Also see below:     
John Nichols | Challenging the Spin    â€¢

    Go to Original

    Iraq Hearings Highlighted Differences Among the Candidates
    By David Lightman and Margaret Talev
    McClatchy Newspapers

    Tuesday 08 April 2008

    Washington - Presidential rivals John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton used Tuesday's Senate hearings on the Iraq war to preview the starkly different ways that a Republican or Democratic successor to President Bush might manage the conflict.

    The differences were obvious as each got about six minutes to quiz Army Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. military commander in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker on the war's progress. Petraeus and Crocker appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee in the morning and then testified before the foreign relations panel in the afternoon.

    McCain, R-Ariz., the armed service committee's top Republican, attempted to distance himself from the Bush administration while saying that the war remains a noble cause.

    Clinton, D-N.Y., a junior member of the same panel, opened her questioning by justifying her desire to withdraw troops, while Obama, a foreign relations panel member, added his support for a pullout but also asked pointed questions about the roles of Iran and al Qaida.

    They left little doubt where they stood.

    Obama branded the war a "massive strategic blunder" and called al Qaida and Iran's increasing influence in the region "a direct result" of the U.S. involvement in Iraq.

    "We're not going to eliminate all influence of Iran in Iraq," Obama said. "Define what's a legitimate or fair set of circumstances ...that would make us feel comfortable in drawing down our troops."

    Crocker didn't give a direct answer, saying that while the U.S. has "no problem" with a good Iran-Iraq relationship, it's concerned about the influence of Iran-backed extremists.

    Suppose, asked Obama, if Iraq could have its current status quo without U.S. troops. After all, the Illinois senator said, "our resources are finite.... We have to define our goals tightly and modestly."

    Crocker offered a somber answer. "I can't imagine," he said, "the current status quo being sustainable with that kind of precipitous drawdown."

    Obama countered that he wasn't suggesting that all troops be withdrawn right away, but "I'm trying to get to an endpoint."

    Crocker suggested that won't be easy. "This is hard and this is complicated," he said.

    Clinton was somewhat more circumspect, starting off her questioning period with a lengthy statement reiterating where she stood.

    "I just want to respond to some of the statements and suggestions that have been made leading up to this hearing, and even during it, that it is irresponsible or demonstrates a lack of leadership to advocate withdrawing troops from Iraq in a responsible and carefully planned withdrawal," Clinton said.

    "I fundamentally disagree," she said. "Rather, I think it could be fair to say that it might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced the results that have been promised time and time again, at such tremendous cost to our national security and to the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States military."

    Clinton chafed at testimony that the administration doesn't intend to seek congressional approval before working out an agreement with the Iraqi government to continue operations after July.

    She also pressed Petraeus to say what conditions would have to exist for him to tell the president to end the war. "The conditions are unclear," she said.

    It was clear that Obama and Clinton have a dramatically different view of the war than does McCain. He said that withdrawing American forces before "adequate" security is in place could lead to genocide, empower Iran and "almost certainly require us to return to Iraq or draw us into a wider and far, far costlier war."

    Since the middle of last year, McCain said, he's seen an "improved security environment" that has "led to a new opportunity, one in which average Iraqis can, in the future, approach a more normal political and economic life."

    However, he criticized the Bush administration's handling of Iraq, warning that "four years of mismanaged war had brought us almost to the point of no return" and "sectarian violence in Iraq was spiraling out of control, life had become a struggle for survival and a full-scale civil war was almost unavoidable."

    Clinton, like McCain, didn't take a particularly emotional or dramatic stance. Instead, she pointed out that Petraeus recently had said that progress toward Iraqi reconciliation wasn't proceeding as he'd hoped.

    Petraeus told her "there's not an equation" or mathematical formula for when the war should end and that ultimately "it really involves commanders sitting down ... and assessing where it is you can reduce your forces."

    "There has indeed been progress in the political arena ... and a variety of other areas," he said.

    McCain said that despite shortcomings, "today it is possible to talk with real hope and optimism about the future of Iraq and the outcome of our efforts there."

    Most Democrats disagreed, and committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., grilled Petraeus about the recent U.S.-backed Iraqi government offensive against renegade Shiite Muslim militias in the southern city of Basra.

    When McCain got another turn, he also asked Petraeus about the Basra operation, which the general said was somewhat of a surprise to Americans. The Iraqi military, however, relies heavily on the U.S. for advice, logistics and air support, and The New York Times reported the planned operation on March 13 - 11 days before it began - in a story headlined "Iraqi Troops May Move to Reclaim Basra's Port."

    When McCain asked about the lessons to be drawn, Petraeus said the Iraqi forces were new and subject to local pressure. Asked whether he was disappointed with the operation, Petraeus replied: "It's not over yet, senator."

 

---

    Go to Original

    Challenging the Spin
    By John Nichols
    The Nation

    Tuesday 08 April 2008

    Sure, Arizona Senator John McCain's campaign may still be selling him as some kind of "maverick" or "independent thinker" - and most of the media may still be buying that ridiculous line.

