Petraeus Hearings: The Turning Point
The Petraeus Hearings faced a critical turning point in a line of questioning from the well-respected Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia on whether the strategy in Iraq will “make America safer.” General Petraeus responded, “I don’t know,” followed by an honest appraisal of the limits of his authority in Iraq. As Spencer Ackerman notes, “This is the first time that any general officer, let alone the commanding general in Iraq, has ever equivocated on whether success in Iraq will contribute to U.S. security.” Petraeus may be limited in scope to dealing with Iraq and not the larger war on terror, but surely you’d think he would believe that the success of his mission would contribute to the betterment of American national security. A simple “Yes” would have been entirely predictable as Petraeus could easily reel off the latest Administration line on the centrality of Iraq to the War on Terror.
But that didn’t happen. Either Petraeus really isn’t confident in the long-term mission of Iraq – and I think that’s a real possibility as I generally think he’s a smarter and more honest man than some of his somewhat misleading slides suggest – or he’s slinking into the role of hyper-bureaucrat who never thinks about the larger mission. I doubt the latter is true. Note that Petraeus’ follow-up remarks indicate serious concern regarding the state of the military and ability to handle other threats. He clearly knows that, even if his plan is allowed to continue well into next year and he were to see substantial gains in security, the benefits for American national security are nebulous at best. This is a rather stunning admission.
I think this moment will prove to be a turning point in these hearings. Liberal bloggers have certainly picked up on its importance, from TPM Muckraker (cited above) to Daily Kos to Joe Sudbay at Americablog. Undoubtedly, the major news media will pick up on this exchange in the next day or two, especially as the White House tries to build off of the testimony.
The reason this exchange matters is because it cuts to the heart of why we are in Iraq. Nearly everybody agrees that any program of withdrawal will come with serious costs – especially for the Iraqi people (and the Sunnis in particular). But the debate over the future of Iraq does not take place in a vacuum. We must weigh the opportunity costs of staying in Iraq with those of leaving. If the commanding general in charge of the overall mission in Iraq has public doubts about whether the opportunity costs of staying are lower for American national security (not just for Iraqi security, which he is more unambiguous on) than they are for leaving, then it is high time for Senators and Representatives from both parties to start asking: what do we really gain from being there? On this anniversary of 9/11, the least we can do is ask whether or not the major policy action purportedly taken in response to the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon are, in fact, making America safer. General Petraeus’ testimony today casts major doubt on that critical score. I suspect we’ll hear more doubts from other erstwhile supporters of the war in the near future too.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
31 Responses to “Petraeus Hearings: The Turning Point”
I thought the Petraeus ‘I don’t know’ answer was exactly the right one. He was assigned a job and he is prforming within the confines of that assignment.
It’s not his job to assess or comment on the overall national policy or state of security All he can/should say is how well his job is going.
I thought he and Crocker both were trying hard to be honest. The message I got was one of a lot of hope, based on some, but small, actualities.
So, the question is: ” Is hope enough?”
.
[...] Report, Middle Earth Journal, The BRAD BLOG, Taylor Marsh, Sideways Mencken and AMERICAblog, The Moderate Voice, The Huffington Post, TPMmuckraker, Daily Kos, Rising Hegemon, Slog, Comments From Left Field and [...]
I think it was correct and honest too. And that’s why it was so telling. He has opened up the door for other doubters to ask “What is the strategic value of all this for our national security?” Sure, he isn’t the National Security Adviser. The question was a sort of throwaway line actually. I’d think anybody in Iraq, from the generals on down, would say that the success of the mission in Iraq would make America safer. That’s why we’re there. Right? This isn’t some deep theoretical analysis (of which Petraeus is amply capable). It’s a simple question of whether or not he thinks this mission – even if successful – will help make America safer. His refusal to give the Administration line gives lots of room for waverers to ask the same question.
Petraeus’ answer was appropriate because despite all the attacks on him as a partisan lackey of the administration, he has the integrity here to testify as a general and not politicize the issues at hand. His job is to run the mission to the best of his ability, not to question whether or not it’s the right mission.
But the response, instead of just giving credit where credit is due, seems to be to find an opening for a new line of attack on him. Note that he didn’t say (or even imply) that he doesn’t think that success in Iraq will make us safer- he basically just recused himself from answering that because it’s not his job to do so. But rather than take that at face value, this is used as an opening as though we can assume that he doesn’t even believe in the mission, as though that adds weight to the argument that he’s on a fool’s errand.
