Wednesday
Apr092008
Petraeus and Crocker face Congress for a second day
The House Armed Services and House Foreign Affairs committees hosted Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the Multinational Force Iraq commander and ambassador in Iraq respectively.
The testimony and questions did not differ significantly from their testimony the two men gave in the Senate. In fact, both Petraeus and Crocker read their opening statements verbatim at all four hearings where they were called to testify. There was less protest of the testimony in the House committees than had been in the Senate, only one protester was escorted out of the Armed Service hearing. And there were no visible protesters at the Foreign Relations committee.
In the Armed Services Committee, responding to questions from Mike McIntyre (D-NC), Crocker spoke of an ongoing review process for looking at the 18 agreed-upon legislative benchmarks and agreed to inform the committee of the results of the review when completed next week. So far only three of the benchmark legislation has been approved by the Iraqi parliament and only one of those has been implemented. Crocker also emphasized that Iraq is a sovereign nation and that Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki is able to make his own decisions, as made clear by recent action in Basra, and that if Maliki were to exclude Muqutada al Sadr from the political progress that is his prerogative.
Also in the Armed Services Committee, Rep.Randy Forbes (R-VA) questions the worth of the war to the average housewife who worries about groceries and the high cost of gas. Petraeus responded that "what happens in Iraq has ripple effects that will ripple into the United States." He noted that if there is an interruption to oil flows, there will bean even higher price at the gas tank. He said that the war is worth it because it inhibits al-Qaida's ability to establish a base in Iraq and conducts further attacks on the United States.
In the Foreign Relation Dan Burton(R-IN)asked whether a "precipitous pull out" from Iraq were to happen a vacuum were to be created only al-Qaida could fill it. Crocker answered that given conditions at this time, if the U.S. were to withdraw all soldiers in six months, there would be a downward spiral and al-Qaida would benefit, possibly establishing a base in the Middle East.
In the only heated exchange, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) asked about the strategic forces agreement and whether it would tie the hands of the next president if that president were to advocate a radical policy change and attempt to withdraw troops immediately. He allowed Crocker one word and that was, "No." Questioning Petraeus Sherman asked whether he would prepare upon the election of a new president to fulfill their policy. Petraeus said that he can only serve one boss and one policy at a time, but that the military would have a plan for a more expedient withdrawal. Petraeus said that he was uncomfortable with the line of questioning, reasserting his belief in civilian control of the military.
The testimony and questions did not differ significantly from their testimony the two men gave in the Senate. In fact, both Petraeus and Crocker read their opening statements verbatim at all four hearings where they were called to testify. There was less protest of the testimony in the House committees than had been in the Senate, only one protester was escorted out of the Armed Service hearing. And there were no visible protesters at the Foreign Relations committee.
In the Armed Services Committee, responding to questions from Mike McIntyre (D-NC), Crocker spoke of an ongoing review process for looking at the 18 agreed-upon legislative benchmarks and agreed to inform the committee of the results of the review when completed next week. So far only three of the benchmark legislation has been approved by the Iraqi parliament and only one of those has been implemented. Crocker also emphasized that Iraq is a sovereign nation and that Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki is able to make his own decisions, as made clear by recent action in Basra, and that if Maliki were to exclude Muqutada al Sadr from the political progress that is his prerogative.
Also in the Armed Services Committee, Rep.Randy Forbes (R-VA) questions the worth of the war to the average housewife who worries about groceries and the high cost of gas. Petraeus responded that "what happens in Iraq has ripple effects that will ripple into the United States." He noted that if there is an interruption to oil flows, there will bean even higher price at the gas tank. He said that the war is worth it because it inhibits al-Qaida's ability to establish a base in Iraq and conducts further attacks on the United States.
In the Foreign Relation Dan Burton(R-IN)asked whether a "precipitous pull out" from Iraq were to happen a vacuum were to be created only al-Qaida could fill it. Crocker answered that given conditions at this time, if the U.S. were to withdraw all soldiers in six months, there would be a downward spiral and al-Qaida would benefit, possibly establishing a base in the Middle East.
In the only heated exchange, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) asked about the strategic forces agreement and whether it would tie the hands of the next president if that president were to advocate a radical policy change and attempt to withdraw troops immediately. He allowed Crocker one word and that was, "No." Questioning Petraeus Sherman asked whether he would prepare upon the election of a new president to fulfill their policy. Petraeus said that he can only serve one boss and one policy at a time, but that the military would have a plan for a more expedient withdrawal. Petraeus said that he was uncomfortable with the line of questioning, reasserting his belief in civilian control of the military.
"We're on the same page"
Gates said that before this period of reporting back to the Congress and the Bush administration he had hoped that he, Petraeus, the Joint Chiefs, and the former head of Central Command Adm. Fallon would have a chance to speak their mind on Iraq and Afghanistan as decisions are made about the way forward. Gates said that it just so happened that all involved ended up on the same page as far as relying on information from Gen. Petraeus about conditions on the ground and making decisions based on his reports. Gates reiterated what he has said on Capitol Hill, that it is important not to "get the end game wrong in Iraq"
Mullen said that he feels that this evaluation of forces in Iraq is important, particularly because it will inform troop decisions made about Afghanistan. The 3,500 additional Marines the Defense Department announced it would send in January have been deployed and are en-route to their work in Afghanistan. Gates made sure to say that President Bush had been careful at the NATO summit in Bucharest to say that the U.S. would send more troops to Afghanistan, but not to say exactly how many or when.
When asked whether Muqtada al Sadr is an enemy of the United States, Mullen responded that Sadr is an enigma, whose cease-fire agreement has certainly been a help to the decrease in violence in Iraq. Gates answered that anyone who is prepared to participate in the Iraqi political process in a peaceful and constructive way is no enemy of the United States.
A big topic was Iran. Gates said that he was not sure if the recent reports of Iranian activity indicated an actual uptick in Iranian involvement in Iraq or if in the recent fighting in Basra such activity has just become more apparent. Both men said that they have seen no indication that Iranian President Ahmadinejad had direct knowledge of influence over the Iranian groups that fund and support terrorism in Iraq. But Gates said that though he's seen no evidence he finds it hard to believe that Ahmadinejad doesn't have direct knowledge.
And finally Gates, speaking on Afghanistan, said that the war there seems to have very broad bipartisan support and that he is sure that no matter who the next president is, they will have success in Afghanistan as a goal.