an ass-kissing little chicken [deleted]'?"
Paul From Canada – No one knows for sure but based on UN, State Department and Human Rights Watch estimates, Saddam killed about 50,000 people per year (and created an average of about 4 times that number of refugees per year). More if you factor in UNICEF’s estimate that suggests his refusal to adhere to UN sanctions or to distribute relief supplies increased infant and child mortality to the range of another 500,000 deaths (I believe that covers about 12 years or another 40,000 deaths per year.
On the other hand, Iraq Body Count claims about 90,000 civilian deaths since we ended Saddam’s reign – they do not, however, separate civilian deaths caused by militias and other criminal or terrorist organizations. Regardless, it is reasonable to surmise that regime change in Iraq has saved somewhere between 160,000 and 400,000 lives. Glad you asked.
Virgil - would this be the Admiral Fallon you refer to?
“Current and former military officials welcomed the resignation of Navy Adm. William J. Fallon, the top U.S. military commander in the Middle East, saying he failed to prevent foreign fighters and munitions from entering Iraq.” http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080313/NATIO...
More Questions for General Petraeus:
PEACE PROPOSAL
1. Would you endorse House candidate Darcy Burner's 'Responsible Plan to End the War in
Iraq?' Why or why not?
2. What is your most likely scenario if we promptly withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq?
3. What is your most likely scenario if we maintain a massive U.S. occupation in Iraq indefinitely?
OBJECTIVES
1. How would you summarize our overarching foreign policy objectives of the war in Iraq? How
do you explain what we're fighting for?
2. Do you personally believe that terrorists will strike us here at home if we leave Iraq without a
decisive victory? If so, exactly what would we have to achieve militarily in Iraq to decisively
prevent terrorists from striking again on U.S. shores?
3. Why should we be so much more obsessively concerned about preempting terrorists based in
Iraq, versus preempting terrorists based anywhere else?
4. How does the U.S. occupation of Iraq prevent potential terrorists from purchasing airline
tickets, box cutters, and flight lessons?
5. How many troops does the U.S. presently have in Iraq? What is the estimated troop strength
of the foreign Islamist fighters that we're fighting in Iraq? What was their estimated troop strength
a year ago?
6. What is the U.S. monthly expenditure to support the occupation of Iraq? What is the estimated
monthly expenditure by our enemy in Iraq?
7. In your opinion, is stabilizing Iraq our most urgent strategic mission for the U.S. military? Why
or why not? Can you offer an example of what you might consider a higher priority mission
anywhere else in the world?
8. What benefits can the U.S. taxpayer expect to realize from the billions that we will spend this
month in Iraq? Will it lower U.S. gas prices? Will it prevent a terrorist attack in the U.S.? Will it
enhance U.S. energy independence? Will it win hearts and minds in Iraq and the surrounding
area? Will it improve the situation for Iraqi refugees? Will it create more employment for Iraqis?
9. How would you make a rational and well-informed cost/benefit analysis of continuing the
occupation of Iraq, versus pulling the plug?
10. How would you describe, recognize, and measure victory in Iraq? What sort of metric should
we be using here at home to figure out if we're winning or losing the war in Iraq? Should it be
based solely on the President's say-so? Is it possible to find a more objective yardstick for
victory?
11. Does U.S. access to Iraqi oil factor into our definition of victory? If so, how?
12. Does the status of Iraqi refugees factor into our definition of victory? If so, how?
RATIONALE
1. The Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq was based on the premise that Iraq posed a
"continuing threat" to our national security. Is that still a valid premise for our use of military force
in Iraq? If the AUMF is grossly outdated and inaccurate, what is our legal basis for occupying
Iraq?
2. Is the war in Iraq still a preemptive strike to neutralize Iraqi WMD's? If there are no WMD's,
what is our legal basis for occupying Iraq?
3. Given that the AUMF was based on false information and hysteria about alleged Iraqi WMD's,
should it be updated to reflect a more factual, current, and legitimate rationale for keeping U.S.
forces in Iraq? What would be a more factual and legitimate rationale?
4. A loophole in the AUMF gives the President carte blanche to prolong the war indefinitely as
long as he perceives a terrorist threat. Is the threat of terrorists in Iraq so severe that the
President really needs to have such sweeping powers to maintain the occupation? Would our
national security be grossly jeopardized if authorization for the occupation had to be renewed by
Congress on a semi-annual basis?
