Petraeus, Crocker Face GOP Fire
EmailABC News’ Jake Tapper, Z. Byron Wolf and Jennifer Parker report: The top U.S. military commander in Iraq delivered a stunning response Tuesday during his Senate hearing on the future of the Iraq war.
During a charged session of the Armed Services Committee, Army General David Petraeus told Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia that he doesn’t know if the military strategy in Iraq is making the U.S. any safer.
Watch the video HERE.
"Are you able to say at this time if we continue what you’ve laid before the Congress here as a strategy, do you feel that is making America safer?" asked Warner.
"Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best, uh, course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq," Petraeus answer.
Does that make America safer?" Warner pressed.
"Sir, I don’t know actually I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind what I have focused on and riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the multi-national force in Iraq."
Warner, a long-time Republican senator, was an early supporter of the war but has always been skeptical of troop "surge" plan that Gen. Petraeus has enacted in Iraq. Two weeks ago, he announced he will not seek re-election in 2008.
In another exchange with Warner, Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker said success in Iraq centers around a successful national reconciliation process.
Warner interjected: "That’s what’s been said at this table for a long time, sir, and frankly it hasn’t happened."
Another Republican senator, who announced this week that he, too, would not be seeking re-election, angrily questioned Petraeus and Crocker Tuesday.
Watch the video HERE.
"Are we going to continue to invest American blood and treasure at the same rate we’re doing now? For what," demanded Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
"We have got too many disconnects here, General — way too many disconnects," Hagel said.
Hagel also launched into an attack of Ambassador Crocker’s assertion that if U.S. forces pull out of Iraq, Iraq could degenerate into a civil war.
"We going to see Iraq devolving into a civil war? Come on. Our National Intelligence Estimate says we’re already in a civil war," Hagel said.
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
If General Petraeus cannot fully agree that the effort in Iraq makes the United States safer, then we have not fufilled any of our objectives for engaging in this war. Ignoring real humanitarian problems in the world where 1.2 billion people on earth live on less that 1$ a day, the issue of poverty is completely ignored.
Posted by: Erica | September 11, 2007, 4:37 pm 4:37 pm
It’s not Petraeus’s job to make the world safer, it’s his job to make Iraq safer. And his report says he is.
Bush and the JCS have to answer for making the world safer, and how the entire Iraqi operation fits into that strategy.
Posted by: carl | September 11, 2007, 4:49 pm 4:49 pm
The job of the U.S. military is not to make other nations safer. It is to defend the United States. And since General Betray Us has no clue whether what’s being done in Iraq is keeping our country safe, I say it’s time for him to be replaced by someone who has a clear exit strategy for Iraq. It makes no sense to keep the majority of our men and women in uniform hostage in Iraq. Shame on all those who keep spewing the same rhetoric in Washington.
Posted by: forestpath | September 11, 2007, 5:44 pm 5:44 pm
The general was playing the part of politician during these hearings–not an objective military strategist. That is why I’m being so hard on him. If Bush thinks he can get away with “staying the course” by making a general speak on his behalf, then he’s made a very big mistake. The American people will not put up with this anymore. I wish the general would think more about all the military personnel held hostage in Iraq by Bush’s insane policies and not a catchy title for his tell-all book which he plans to write when this debacle is over. Because with the way things are going, his book will go into the dustbin along with Paul Bremer’s “My Year in Iraq” and John Ashcroft’s “Never Again.”
Posted by: forestpath | September 11, 2007, 9:30 pm 9:30 pm
I again thank Senators Warner and Hagel for their service and their decision to step down. The failure of the republican party is so evident that I would not have anything else to do with it either. The republicans also know that bringing the country down with them is all they have left to offer. The MAINSCREAM media got taken so thoroughly that the embedded nature of their coverage fits them and the obvious recovery of the USA by impeaching bush and cheeny can never be accomplished. What a pity…
Posted by: daddy | September 12, 2007, 9:51 am 9:51 am
Patreaus is focused on his job and to expect him to say what he is doing is
useless is a bit naive.He is putting his counter insurgency concepts to the test. Like any scientist he wants to complete the experiment and prove his theories. The question for Patreaus is not is this hopeless but how do I make here work. The question for America is , is this experiment ever going to end. The answer may well be “No.” Don’t confuse this general’s abilities with our president’s inadequacies. Unlike Bush, Patreaus knows the difference between fiction and reality. Bush like most American’s have found through experience is the problem not the solution.
Posted by: David Dowding | September 12, 2007, 12:09 pm 12:09 pm
IT IS THE WRONG QUESTION.