Actually, CS, he doesn’t just recuse himself from the question. He offers a few reasons why he’s unsure, including the overall state of the US military to handle other conflicts. That shows he’s not thinking simply as a follow-the-orders bureaucrat but as the smart, strategic thinker that he is. After all, his job in Iraq is partly to consider the overall readiness of the US military to handle this mission (something he acknowledges that went into his own consideration). So he’s able to think beyond the simple mission at hand. The words he used were “I haven’t had time to wrap my mind around it.” Again, that’s not the words of a man slinking from the larger implications of his work. That’s the words of a sincere man unsure of the larger implications of his mission.
This is not an attack on him at all. This is an attack on Bush’s overall policy, of which Petreaus has been placed in charge. It is ultimately up to the civilian leadership of this country to determine whether or not the surge is best for our national security. And, yes, it does give “weight to the argument that he’s on a fool’s errand.” That honesty is to his credit.
It seems sympatico to this’ administrations idiom that a field General doesn’t know either- For our “kicking ass in Iraq” drugstore cowboy, this isn’t the OK corral, it”s more like Deadwood. Petreus has been put in the Siege Perilous unfortunately, with Bush waving his “manhood” around like its Excalibur. And the world shrugs and says, “America, go figure.”
The past six years have been like watching a bad sitcom in syndication.
Elrod: First, I want to clarify that I wasn’t characterizing your post as an attack. I think you do give a bit too much leeway for others to do so though (look at Americablog’s post on this for an example of blowing Petraeus’ answer way out of proportion and twisting what he actually said, for example). But on balance, yours was a reasoned and moderate response.
And I get a different interpretation of Petraeus’ response than you do. True that he did mention some of the reasons that must be taken into account by anyone who looks at the bigger picture of our policy in Iraq (troop numbers and the stretching of our military capabililties, for example). But he still didn’t go so far as to say that he felt that resource scarcity would dictate that we pull back from Iraq to make ourselves safer rather than continuing. He acknowledged the obvious, that resources are scarce and must be allocated accordingly, but again, he’s staying within the scope of his job description by not giving advice on the larger policy issues.
Ah, and as Paul Harvey would say, “Now, the rest of the story”.
(H/T to Q&O) Here’s an exchange that apparently followed shortly after Warner’s question, where Petraeus clarifies his response. Seems that those who wished to label Petraeus as a doubter of the mission were a bit selective in hearing his testimony:
When someone says A and -A, which do we believe?
Others are characterizing his remarks as “A and -A”, egrubs, but read what he said in response to Bayh (unfortunate really that Bayh cut him off):
“But again, frankly, having focused down and down and down, that was something that really on first glance is something that I would let others - â€
Seems to me that he anticipated that the response to his answer to Warren would be a misinterpretation, so he went ahead and clarified that he does see the security interest in succeeding in Iraq- but then he was clearly saying that ultimately that this broader policy decision (weighing the relative interests of the US in Iraq vs elsewhere in the world) isn’t his to make.
That is one possible interpretation of his first response, one that comes with inherent assumptions as well.
If at the end of the day, he says, “I dont’ know [if our strategy in Iraq will make America safer],” and I do know that our strategy in Iraq will make America safer (but I don’t know if it’s the best way to make America safer), then at best he’s contradicting himself.
At that point, believe whichever you want to believe.
Actually I see no contradiction whatsoever in the two statements you juxtaposed. Taken in itself, success in Iraq would make us safer. Considered in the broad context of other challenges we face, are we better off giving up in Iraq and focusing elsewhere? That’s a different question which can hae a different answer and still be consistent with the first.
The two lines…
1) I dont’ know if our strategy in Iraq will make America safer
and
2) I do know that our strategy in Iraq will make America safer
Are contradictions. Adding a subclause to #2 to clarify does not remove the contradiction.
The subclause was added by you (comment at 7:44 am), and it does indeed remove the contradiction.
I’m sure upon reflection Petraeus realized that his initial response was a potential lightning rod for criticism. That’s why Petraeus went back and “corrected” himself. But I don’t think this is a situation where the second statement completely undermines the first. His initial response is still quite telling: his instinctual response was doubt regarding the overall value of the mission for national security. I think he was being completely honest. He’s no narrow-mission-oriented bureaucrat. And he most certainly thinks about the larger strategic value of the mission all the time, even if he hasn’t come to any firm conclusion in his head.
