Has there been progress in Iraq?

What progress has been made in Iraq? The progress question or some variant of it was asked repeatedly at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on "Iraq After the Surge: What Next?" Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE) said in his opening statement violence in Iraq has gone down, but not as far as anticipated. These are fragile gains, he said, and the notion of staying in the country is not the goal. The continued loss of life, drains on our treasury, the impact of readiness on our armed services, and the ability to send soldiers to where al-Qaida has grouped, is like "treading water" and we can't keep treading water without exhausting ourselves.

Ryan Crocker, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, relayed that it is hard to see progress in Iraq, and there is much to be done. However, he said, the surge is working. We have begun to develop a long-term relationship with the United States and Iraq, and the heart of the framework is a United States presence in Iraq. Our forces will remain in Iraq past December 31, which is when the current UN agreement expires. The new agreement will not make permanent bases in Iraq or raise up troop levels. Almost everything about Iraq is hard, Crocker said, but hard does not mean hopeless. Our gains are fragile and reversible. In regards to Iraq, Americans and the world will judge us not on what we have done, but what will happen in the future.

We have been transferring power to Iraqis, said Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq. Half of the provinces in Iraq are under their control, and Iraq's security forces expenditures have exceeded ours. While the forces in Iraq itself have improved, Petraeus said, their forces are not ready to defend themselves on their own. They are shouldering a lot of the load, but they are not yet ready for a resurgence of al-Qaida in Iraq, better known as AQI. There is an operational consideration, he said, transference of power requires a lot of time and monitoring. We've asked a great deal of our men and women in uniform, he said, and we are grateful and appreciate their sacrifices. All Americans should take great pride in them.

But what would happen if we removed our troops? Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) asked that question, and Petraeus responded that we have put our teeth into their jugular, and we need to keep it there. In response to an additional question from Senator Biden, Petraeus said we are at a "six or seven" level on a scale from one to ten towards readiness to return to our pre-surge troop level. Biden also asked Ambassador Crocker, "In a choice, the Lord Almighty came down and sat in the middle of the table there and said, 'Mr. Ambassador, you can eliminate every al-Qaida source in Afghanistan and Pakistan or every al-Qaida personnel in Iraq,' which would you pick?" The Ambassador said he would choose al-Qaida in the Afghanistan Pakistan border area.

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) said AQI was not in Iraq before we got there, and that AQI is really the focus here. If we are successful in Iraq, he asked, do we anticipate that AQI will not reconstitute itself? At what point do we say that they will not be particularly effective? In terms of our success in Iraq, it's just as fair to say that we can't get rid of AQI but just create a manageable situation. What is a legitimate affair between Iran and Iraq that would make us comfortable enough to pull out our troops? We all have the greatest interests in seeing a successful resolution in Iraq, he said. I continue to believe that going in was a blunder. I think that the surge has reduced violence and given us breathing room, he said, but not enough breathing room. I think increased pressure in a measured way, includes a withdrawal of troops.

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.

Sen. Kyl (R-AZ): Democrats have ignored missile defense

The American Foreign Policy Council hosted their second annual conference on missile defense.

The biggest themes from both Jim Woolsey, CIA director under Clinton and Sen. Jon Kyl were that we are moving away from a cold war way of thinking and a focus on negotiating with Russia and focusing on new threats from Iran, China, and North Korea.

Woolsey focused on the ideology that controls Iran and that it should be taken as seriously as Hitler. He advocated even stronger sanctions against Iran for example, cutting off their refined petroleum product such as diesel. He said that the United States should increase their outreach to citizen's in Iran who are displeased with the Amadinejad regime via broadcasting mediums like VOA. He said that caveats the National Intelligence Estimate in December had been ignored and those indicated that Iran continues to March toward developing nuclear weapons. Woolsey said if Iran continues to advance in it's nuclear development the only thing worse than the use of force would be to let Iran have a nuclear weapon.

Kyl went a bit more into Russian and Chinese threats and how a missile that travels through space to reach it's target is a "space weapon." He defended the recent shoot down of the broken US satellite as a good sign for US missile defense. Kyle was much more political saying that the Democrats have been failing in appropriate funding for missile defense. Sen. Kyl said that only John McCain would return solid funding to missile defense. He criticized a "mindset on Capitol Hill that we should be spending as much on the Peace Corps as missile defense." He called for studies on space based missile defense and full funding for missile defense. He said he feared that a new administration with the same person said we should eliminate money from the missile defense program.

European Parliament Members lambast Iranian government

The National Press Club hosted 3 speakers for a discussion today on Iran. Featured speakers included two members of the European Parliament—Portuguese member Paulo Casaca, and Scottish member Straun Stevenson, as well as strategic policy counselor and author Alireza Jafarzadeh.

Casaca kicked off the discussion by warning leaders not to take the rhetoric of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with a grain of salt. He said that the United States and Europe have largely been ignoring statements made by Ahmadinejad and compared them to threats made by Osama Bin Laden in 1998 when, he said, no one was paying attention. Casaca touched on Ahmadinejad's recent trip to Iraq where he met with the leaders there and noted that violence came to a standstill for the 48 hours of his visit insinuating that Iran is largely responsible for the conflict there. He also issued his support for the most recent United Nations' sanctions against Iran.

Stevenson began by referring to government of Iran as “Islamofascist.” He called the Iranian government “the most evil regime on the face of this Earth” and said that Iran was responsible for the extensive security measures taken in airports and other places following the 9/11 attacks. He said that Iran is now acquiring missile launchers capable of sending rockets to cities in Europe and said that appeasement measures with Iran have “gone crazy.” He expressed support for anti-Ahmadinejad dissidents and called for the West to collaborate with “pro-democracy” groups such as the People's Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI). Stevenson said that a military attack on Iran would be “catastrophic” and said that instead, the West should work to support political dissidents and students in Iran demonstrating against what he called “fascist Mullahs.” He also supported sanctions against Iran but said that their needs to be more done.

Jafarzadeh, who recently published a book on Iran and “the coming nuclear crisis,” spoke very critically of the Iranian government. He expressed heavy doubt in their denials of pursuing nuclear arms. According to Jafarzadeh, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has yet to inspect Iranian facilities and other locations where he said were openly known to be used for atomic research. Like the other two speakers, Jafarzadeh said that he supports sanctions against Iran but wanted to see the sanctions coupled with political pressure.

News from the United Nations 4.3.08

Seven members of the United Nations mission in Nepal were killed in a helicopter crash. The UN workers were on a fact-finding mission investigating groups of Maoist rebels.  The group included four arms monitors, and three UN workers from the Nepal mission.  Three crew members were also killed.  The Secretary-General issued condolences to family members of the deceased.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon met with former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan over the weekend.  Mr. Annan briefed Mr. Ban on the violence, and tentative truce, in Kenya.

The Security Council, in meetings through the weekend, voted in favor of more sanctions on Iran if Iran does not comply with IAEA regulations.  The sanctions would stiffen inspections of cargo going in to and out of Iran.

The General Assembly is expected to issue draft text of a resolution on terrorism soon.  The document, A-57-37, is the result of an adhoc committee convened with the intent to define terrorism.  The report is not a final definition, and must be voted on by members of the General Assembly before it is to take effect.