Getting out of Iraq

First, let’s get into it by listening to what some analysts and experts had to say in the past day.

Yesterday, the Senate Armed Services Committee held its hearing on the nomination of Lt. Gen. David Petraeus as commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. Senators clashed over the strategy and its effect on the troops, as they have a lot lately.

Congressional criticism of President Bush’s troop surge in Iraq threatens to erode the morale of American soldiers and Marines serving there, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., implied Tuesday at a Senate confirmation hearing for Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus…

McCain raised the morale issue in a question he posed to Petraeus, saying, “Suppose that we send additional troops and we tell those troops, ‘we support you, but we are convinced you cannot accomplish your mission… we do not support the mission we are sending you on’? What effect does that have on morale of the troops?”

“It would not be a beneficial effect, sir,” Petraeus answered.

Clearly an understatement. The way some members of government would be telling the troops they do not support the mission, went the argument, would be in passing one of the proposed controversial ‘non-binding resolutions’ against the Iraq strategy. Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman strongly opposed those resolutions.

“What effect would Senate passage of a resolution of disapproval… have on our enemies in Iraq?” Lieberman asked Petraeus.

The general replied that while he valued “free and open debate, and free speech” in the United States, he as a military commander “would like the enemy to feel that there’s no hope.”

And, Lieberman asked, Senate passage of a resolution of disapproval of this new strategy in Iraq would give the enemy some encouragement?

“That’s correct,” replied Petraeus.

Lieberman said, “I want to make a plea to my colleagues” to not pass a resolution of disapproval of Bush’s troop surge. He urged them to consider Petraeus’s testimony about the effect on morale and to delay any move to pass a resolution of disapproval.

Graham challenged critics of the Iraq war to cut off funding if they really believed there was no hope of success there.

He said the critics of the war “no matter how well-intentioned” would be casting “a vote of no confidence in you” (Petraeus) by passing either the Biden or Warner resolutions.

The resolutions would be saying in effect, “Good luck — but you’re going to lose,” Graham said. 

That was yesterday.

Today, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 12-9 to pass the resolution of disapproval anyway.

Those are the politics. Now listen to what the expert had to say. Here’s the transcript of Lt. Gen. Petraeus’s statement on the situation in Iraq. It was part explanation, and part plea.

In short, it is not just that there will be additional forces in Baghdad, it is what they will do and how they will do it that is important.

Some of the members of this committee have observed that there is no military solution to the problems of Iraq. They are correct.

And then Gen. Petraeus gets into information that provides at least a summarized answer to the question detractors have repeated asked: what constitutes victory in Iraq?

Ultimate success in Iraq will be determined by actions in the Iraqi political and economic arenas on such central issues as governance, the amount of power devolved to the provinces and possibly regions, the distribution of oil revenues, national reconciliation and resolution of sectarian differences, and so on. Success will also depend on improvements in the capacity of Iraq’s ministries, in the provision of basic services, in the establishment of the rule of law, and in economic development.

It is, however, exceedingly difficult for the Iraqi government to come to grips with the toughest issues it must resolve while survival is the primary concern of so many in Iraq’s capital. For this reason, military action to improve security, while not wholly sufficient to solve Iraq’s problems, is certainly necessary. And that is why additional U.S. and Iraqi forces are moving to Baghdad.

Senators have not pulled funding yet, but Petraeus knows the idea has been tossed around. So he appealed.

In carrying out the non-kinetic elements of this strategy, however, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and civilians downrange must get all the help they can from all the agencies of our government. There is a plan to increase that assistance, and it is hugely important. This clearly is the time for the leaders of all our governmental departments to ask how their agencies can contribute to the endeavor in Iraq, and to provide all the assistance that they can.

And he knows they are impatient.

None of this will be rapid. In fact, the way ahead will be neither quick nor easy, and there undoubtedly will be tough days. We face a determined, adaptable, barbaric enemy. He will try to wait us out. In fact, any such endeavor is a test of wills, and there are no guarantees.

“In closing,” Petraeus said, “the situation in Iraq is dire.”

There are no easy choices. The way ahead will be very hard…But hard is not hopeless…

Not yet, anyway.