Petraeus understands how politicized the stakes are here, and that opponents will pounce on any misstep. He’s a very PR-savvy general in addition to being a smart strategic thinker. But he’s also a human being and it’s very possible – even likely – that his initial response to Sen. Warner’s question revealed the true level of uncertainty going on inside his head.
We should celebrate his honesty in that response. It makes him a more compelling witness, even if he recognized the political damage he’d done and tried to undo it. The more important point, however, is that our civilian leadership needs to ask the hard questions going forward: is continuing on this project really helpful for our national security? Or are we just kicking the can down the road in vague hopes that some White Swan will save us? Is it worth it spend hundreds of billions more dollars and expends hundreds more American lives continuing with this policy, especially given other exigencies around the world? If anything, his statement is an opening to the more serious discussion we should be having right now. Is it time to cut our losses and redeploy? Or should we persist in this strategy until next summer, knowing that we’ll have to answer the same question again, albeit with new challenges (Kirkuk? Basra?) that will possibly get much worse in the next few months?
I completely agree with your last comment, Elrod.
Some people are saying it’s not in his arena to answer the question so his evasiveness means nothing. I agree with Elrod although I’m not sure that I would say narrow-missioned bureaucrat since that’s an implicit insult and a lot of great commanders are simply tactical and do have that viewpoint. Petraeus is definitely not one of those though.
I personally view the military’s role re: the Executive and Congress as one that gives analysis and draws up possible plans, but defers on the ultimate direction picked. Thus the question is appropriate (although he could have just answered that it wasn’t in his purview at all) and one like CS asked which is “If you were in charge, would you pull out of Iraq and fight the GWOT differently” might not be because the hypothetical implies he has direct control over what happens instead of just being a consultant.
Well, this has come down to various people reasing
Petraeus’s mind – with absolute certaintly.
——————————————-
:”But I think that we have very, very clear and very serious national interests in Iraq. Trying to achieve those interests — achieving those interests has very serious implications for our safety and for our security.”
—————————————-
WE HAVE SERIOUS NATIONAL iNTERESTS IN iRAQ
states the obvious. No one is debating that. The debate is about how best to deal with those interests, and about whether or not a large military presence serves or counterdicts those interests.
TRYING TO ACHIEVE THOSE INTERESTS is what we’ve been doing for 6 years. The reason for the hearings was to assess whether the latest tactics are working.
If anything, the clarification is a move to vagueness and away from answering Warner’s question at all.
Stating goals and interests in no way evaluates success. Basically, the clarification is just a more diplomatic way of saying “I don’t know”,
“It is in my personal interests to win the lottery” says nothing about my chances of doing so or the wisdom of investing lots of money in lottery tickets..
There is nothing in the clarification to actually clarify anything, unless ESP is employed.
It seems inappropriate to me that Petraeus ever had such a high profile in the first place. As a miliary man, he’s in charge of a military mission. He said himself that there were limits to what could be accomplished militarily as far as changing the overall picture in Iraq is concerned.
His mention of “very, very clear and very serious national interests in Iraq” raises questions that did not get addressed of what those interests are, the degree to which they’re under his purview, and why he thinks these interests are being properly served. I think that once these issues get outside the military sphere, his views on them should be accorded the same weight as those of any intelligent observer, no more no less.
But Petraeus’s words are being accorded the treatment of the Delphic Oracle, which I think is really not fair to him as well as not appropriate in terms of the discussion of political process that should inform our Iraq policy.
doma, I think we have a GMTA moment.
‘We should celebrate his honesty in that response.’
It says much that anyone, under oath before Congress to tell the truth, should be lauded for that.
It’s like celebrating a 20 year old for going to the bathroom without his mommy.
One should not celebrate the minimal accomplishment, but the above average- no, the spectacular.
That such low expectations are held by the public is why politicians and military puppets like Petraeus pander down to that level. Again, if one wants to know why public discourse and political life is in such trouble, look at the lowest common denominator electorate- not the lackeys that electorate elects!
cosmo: I agree that we shouldn’t celebrate someone for doing what’s expected of them (which is what Petraeus has done here). But I fail to see why he should be blamed for either the inflated praise or the deflated expectations (as you do when you accuse him of pandering). Not his fault that he is doing what he was assigned to do and others are turning it into a sideshow.