In the first place, “Do you feel…?” Come on, Senator Warner. At least ask, “Do you think…” I hope our generals act on the basis of thought more than feelings.”
In the second, but more important, place, one has to posit success of the mission to ask whether it will make America safer. “Are you able to say at this time if we continue what you have laid before the congress here, AND this strategy IS SUCCESSFUL, do you feel that that is making America safer?
If the invasion of Normandy had failed, it would not have made America successful. Etc., etc., etc. about any military strategy. Eisenhower could not know that Normandy would succeed. He thought it had the best chance of succeeding compared to any other strategy. He knew that failure could turn the tide against us. Success would make us safer–failure would make us less safe.
General Patraeus has been given the mission of devising and executing the best strategy for securing Iraq to provide the opportunity for political solutions to take hold. He is succeeding. Ambassador Crocker points to evidence that those involved in solving entrenched political problems are making good faith progress especially at the grass roots levels, though timelines have not been met and there is no guarantee of success. The upside of success is enormous for America’s safety (just as it was to reconstruct a peaceable Germany and Japan), and the downside of failure is likewise enormous for the threat to America of an emboldened enemy with safe haven to equip and inspire terrorism.
Patraeus and Crocker are not guaranteeing success. They are saying that the strategies they prosent are the most likely to succeed, and the alternative of prematurely withdrawing from Iraq will certainly NOT make America safer.
I wish that General Patraeus had answered, “The benefit to America of our mission in Iraq depends on its success, and our success depends on your support. Thank you, Senator Warner. We can offer no guarantees, but we must try, and I hope we count on your support for America’s sake.”
Posted by: Harry L | September 12, 2007, 2:27 pm 2:27 pm
greg8898, shoving intelligence in bushbaby supporters like ole Harry is hard work and we can only hope our intelligence collectors work as hard…
Posted by: daddy | September 12, 2007, 3:14 pm 3:14 pm
If the general cannot give us an honest assessment of what’s going on in Iraq, then I don’t see what the point of these hearings are. If they are going to advocate doing the same thing regardless of whether things are going well or not, then they should just say so. We should have no more of these dog and pony shows.
And if the definition of “success” is doing the best you can in any given circumstance, then there is no thing as “failure” and this whole exercise is a complete joke. This is just more verbal gymnastics.
And I strongly object to the notion that withdrawal will not make us safer. Our troops are held hostage in a civil war without end. They are stretched to the break point and we as a nation cannot respond to other threats should they occur. Withdrawal WILL make our nation safer as the military will be able reconstitute itself and we can better prepare for other potential conflicts in the future.
Posted by: forestpath | September 12, 2007, 3:27 pm 3:27 pm
I disagree with the part where you say “that there has been military progress toward the objectives of the surge in providing stability, that unforeseen and encouraging positives have occurred in tribal leaders rejecting Al Qaeda and turning to American support for help against Al Qaeda, and that we have a realistic possibility of succeeding militarily in providing enough stability for needed political progress to occur.”
First, what exactly do we mean by stability? The general’s chart shows a roller coaster ride, ups and downs when it comes to insurgent attacks. The fact that we are now on a downturn doesn’t prove that this is any sense permanent. It will most likely go back up again after the insurgents adapt to the changing situation on the ground.
Furthermore, in places like Baghdad, attacks have been down because a lot of the neighbors are now cleansed of Sunnis. Baghdad is now a largely Shiite city. Iraq is breaking up into sectarian regions and this is no sign of political reconciliation at all.
Lastly, tribal leaders in Sunni areas HAVE turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq. However, these people HATE the Shiite dominated central government and have stated that they will fight if their demands are not met. They believe the government is beholden to Iran and they don’t want any part of it.
The Shiites on the other hand, believe these Sunni tribes are all terrorists. And even worse, they see Americans arming these groups that do not recognize the government and this is alarming to them. They see the Americans arming groups that are against the very government that the Americans helped to create.
If this is “political reconciliation,” then I don’t think it will help Iraq at all. This is just making the situation worse and is leading to a final showdown down the road when they decide to finally blow each other apart.
And the general largely ignored the upcoming final status referendum on Kirkuk which is likely to boil over into conflict up in the Kurdish areas.
We are so far from seeing any kind of stable Iraq so for the general to say that we are witnessing some sort of progress is an insult to the intelligence of the American people. We are heading towards a major cataclysm in Iraq and what we are doing is not stopping the inevitable, but delaying it and ensuring that when it does happen, all sides will be armed by us.
And this is not to mention that our troops are caught up in this mess and continue to die while politicians in Washington continue to claim there is success and victory is around the corner.
Posted by: forestpath | September 12, 2007, 6:00 pm 6:00 pm