5. Given that our objective is to build a democracy in Iraq, what assurances can we offer the Iraqi
people that their national sovereignty will be fully restored to pre-invasion levels?
6. If our objective is to build a democracy in Iraq, wouldn't it be much more democratic to give the
Iraqi government full authority to approve or deny the presence of U.S. troops and bases in Iraq?
7. In the summer of 2007, President Bush and Secretary Rice both stated that U.S. troops are in
Iraq 'by invitation of the Iraqi people.' Have you ever seen documented evidence of any such
invitation? What was the date and circumstance of the alleged invitation? Which Iraqi people
made the alleged invitation?
LEGALITY
1. Under what conditions would it be acceptable for a foreign power to initiate a preemptive strike
against the U.S.? How would you differentiate a preemptive strike from a war of aggression?
2. Does the UN Charter differentiate between a preemptive strike and a war of aggression? Is a
preemptive strike any less unlawful than a war of aggression?
3. Given that the U.S. attacked Iraq without provocation, was the invasion of Iraq a violation of
the UN Charter? What steps have since been taken to ensure that the occupation is in
compliance with the UN Charter? What further steps, if any, should be taken to ensure
compliance?
4. If the invasion of Iraq was a violation of the UN Charter, and given that the UN Charter is part
of U.S. law, does the invasion of Iraq constitute an impeachable offense by the President and
Vice President?
5. Given that U.S. troops violated the Geneva Conventions at Abu Ghraib, what steps have since
been taken to ensure U.S. compliance with the Geneva Conventions? Was Abu Ghraib an
impeachable offense by the President and Vice President?
6. Was rejection of the Geneva Conventions in the early years of the Iraq war an impeachable
offense by the President and Vice President?
7. Has the U.S. used cluster bombs or other mining techniques in Iraq and, if so, what steps have
been taken to ensure compliance with treaties that prohibit leaving a battlefield permanently
uninhabitable or unusable?
8. In your opinion, has the Bush Administration committed acts that should be investigated as
possible war crimes in its conduct of the war in Iraq? If so, what are the most serious ones?
9. Have you personally witnessed orders, statements, or actions by President Bush or Vice
President Cheney that would qualify as high crimes or misdemeanors that Congress would be
compelled to investigate? If so, can you elaborate?
OIL
1. Do Russia, China, and France hold Iraqi oil production contracts and, if so, are these contracts
currently in force with the Maliki government?
2. Do any U.S. interests have Iraqi oil contracts of a magnitude comparable to those of our major
oil rivals?
3. Will our oil rivals, Russia, China, and France, benefit from our sacrifice to stabilize Iraq, despite
their absence from that struggle? Why should we finance their security as well as our own?
4. Is it in our best strategic interest to foot the bill to stabilize Iraq for benefit of our major oil
rivals? Are we shooting ourselves in the foot by depleting our military resources and donating so
much blood and treasure for benefit of our oil rivals?
5. Is it in our best strategic interest to spend much more on enabling and defending long-term
U.S. dependence and access to Iraqi oil than we spend on developing more sustainable
alternative energy sources and practices here at home?
all those medals and citations look ri-dick u lous....has this guy seen compat
Two more questions:
-Why has it taken so long to "train" an Iraqi army, much of which was already well trained?
-If our goal is an Iraq that can defend itself, why are we not training an Iraqi Air Force and Navy?
Mc Cain 1 trillion USD war madness
In 2003, when the war in Iraq a scientist said the war will cost more then 300 billion USD in total. The Republicans said that this was impossible.
Now in 2008, the cost of the war in Iraq is wide over 300 billion USD. Mc Cain will rise the cost of the war in Iraq with new costs and these new costs added to the already made costs, will make TOTAL costs up to 1 trillion USD in the future : Mc Cain says we will stay in Iraq and if needed for ever. The 1 trillion USD costs in the future will be very heavy financial burden for the US economy and the budget of the federal government. This constant rise in the cost of the war in Iraq will make possible bankruptcy of the federal government. Possible, not certain, but no longer a fiction.
ONLY HILLARY CLINTON has the strength and the credibility to stop the Mc Cain war madness.
