Talk Radio News Service: News, Politics, Media

By Ellen Ratner
I would like to share some thoughts about last week's Ambassador Crocker/Gen. Petreaus hearings. While I didn't attend the House hearings, I was present as the Senate grilled these men. Afterwards, I watched the same hearings on television. First, let me assure my readers that being in the room is a very different experience from seeing it on TV.

One thing that filled the room but didn't quite show up on the boob tube was that these hearings were political. A few members of both parties were there for real information. However, a majority of the solons simply wanted to score political points. That being said, it must be added that Gen. Patreaus was also dribbling a political basketball and taking some rim shots. I would ask my readers to use their heads – you don't rise as high as the general without knowing how to navigate Washington politics.

Gen. David Petraeus

This revealed by the very maps that Patraeus had prepared for the hearings, and which were handed out to both the senators and the press. Arrows representing threats to Iraq from its neighbors filled the maps. Lots of arrows from Iran and Syria. But not one from Saudi Arabia! Any private who has been to Iraq knows that Saudi Arabian nationals show up among the captured foreign fighters like rain in April. Any expert on terrorism knows that in regards to Iraq, the Saudis are likened to a "jihad production belt."

So why was the general silent? While it may be true that the Saudi royals fret about al-Qaida and other militant groups and seems committed to rooting them out (in Saudi Arabia), everyone knows that they've been a lot less successful in staunching their country's second greatest export after oil: terrorism. For Crocker and Patreaus to remain silent here speaks loudly that these two are tuned in the Saudi Oil Lobby, whose scandalous relationship with the Bush family is public knowledge. Moreover, it degrades the credibility of Petraeus and Crocker, two otherwise fine public servants.

Gen. Patraeus also understands that the Pentagon will still be around long after Bush goes bye-bye in January, '09. In 16 months, it'll be "Yes, President Hillary Clinton" or "Yes, President Guliani." Cautiously, carefully, I dare say prudently, he put some daylight between himself and the Bush administration on his overall assessment. Did any of you hear him utter the phrase, "democracy in Iraq" once? (If you thought so, see a doctor – the general never breathed a word of it.) He questioned the ability to sustain the commitment and, wisely, avoided speculating on what he would do if Iraq were in the same soup one year from now.

This is not the first time Congress has heard from generals who commanded our troops in Iraq. Gen. Casey testified in 2004 that we were "broadly on track" to accomplish these objectives by 2005. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez also testified a good "who-what-me?" when it came to the hot potato of authorizing 7th century interrogation techniques for Iraqi detainees. (This despite the appearance of smoking-gun memo making clear that he knew all about it.) Congress often gives generals a pass because no politician wants to be seen by voters back home as being un-American. In fact, neither party's senators asked very tough questions. (Makes me think that if Alberto Gonzales had testified wearing a uniform, he'd still be attorney general.)

Some of the hearing was spent on the MoveOn.org full page ad renaming the general as "General Betray-us." Dems wouldn't condemn (too much dough in the coffers from MoveOn) while Republicans had a field day. Other agendas were front and center. Sen. Lieberman asked about training camps in Iran and why we weren't doing much about them. Sen. Chambliss asked about Gen. Patraeus' son going to parachute jump school and the fact that he would most likely wind up in Iraq. But the best question came from Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine. She's facing re-election next year and wanted to know what Petreaus would do if Iraq was in the same soup next year. If the general had ideas, he wasn't talking.

The saddest part is that neither Gen. Patraeus nor Ambassador Crocker left anything in writing – no report that could be muddled or debated, nothing with figures that could be verified or inspected. In short, nothing that Congress or the American people could brainstorm to try for good resolution of Bush's mess. The testimony as given served the political needs of those who needed to look "presidential" on national security; the political needs of those running for re-election; the political needs of those who seek a wider war with Iran or Syria; and the political need of president to buy more time for a bad policy. It served everybody's needs – except that of we the people.

What a wasted opportunity.