Petraeus and Crocker on Iraq
James Forsyth 5:44pm
The message from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker’s opening statements to the Senate Armed Services Committee is that there has been significant progress in Iraq since September, but that his progress is fragile and that any rapid change in strategy would endanger it. The main news in Petraeus’s testimony was his commitment to a 45 day pause in troops withdrawals once US troop levels have been returned to a pre-surge level and his dismissal of the idea of a fixed timetable for withdrawal. Also worth noting from Petreaus’s evidence were his comments on the role of Iran and Hezbollah in training the extremist Shiite special groups and his contention that ‘Iraqi leaders now recognise the threat posed’ by Iran’s actions.
Ambassador Crocker’s statement was actually more interesting than Petraeus’s. Crocker’s testimony was upbeat, pointing to significant political and economic progress in Iraq since September. He argued that the strategy started by the surge was working and that while he could still not guarantee success in Iraq, it was closer now than it had been previously. He also had a positive read on the recent events in Basra, although Petraeus confirmed that the US did not receive a heads-up about it until the Friday before, noting how important it was that a Shiite-dominated government was prepared to take on Shiite militias.
Perhaps, the most important part of Crocker’s testimony, though, was his summing up.
"Iraqis, Americans and the world ultimately will judge us far more on the basis of what will happen than what has happened," Crocker concludes in his opening statement. "In the end, how we leave and what we leave behind will be more important than how we came."
This is something that we would all do well to bear in mind, whichever side of the Iraq debate we come down on.
Previous
Comments
Ian C
April 8th, 2008 7:17pmAnd Crocker is absolutely right. History will look at the result not the cost - but that is how history works. What appalled me as a supporter of the invasion was that it was always going to be a 10 to 15 year venture for the USA and they did not go prepared for that, but as one neo-con adviser said they went to "shake the tree to see what falls out". We in the UK were distracted by the dodgy dosier and not so much by what Bush was saying - it was openly regime change for him, and we supporters knew it had to happen so assumed that it would be seen by those doing the job in the same way. And the next major disappointment was that there was no ambition to sort it with a minimum of trouble. He really 'misunderestimated' the lost credibilty problem it would cause. But Bush (and Crocker) are correct that history will prove him right, but just think how much more right he could have been if he had done it properly. No doubt he will argue in his memoirs that the politics of the day would not have allowed him to go in if he had said it will take 10 -15 years and $3trn. to resolve. But he could have been alot more ambitious and efficient and the worldwide extremist Islam problem would not be what it is today - needing another 20 years minimum to overcome.
Austin Barry
April 8th, 2008 10:10pmIt's all going to get very interesting very soon. The US has three carrier battle groups assembling in the Gulf; Defence Secretary Robert Gates has been visiting the huge US Air Base in Oman; Bush has been putting Putin in the picture; Israel has been holding a four day defence exercise against missile attack and, rather more arcane, the US has triggered section 311 of the Patriot Act to effectively cut Iran adrift from the world financial system. Something or nothing?
London Calling
April 8th, 2008 11:22pmOh why did we dig this hole?,
It gets so deep and full of moles,
And if we turn and try to leave,
We've left behind a bloody vacuum clean,
Oh why did we dig this hole?,
For Freedom sake or rich Black Gold?
For if my memory serves me right, we started the Dig, so we must finish the fight,
Have our Men have died in Vain?, or will they become fallen hero's of Britain's shame.
Dirk Blade
April 9th, 2008 8:46amThe US is also building up its Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), normally at around 96% of capacity, now almost 100%.
And TURNING POINT 2 is not just a missile defence exercise but Israel's largest-ever civil defence exercise, and included calling up reserves, some of whom reportedly ended up deploying to the north of the country.
'Iraq' has always been about Iran, the US's main strategic enemy in the region - if not the world - for thirty years. That might be about to become very clear.