‘Not his fault that he is doing what he was assigned to do and others are turning it into a sideshow.’
A general is sworn to the military to uphold the Constitution, not provide cover for a President that has started a war w no purpose, and flouted laws both domestic and abroad for it.
By any reasonable measure, the surge has failed. It was Obama and the Wisc Sen who said what everyone w a brain knows: Petraeus has gotten the outrageous violence of early 07 down to the merely intolerable violence of 06. This is like saying things are good when we have nuclear winter, just because there are no more nukes that can explode.
If you watched the hearings, all Petraeus did was another Bushco dog and pony show- evasions and half-truths. Put aside the politics, and face the reality. If yuo are not willing to call a spade a spade then you have no reason to complain. Petraeus and the others who have testified in the past- be it on the war, the firing of US attorneys, etc., lie becaue Congress lacks the balls to indict them for their contempt, at minimum, and the electorate does not give a damn.
I laugh when I hear that Bush and Congress have hit historic approval lows, because the idiots who approve are hopeless , and the vast majority of disapprovers will simply whine, and still pull levers for the D’s and R’s.
Whether it’s Hillary or an R as Prez, this war will go on. If you want it ended, dump the two major parties, or take a shot w Obama.
If you cannot do that, don’t even pretend to care about civics, for that dog dun woofed.
After all of that, you didn’t address my point at all (why Petraeus should be held responsible for the public or politicians’ behavior in regard to his testimony)
And what specific remarks of his would you consider “giving cover” to Bush? He strikes me as someone who is putting a positive (but not dishonest) spin on the stats because he wants more time to try to deliver a win for America, not because he’s a partisan who wants to deliver a win for Bush. Reasonable people can disagree over whether or not that’s possible anyway, and whether or not it’s worth the cost if it is possible, and whether or not it’s the best course of action given other concerns in the world, etc.
Strictly speaking, the generals should stay out of politics, but in practice they often get involved, more or less willingly.
I think Petraeus has become part of Bush’s political strategy. Doesn’t mean Petraeus is doing Bush’s bidding. Does mean IMO that Petraeus, simply by expressing viewpoints that he has come by independently , and by virtue of his military cachet, is potentially of political use to the Bush Administration. It isn’t for nothing that Bush has invoked Petraeus’s name probably hundreds of times.
Petraeus’s revised answer certainly seems a recognition of the politics afoot, but the more you look at the revision the less helpful it seems, besides betraying (?!) a bit more interest in the politics then he strictly ought to have. His first answer seems an ordinary citizen’s, his second a general’s.
CS: ‘A general is sworn to the military to uphold the Constitution, not provide cover for a President that has started a war w no purpose, and flouted laws both domestic and abroad for it.’
I did answer yr point, as quoted above. Only the hole in his behind was missing. It was a puppet show. If you agre to be the public face for distortions, you deserve all the scorn you get.
Be a man, General, and tell it like it is. Shaun Mullen has a post about the diff facets of the war that was far more accurate than what Petraeus said.
As for cover, let’s see, by not stating that the surge has failed to bring about its goals, by waffling and equivocating. C’mon, by even asking such q’s you are again allowing these bastrads to distort reality, talk down to the public, and with reactions like yours, there’s only more of the same in the chute.
Hold these bastards to higher standards- and I don’t care whether D, R, or I. Or FBI, AG, Army, or what have you.
Lying when lives are on the line is unacceptable. If you accept it, though, then you are part of the problem. It’s not the damn media, but the people who swallow this BS whole.
The only way we can win, and all sides know it, is with a national effort like in WW2. There is no will to do that, and Bushco is anathema to such belt0tightening.
The only reasonable solution is to get out ASAP. In 20 years, people will look back and say, ‘Why didn’t they just pull out when WMDs were not found?’
Things are always complicated when the simplest solutions are overlooked. This is a version of Occam’s Razor that few ever follow.