Roman Empire and the USA :
Remember : 1 500 years ago the Roman Empire collapsed because the economy could no longer support the financial burden of the military expenses.
Sorry the argument that Petraeus was handed this is false. Committing acts counter to the Geneva Conventions is a war crime and invoking ORDERS was deemed a non defense. The invasion the occupation and all deaths anything you can think of resulting from said acts is a WAR CRIME for the conventions were ratified by the senate(making them the LAW OF THE LAND) and were to a great extent promulgated by US. This is called the rule of law, and as if one is wronged and in court the act is traced back to a past player or insurance sources blame is them applied and justice meted out to the offender, tracing it to the C in C would be in "now" vernacular PRICELESS
When has the US Military won a war lately against a determined Guerrilla army that was not fought in open territory in the desert where planes and tanks could be used (desert storm)
They have not won a war fought in mountainous territory(Korea), Jungle (Vietnam) or In populated cities against guerilla warfare which is at home in these areas (Iraq)..
How many people have to die before the government admits they made a mistake..The vietnam war went on for years before the people made them stop it..
Tome the best way to support our troops is to bring them home from Iraq and Afganistan..
WHY FEAR WITHDRAWAL?
It is time to give Iraqis their nation back before too few are left to remember that most Shiite, Sunni or Kurd Iraqis described themselves as Iraqis above all else and religious or sectarian group members second…..
http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-fear-withdrawal-from-ira...
I cannot help but read most anything about Iraq that doesn't sound like simple insanity. While I would like to hear Gen. Patraeus questioned closely, I have to admit that all of this seems like so many questions while standing inside of a blender set to puree. After all this time I have no clue as to what the U.S. "objective" is. I don't ever recall being told what the "objective" is. So, how could I possibly evaluate whether all of the murder, mayhem and destruction some how leads to "our objective?" As far as I can tell, we are not fighting terrorists in Iraq. We are fighting Iraqis. I have no use for discussions of any future strategy other than to pack up and leave that country to themselves- hopefully making some reparations down the road. Even here in Mother Jones, I've never seen a simple, straight forward explanation of "our objective", or put another way, what were we doing there to begin with, given that all of the administration's reasons were lies? Is this too much to ask? I beg for an answer.
WOW..............VolForPolAdv! You win the prize for the most intelligent set of questions put forth to this point! All of your questions are thoughtful and legitimate. They should be faxed off to the comittee that is questioning the General. Each and every one of them should be put forth and demanded to be answered! Thank you for taking the time to add some intelligence to the debate. There is NO left & right............just right & wrong!
I'm deeply disturbed by this story and I think the truth should be flushed out!
New Details On Col. Ted Westhusing's Murder In Iraq
More details emerge on Col. Ted Westhusing's "suiciding" in Iraq. ... U.S. Army cover-up of Colonel Westhusing's death: Highlighted by fabricated evidence ...
Please ask his BOSS, Gen Petraeus if he thought Col Westhusing committed suicide or he was murdered?
there's no reason to keep troops in germany and using that as rationale for keeping them in iraq is a no-brainer.
Robert Wexler has asked for us to submit questions to ask Petraeus. So, Pick your favorite and send it along to him: contact@wexlerforcongress.com
I would ask Gen. Petraeus:
Why is it taking so long to train the Iraq soldiers for independent combat?
True event: I was an 18 year old urban youngster who was drafted into the US Army in 1966. At that time I had never touched nor fired a weapon in my life.
Within six months, I had completed my training and a 30 day leave. I was in the infantry standing armed in the active field of the war zone. The opposition was the well armed and trained army of North Viet-Nam and the guerrilla force, Viet Cong. This was done in less than six months with a city kid.
Again, What's taking so long for the Iraq army to be trained and assume their responsibility for their own country.
Why not allow the Iraqi's to vote on our continued presence in their country?
Will congress have other military experts to "balance" the testimony of Petraeus and Crocker? Not that I don't trust them, mind you....
Why were no women asked to give questions here ? (yes, I'm presuming for the people unnamed, but probably accurately so). Surprised and disgusted am I by such. What were you scared of MJ?
I wouldn't. I would help that person use their patriotismto help and love their country for real, certainly not to engage in such horrible clap trap as this--or any other--war. Do remember that more US citizen who became soldiers have dies from suicide after that from the war itself, if I remember my statistics of this year correctly. Says what it says. A patriotic person has much better and realer to do with their time than killing and torturing others and their selves, and destroying their deepest capacity to create, trust and dream into being solutions and life sustaining future.