    But when it comes to the fundamental foreign policy issue of the 2008 race - whether to continue the war in Iraq, and at what cost - McCain's a yes man.

    When Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. general in charge of spinning the Iraq quagmire as something other than a quagmire, and Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, the U.S. diplomat charged with similar responsibilities, appeared before Congress, McCain greeted them the on-bended-knee position he has adopted since he decided that he would rather be the Republican nominee for president than a serious member of the U.S Congress.

    Declaring with as straight a face as he could muster success in Iraq was "within reach," McCain explained to Petraeus and Crocker that they would get no advice or counsel from this senator.

    "Our goal - my goal - is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops, and I believe we can achieve that goal, perhaps sooner than many imagine," McCain told his task masters. "But I also believe that the promise of withdrawal of our forces regardless of the consequences would constitute a failure of political and moral leadership."

    Apparently confusing "moral leadership" with the denial of reality, McCain declared against all evidence that, "Success, the establishment of peaceful, democratic state, the defeat of terrorism - this success is within reach. Congress must not choose to lose in Iraq. We must choose to succeed."

    To describe McCain's comments at the Petraeus-Crocker hearing as "meaningless" would be an insult to meaninglessness. He added nothing to the discussion except cheerleading, and he sent the general and the ambassador back to Iraq without the benefit of the experience and insights of a member of Congress whose background could have been of value.

    McCain's decision to go AWOL was as embarrassing as it was disappointing.

    New York Senator Hillary Clinton and Illinois Senator Barack Obama both made more of an effort to live up to their responsibilities as senators.

    As someone who voted with McCain to get into the mess that is Iraq, Clinton acknowledged reality when she told Petraeus and Crocker that it was "time to begin an orderly process of withdrawing our troops" from Iraq.

    Clinton was still a little soft when she said, "It might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced results that have been promised time and time again."

    But at least she was on the side of realism - even if she arrived there late in the game.

    Obama, who had the foresight to oppose authorizing President Bush to go to war, was at least as sound as Clinton Tuesday.

    "The most important issue is still the one that was asked in September which is how has this war made us safer and at what point do we know that there is success so we can start bringing our troops home," the Democratic contender explained before the hearing.

    "My belief is that we are not in a situation where staying another 10, 15 or 20 years is going to change the fundamentals on the ground," explained Obama, who added that, "What we have not seen is the Iraqi government using the space that was created not only by our troops but by the standdown of the militias in places like Basra, to use that to move forward on a political agenda that could actually bring stability."

    So, as a senator, McCain failed the test Tuesday. But which Democrat offered the strongest challenge to the Petraeus-Crocker spin?

    Clinton? Obama?

    No, Russ Feingold.

    The Democratic senator from Wisconsin, who is not running for president but probably should be, continued to take his job as a senator more seriously than any of his colleagues.

    Feingold told Petraeus and Crocker: I hope you won't take it personally when I say that I wish we were also hearing today from those who could help us look at Iraq from a broader perspective. The participation at this hearing of those charged with regional and global responsibilities would have given us the chance to discuss how the war in Iraq is undermining our national security. It might have helped us answer the most important question we face - not "are we winning or losing in Iraq?" but "are we winning or losing in the global fight against al Qaeda?"

    Like many Americans, I am gravely concerned by how bogged down we are in Iraq. Our huge, open-ended military presence there is not only undermining our ability to respond to the global threat posed by al Qaeda, but it is also creating greater regional instability, serving as a disincentive for Iraqis to reach political reconciliation, straining our military, and piling up debt for future generations to repay.

    I am pleased that violence in parts of the country has declined, but as the increase in violence in Mosul and recent events in Basra and now Baghdad indicate, long-term prospects for reconciliation appear to be just as shaky as they were before the surge. In fact, the drop in violence could have serious costs, as it is partly attributable to the deals we have struck with local militias, all of which could make national reconciliation that much more difficult.

    We need to redeploy our troops from Iraq and I am disappointed that you are calling for a halt in troop reductions, General Petraeus, because the presence of about 140,000 troops in Iraq will exacerbate the conflict, not stabilize it, and it will certainly not contribute to our overall national security. Some have suggested that we should stay in Iraq until reconciliation occurs. They have it backwards - our departure is likely to force factions to the negotiating table in an attempt to finally create a viable power-sharing agreement.

    If we redeploy, Iraq will no longer be the "'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world," as the Intelligence Community so clearly stated. Iran, as well as Turkey, Syria, and other regional actors, will have to decide if Iraqi instability is really in their interests once we are no longer on the hook. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we will be able to adequately address what must be our top priority - the threat posed by al Qaeda around the globe, and particularly its safe haven in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. Nothing could be clearer than the need to refocus all our instruments of national power to combat this threat.

    Redeployment does not mean abandoning Iraq. We must work for a peaceful outcome in that country. But if we continue to leave our military caught up in the sectarian divisions that consume Iraq, we will be doing so at grave risk to Iraq's progress, the region's stability, and our own national security.

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.