Grilling Petraeus
Page 2 of 2
|
|
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?
David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington, D.C., bureau chief.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You said "grilling corn"
--Beavis
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?
You pretty much nailed it too.
Le-git-i-mate (adj) Someone who agrees with me. See il-le-git-i-mate (adJ) Everyone else.
Democrats suck. They are an embarassment to the nation.
Q: "Why did Iran help broker the cease-fire with the Mahdi Army?"
A: Because the Mahdi Army was getting its a$$ kicked by the Iraqi Army and Iran didn't want to watch the proxy force into which they've invested so much time and money get totally wiped out!
Next question, please?
Q: "Why did Iran help broker the cease-fire with the Mahdi Army?"
A: Because the Mahdi Army was getting its a$$ 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.
(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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
More poor reporting and analysis on the part of the mainstream media.
Why should we trust you?
But you get it, I am a LIBERAL and proud of it.
"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?"
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.
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
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.
OK make it 5 years....
How many Iraqis were killed in each of the last three years? OK make it last 5 years?
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=/20 080313/NATION/442198655/1001
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?
-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?
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.
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..
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-iraq.html
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?
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.
"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
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.