h-e-double toothpicks

Sen. Obama was strong in the Senate hearings today. Aside from the fact that he felt the need to spell A-S-S instead of saying the word, he spoke well. He didn’t rehash the same questions and blather that most of the panel put forth – he hit the main issue: at what point, or at which benchmarks, do you see the U.S. deciding to withdraw. I like Gen. Petraeus and his testimony (both days) as a whole has been straightforward. I don’t much care for the graphs and charts he presented because numbers can be wholly manufactured to fit any situation. The problem with what Petraeus faces is the limits on what he can or cannot do on a battlefield; affecting strategic thinking. In the greater view, the strategic planning (nation-building, withdrawal, more/less troops) is held strictly by the President and his administration. The tactical issues (Al Anbar, sectarian violence in neighborhoods, prosecuting foreign and insurgent fighters) fall directly to Petraeus. In the areas where he has enough troops due to the surge (Al Anbar) there may be some progress, such as “sitting on the [sectarian] fault lines”, as Petreaus testified. The general is doing the job he’s been tasked to accomplish but the fact is that the job (strategically) cannot be accomplished with troops. Both the ambassador and the general readily admit that the only way for Iraq, and this war, to succeed is via political rock breaking. And that’s the rub: he’s a military man doing a military man’s job well but fighting a futile mission. The greatest fault in the entire vignette is that Petraeus refuses to make any determination or estimate on how long it would take to complete his mission: securing the entire country in order to allow the political process to gain a foothold. As the author of the Army’s counterinsurgency manual he knows in his heart just how long and how many troops it would take to quell the violence and allow politics in Iraq to become a factor. If he can’t answer that question with any level of fidelity then we’re simply toiling down the same endless path. I disagree with him on this fact – providing an idea of a timeline wouldn’t be debilitating to U.S. force in Iraq.

The idea of having Ambassador Crocker present at the hearings was misinformed. His comments and strength of knowledge about the military affairs, which is the point of these hearings, were unhelpful. I know he can’t really do his job (strategic/political) until Petraeus can do his.

I think moveon.org needs to back off.

Here’s my suggestion for future House and Senate hearings. The chairperson can open the proceedings with the following:

“The entire committee, and our country, thanks you for being here and for your service to your country. Now that I’ve passed along those comments for the committee, and the American people, the next member that utters anything about thanks or service will be summarily kicked in the A-S-S.”

T.