by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright April 9, 2008
All Rights Reserved.

estifying before the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees, Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus gave his long-awaited Iraq update. Both he and Iraq Ambassador Ryan Crocker offered a guarded assessment of U.S. military progress after the Jan. 2007 “surge” in which 20,000 new troops were asked to bring violence and chaos under control. More than one year into the surge, Petraeus could only say “there's no light at the end of the tunnel.” A bipartisan group of senators offered Petraeus and Crocker a sobering view of public impatience with a strategy that's cost over 4,000 U.S. lives and nearly $1 trillion. While Petraeus gave his best military appraisal, the hearing mirrored election-year politics. GOP nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) gave his blessing to staying the course, while Sen. Barack Obama (D-Il.) and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) called for an orderly withdrawal.

      Since starting the surge in January 2007, U.S. casualty rates dropped from over 100 a month in April, May and June, to 38 in March 2008. White House and Pentagon spokesmen have been quick to tout progress from the significant drop in death rates. Thirteen deaths have already occurred in the first eight days of April, signaling an up-tick in violence, echoing Petraeus' comments about the fragility of U.S. military progress. Crocker characterized the situation as “complex,” commenting about close ties between Iran's radical President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's and Nouri al-Maliki's U.S.-backed Iraq government. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Obama noted the bizarre disconnect between al-Maliki's close ties with Iran, while, at the same time, Ahmadinejad's support of Shiite militias, especially radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, committed to fighting U.S. occupation.

      Crocker couldn't account for al-Maliki's March 3 red carpet welcome to Ahmadinejad, visiting Baghdad, amid all the hoopla given to a revered head-of-state. No Iranian leader was welcomed in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Since the U.S. invasion March 20, 2003, Iran has played a key role in Iraqi politics. Not only do Iranians, through its elite secretive al-Qud's force, supply arms to Iraq's Shiite militias, they provide security services to al-Maliki's fledgling government. Sunni insurgents left over from Saddam's regime and al-Qaida terrorists battle al-Maliki's U.S.-backed government. Neither Petraeus nor Crocker could explain al-Maliki's incestuous relationship with Iran, whose covert military support kills U.S. soldiers and threatens the Iraq mission. While al-Qaida presents isolated problems, the U.S. mission is directly threatened by Iranian involvement.

      Iran not only funds insurgents fighting U.S. occupation, it funds and arms Moqtada al-Sadr's 10,000-plus al-Mehdi militia, used by al-Maliki as his personal bodyguards. Al-Sadr has been running his army living at an unknown location in Iran. When al-Maliki threatened last week to wipe out al-Sadr's army, insiders knew he was blowing smoke. When push came to shove in Basra, al-Maliki's army refused to confront al-Sadr's militia. Al-Maliki's own security services and army are heavily infiltrated by al-Sadr's militia, whose loyalty lies with Shiite militants and Sunni insurgents fighting U.S. occupation. “We haven't turned any corners, we haven't seen any lights at the end of the tunnel,” said Petreaus to Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), characterizing the situation in Iraq as “fragile.” That's the exact same message he gave Sept. 7, 2007 to the exact same committee.

      Petraeus, while serving at the pleasure of President George W. Bush, gave the committee the not-so-subtle inference that the mission was untenable. It's not enough to say “progress” is being made, whether reducing U.S. casualty rates or keeping on Baghdad's electricity or running water. Responding to GOP presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain's quip that it's irresponsible to “choose to lose,” Hillary got it right telling Petraeus it's irresponsible to repeat the same mistakes. “I fundamentally disagree,” said Clinton. “Rather, I think it could be fair to say that it might be irresponsible to continue the policy that have not produced the results that have been promised time and time again,” confronting the White House echo that “staying the course” is the only option. Whether the White House or McCain admits it or not, Petraeus clearly stated that U.S. gains remain tenuous.

      Obama helped sharpen the focus and question the validity of the White House argument about “progress” and what metric to use to determine “success” or “victory.” Judging by al-Maliki's incestuous relationship with Iran and radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, it raises disturbing questions about Iraq's new government. Petraeus and Crocker faced many questions outside their purview about why Iraq's oil revenue hasn't helped finance the war and reconstruction. Nor were they able to answer how and when they would envision completing the mission. “We fight for the right of people to have other opinions,” Petraeus told Bayh, implying that war critics, too, have valid arguments. While Petraeus asked for a pause in troop reductions, he also invited the White House and Congress to take a long, hard look at the mission. Without saying it directly, he's also looking for a way out.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.