As for reasonable people- it’s reasonable to disagree whether or not to go into Iraq if WMDs were not present, but after nearly 5 years, nothing accomplished, 1000s of Am’s dead, a million or so Iraqis dead, and no end in sight, and with Vietnam’s utter waste (and while WW1 and 2 were justifiable, Vietnam was nothing but utter waste) still in memory of most over thirty-five, it simply is not reasonable to do the same thing, bang your head against the same sort of wall, with even less resolve and firepower, and expect different results.
Add to that that Vietnam was a civil war between two parties in an old nation and this is a civil war between 3-7 parties in a nation that never was, and to stay is just to throw bodies into the fire.
That is NOT reasonable, that is psychotic.
Precisely how has General Petraeus or any other serving officer not fulfilled their Constitutional duties?
What did you seriously expect, violence to drop to zero in a few months? Is the problem that violence is not being reduced quickly enough, or what? If violence has gone down, then what, precisely, as failed?
What, exactly, was a lie? When you accuse someone of lying, you are attributing intent to them. Petraeus is working with a set of metrics developed by the CMF-I staff that are largely classified. His conclusions disagree with yours. How does that prove intent to deceive? Why is he not merely wrong? Of course, no one can prove even that definitively given the vagarities of Iraq.
The assumption – which is what it really is – that Petreaus is lying means that most of his staff and advisers at CMF-I are liars too since the General doesn’t collect and analyze the information himself and the data is available throughout the HQ. Since we haven’t had any leaks from CMF-I about Petraeus forcing them to “cook the books” I guess we have to assume that those hundreds of officers are either part of the BUSHCO deception machine or are too cowardly to speak out. Perhaps you can inform us which it is?
Entropy: Iraq is a disaster, the surge has failed. The General is sworn in to tell the truth, and does not admit the two truths I just stated. That is lying, and when under oath, a violation of the law- Constitutional law.
The surge was ‘the answer’. It has not been. It has merely staunched a wound or two, while others open or are being sliced. Anyone who was around in Vietnam knows this merry-go-round. Victory is near! BS!
See paragraph 1- when you knowingly do not level with people- it’s a lie. Period. The problem is folk like you accept these evasions as part of the game. He lied. Bush lied. The Congress is a bunch of dimwits, and the electorate- folk like you, yawn, as more Americans burn.
My ‘conclusions’ are facts- how many attacks still go on daily? The Iraqis have failed in every attempt to work with each other. These are not debatable points. One must face reality, and deal w it. That the electorate refuses- in the war, global warming, healthcare, etc. shows that we, in our own collective way, are as deluded as the wacky Muslims who believe mass murder will get them rewards in the afterlife.
McMartworld triumphs again in so narcotizing the public that resistance is not even futile, but not an option!
BTW- a prescient link on Bushco, pre-9/11:
http://www.petehamill.com/bushpresidency.html
Well Cosmo, you didn’t answer any of my direct questions which indicates to me that you can’t. Until you can and do, there is little reason for debate – but maybe debate isn’t your goal.
Entropy: Read. I realize it’s a lost art, but read.
You ask, ‘Precisely how has General Petraeus or any other serving officer not fulfilled their Constitutional duties?’
I said, ‘Iraq is a disaster, the surge has failed. The General is sworn in to tell the truth, and does not admit the two truths I just stated. That is lying, and when under oath, a violation of the law- Constitutional law.’
Question answered.
You: ‘What did you seriously expect, violence to drop to zero in a few months? Is the problem that violence is not being reduced quickly enough, or what? If violence has gone down, then what, precisely, as failed?’
Me: ‘The surge was ‘the answer’. It has not been. It has merely staunched a wound or two, while others open or are being sliced. Anyone who was around in Vietnam knows this merry-go-round. Victory is near! BS!’
Q and A.
You: ‘What, exactly, was a lie? ‘
Me: ‘See paragraph 1- when you knowingly do not level with people- it’s a lie. Period. The problem is folk like you accept these evasions as part of the game. He lied. Bush lied. The Congress is a bunch of dimwits, and the electorate- folk like you, yawn, as more Americans burn.’
Q and A.
You may not like the answer, but it is a strawman to type, ‘you didn’t answer any of my direct questions which indicates to me that you can’t.’
I did, you evaded. Thus, you illustrate my point: ‘One must face reality, and deal w it. That the electorate refuses- in the war, global warming, healthcare, etc. shows that we, in our own collective way, are as deluded as the wacky Muslims who believe mass murder will get them rewards in the afterlife.’
Thanks, I guess.