How come no one asked WHY? we are in Iraq. I real reason is to steal oil and kill our troops to reduce the population. I know WHY? but America is still asleep, they lose their children and think it is for Democracy when in fact is for robbery and death!
Here's what I'd like to see asked:
"It has been reported that after President Bush' trip to Saudi Arabia, the Saudi government immediately felt it necessary to educate its populace to protect themselves against nuclear fallout. President Bush has removed General ?, who said 'there will never be an attack on Iran on my watch,' It now seems that the unthinkable might happen. Even with 80% of the American people polling that they think America is going in the wrong direction, all we get is a 'so what' from Vice President Cheney. What I want to know is: "Is there a segment of our armed forces which is prepared to attack Iran, insane as it sounds and against the wishes of the American people, should President Bush order them to do so?? And, do you include youself amongst those officers who will further destroy our beautiful country with a 'just following orders' mentality, or does your conscience and what you also owe to the American people make you think that now is the time to publicly denounce such a move and to declare your unwillingness to follow such an order???
Please feel free to edit
Jim
Public school teacher of 37 yrs
I have always considered General Petraeus to be the "best of the best" but why doesn't he resign -- as Colin Powell should have done -- when he recognized this fiasco for what it is?
as we can see the questions by the experts deal solely with peripheral issues and tactical wins/losses. all of them avoid fundamentals. what can be more basic than to ask whoever governs US why has US invaded yet another country? and when i use the word "why" i'm talking about causative factors for the invasion. none has been proffered. and the avoidance has own causative factors. and the second avoidance of avoidance also is caused. as one can see from this analyses, a politico, a general has in her bag an endless number of skirts: mini, maxi, and medium. it's no wonder that most people give up listening or talking to them. i have.
General: was this surge to Iraq, a two meaning response, like having more throops ready to invade Iran? Also, do you believe if Iran does come up with a Nuke Bomb that they would risk commiting suicide using it against any one ?
A rather impressive hard hitting group of questions, focused on military and practical solutions. I see no bias in these questions, and in fact, these could have been, and should have been asked by either Republicans or Democrats during the recent hearings.
I hope these questions will be sent to each Congress member sitting on the hearings. Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq: when will they ever learn (as the song says)? An ignorant President does not a good warrior make. Imagine if for last 8 years the coneheads in Washington had spent 12 billion dollars a month on establishing a real universal healthcare system, fighting poverty and providing means of education to every child in America... Look at the mess they have put the Western world in! And they lied to us all this time. The Bush regimes have killed democracy in the US... what a shame...
To VolForPolAdv:
It is absurd to pose your questions to Gen Petraeus. He is not in a political position to take such actions nor render opinions contrary to Bush without being fired immediately. Our gutless Copngress should be demanding answers of Bush.
Learn how Congress works. While a majority is sufficient in the House, in the Sneate you need 60 votes to prevent a filabuster and bring a bill to vote on the floor, so a simple majority in the Senate is not enough. That's why you should help the Democrats win the Senate this year.
Oh, sure! What a great guy--like the Nazis, who were only following orders. And how does someone end up in his sort of position anyway? As far as singling him out, he needs to feel the heat BECAUSE he is so close to the Administration, which appears otherwise impervious to most of our demands. We need to include Patraeus because we need all the help we can get. This isn't a matter of saying, "Oh, the poor man." He ain't poor! (He's just a soldier following orders.) But he's also at the top and RESPONSIBLE. That's the flip side of having authority. Sorry, but I'm unmoved.
What is with all these
What is with all these gutless wonders submitting anonymous questions.
tiffany jewelry
-
tagged as:
- result
That little blue box - everyone woman dreams of seeing it come their way. tiffany jewelry jewelry is world renowned for its stunning quality and top of the line artisanship; however, it also has a reputation for having a price tag that is way out of most people's leagues.
discount tiffany jewelry That doesn't mean you can't get that Tiffany look you want at a price you can afford, however. Thanks to replica Tiffany jewelry, you can look like you are draped in Tiffany jewelry, and yet still have the money left in your pocket to go out and show off your looks.
