Pentagon Official: The front lines have shifted

With the long-term concentration of American troops leaving Iraq--Afghanistan and Pakistan are the front lines of what has become of an evolving war.

“A critical aspect of this new strategy is the recognition that Afghanistan and Pakistan are two countries that compromise a single theater for our diplomacy,” said Michéle Flournoy, the Undersecretary of Defense Policy, believes that the key to creating a stable Afghanistan relied upon the deployment of soldiers in order to train Afghan security.

According to General David Petraeus, Commander of United States Central Command, Pakistan and Afghanistan are a breeding ground for extremists who pose the great threats to national security.

“The United States has vital national interests in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” said Petraeus. The strategy the Obama administration released, which seeks to increase the amount of military present in Afghanistan, was echoed through the increasing of the military presence within Afghanistan.

However, Petraeus believes, that the additional 4,000 American soldiers to train Afghan security forces will only be successful if employed properly as, “It is vital that they [the American military] be seen as good guests and partners, not as would be conquerors or superiors.”

Petraeus said American soldiers must be “formidable warriors who also do all possible to avoid civilian casualties in the course of combat operation.” Though civilian death are inevitable, Petraeus thinks that they must be minimized as to prevent Afghan public support from turning against America.

Following Petraeus, Admiral Eric T. Olson spoke about the use of special forces units in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which he believes are key because they bring “soft power with a hard edge.” Also, special operation units are not a “one-dimensional gunslinger,” said Olson, “they are equally adept at defense, development, and diplomacy.”

Petraeus to the Senate: Success in Iraq is fragile

General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq, testified before the Senate Armed Services committee about the situation in Iraq. The room was packed, almost all the committee members were there and there were several protesters dressed as dead Iraqi women holding signs that said things like "There is no military solution General Petraeus!" These protesters did interrupt several times, the loudest of which was a man who chanted "Bring them home!" as he was escorted out.

In his opening statement Petraeus said that there has been significant reduction in violence and that the surge in U.S. troops, Iraqi security forces and an uptick in diplomatic efforts. He addressed the recent flare-up in Basra, saying that it underscored the importance of the cease fire with Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr. He wrote that the threat of al-Qaida in Iraq is "still lethal and substantial" and that "withdrawing too many forces too quickly could jeopardize the progress made over the last year."

Petraeus recommended to the chain of command that withdrawal of surge forces continue through schedule withdrawals in July. Then, Petraeus said, the military should pause to look at all the conditions on the ground, which the general described as "battlefield calculus". After a 45-day period of evidence gathering Petraeus said that they would wait for conditions to be meet the criteria for a draw down before further recommending a withdrawal of troops. This second period of waiting could come immediately after the 45-day assessment or last for months depending on conditions, Petraeus said.

In his assessment of the political situation Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified that while benchmark legislation is slow to be enacted it has been passed by the parliament, which demonstrates progress. He said that the challenges to the rule of law are enormous and that development is not linear. He emphasized that Arab neighbors need to be more helpful and less destructive. He pointed to Iran as an unhelpful neighbor saying that they undermine success in Iraq and the recent fighting in Basra is one example. He said that training, signature weapons, and money still continue to flow from Iran into Iraq.



The two witnesses also emphasized the influence of Iran in training, equipping and funding Shiite militias in Iraq. Both Petraeus and Crocker said that they have seen evidence that "special groups"--Shiite militias not associated with Muqtada al Sadr, and other criminal militias, including those involved in last weeks fighting-- are supported and funded by the Iranian Quds force, loyal to Ayatolla Ali Khamenei. When Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) asked if the Iranian-backed groups responsible for the "murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers," Petreaus said, "I do believe that is correct."


Overall the Republicans praised the efforts of Petraeus and Crocker, the success of the surge at reducing violence and the initiative of the Maliki government in going after criminal elements in Basra. The Democrats generally said that the surge had not achieved the objective of creating political progress in Iraq and talked about how Iraqi oil revenues were not offsetting the cost of the war as promised at the start of the war.

Many topics about the status of the force and the situation on the ground in Iraq were covered in the question and answer sessions.

Sen. Clinton (D-NY), a presidential candidate, took part of her question time to respond to statements and suggestions that calling for a withdrawal of U.S. troops is irresponsible. "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..."

"I think it is time to being the orderly withdrawal of our troops," she said. Her main question for Crocker was about the strategic security agreement that the Bush administration has announced it will form with Iraq by July. Crocker told Clinton that the Iraqi government will submit the agreement to the Iraqi parliament and said that they intend to negotiate the agreement as "an administrative agreement" where the U.S. Congress will not be consulted or asked to ratify.

Clinton's question to Petraeus, surrounded the conditions that would have to exist for the general to recommend to the president a change in strategy. He responded that their has been progress in the political area and that the conditions are clear. He said that they will examine the enemy, the Iraqis, and the security situation. Petraeus expanded an earlier metaphor that this is not linear mathematical situation, but rather a long look at battlefield geometry and political/military calculus.

As ranking member, Republican presidential candidate John McCain made a statement where he defended the success of the surge in reducing violence. He said that because of the surge the U.S. can talk about success in Iraq. "We will insure that the terrible price we have paid has not been paid in vain" McCain said. He emphasized the need to help Iraq fight Iranian-backed special groups.

In an effort to combat an earlier gaffe about a 100-year war, McCain repeated, "I don't want to keep our troops in Iraq on minute longer than is necessary to secure our interests there." McCain speaking of the sacrifices of the American military, closed by saying, "The congress must not choose to loose in Iraq."

Another focus was Petraeus' role in the recent fighting in Basra. Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) asked if the Maliki government had followed his advice in planning and executing the mission to route out criminal Shiite elements in Basra. Petreaus said that not only was he not informed until two days before the attacks, but that the advice he gave once informed was not followed and that the Iraqi security forces entered into combat ill prepared.

When asked by Sen. John Warner(R-VA), if the war in Iraq had been "worth it" to protect America's national security interests Petraeus answered that he would not have taken the job as Multinational Forces commander if he did not feel it was worth it. Crocker responded that al-Qaida is our "mortal and strategic enemy" and that going after al-Qaida in any context makes the United States safer.