What Petraeus Must Answer
By Larry Johnson on September 6, 2007 at 2:07 AM in Current Affairs
By Brent Budowsky
It is fashionable though wrong to state “the surge is working,” but this debate misses the point about the devastation to the United States Army, the destabilization of our global force structures, the near-total destruction of our conventional deterrent capability, the extreme damage to the war in Afghanistan and the collapse of recruitment standards imposed by the status quo policy in Iraq.
When Army Gen. David Petraeus testifies next week, here are the hard questions that the nation deserves to have asked and answered, clearly and unequivocally:
Do you agree that the government of Iraq is indebted to, and dependent on, Shiite factions that control death squads and militia that favor Shiite military victory in sectarian wars that have raged for hundreds of years?
Do you agree that many of the same forces and factions that we support through the Iraqi government are recipients of support from the government of Iran?
Are we not today providing money, weapons and bribes directly or indirectly to both sides in the Shiite-Sunni sectarian war?
In your estimation, general, on a scale of 1 to 10, what is the probability that the current Iraqi government will legitimately seek and achieve reconciliation between Shiites and Sunnis?
If there is no reconciliation, do you agree that the ultimate result of American support of former Sunni insurgents who were recently killing Americans, and of the Iraqi government with deep ties to Iran and Shiite militia and death squads, will be increased carnage, bloodshed and ethnic cleansing made even more catastrophic because we are providing weapons and money to both sides today?
General, how do you evaluate the long-term damage to the United States Army and how do you compare the effectiveness of our military force structures, and capability for deterrence, in 2007 compared to 2003?
Do you agree with the Marine Corps pathologist that many of those killed and wounded in Iraq were preventable casualties resulting from lack of armor, protection and support from Washington, and that tax cuts during wartime, with such needs continuing to be unmet, are morally unacceptable?
Do you agree, general, that from 2003 until 2007 major damage has been done to our mission in Afghanistan by diversion of our military to Iraq, and that such damage poses a significant and increasing threat to our security by endangering our mission in Afghanistan and our campaign against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and along the Afghani-Pakistani border?
Do you agree with many experts that the long-term costs of supporting troops and veterans of Iraq, Afghanistan and previous wars for the duration of their lives is measured in hundreds of billions of dollars for needs that are unmet, unplanned, unbudgeted and neglected?
How concerned are you about the decline in recruiting standards that have led to increasing enlistments of those who are obese, have criminal records, fall short of educational standards, or are enticed into service to meet personal financial crises more than to express traditional values of duty, honor and country?
General, don’t you agree that the major retention failure in which large numbers of West Point graduates leave the service does major damage to our future command structure, and loses many of the future Pattons, MacArthurs and Eisenhowers?
Do you support the Geneva Convention in full, oppose what Gen. Antonio Taguba suggests is a cover-up of the Abu Ghraib crimes, and understand the damage that Guantanamo, the challenge to the traditional code of military justice, and the entire torture debate do to undermine our position in the battle of ideas and increase the number of recruited terrorists, even as we lower the standards for recruited soldiers?
Do you regret the op-ed you wrote for The Washington Post in September 2004, shortly before the presidential election, in which you made dramatically over-optimistic forecasts for the Iraqi army, police and government leadership three full years ago?
What lessons have you learned and what changes have you made from your previous tour of duty in Iraq, when far too few in the Iraqi military were trained under your command, when far too many weapons were stolen or lost under your command, and when your September 2004 forecasts were so mistaken compared to the realities of the Iraqi military and police at the time you made them?
Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen and Bill Alexander, then-chief deputy whip of the House. He serves on the Advisory Council of the Intelligence Summit and as a contributing editor to Fighting Dems News Service. He can be read on The Hill Pundits Blog and reached at brentbbi@webtv.net .
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
Let the games begin…..
well now, just who are we going to get to ask these hard questions when the general testifies?
Sorry Susan,
Other Tom was pretending to be Shirin again–very poorly I might add–and I deleted his comment, which also deleted your reply. So reposting it for you:
From SusanUnPC to “shirin”:
Spoofing is for pimply 13-year-old boys. Grow up.
[SUSAN'S Thurs. a.m. additional note: Tom, really. I bet you even get the giggles when you pull this kind of dumb stunt. You need an outdoor activity. Walking is good, for starters. Or, if you're over 21, try the dartboard at the local tavern, if they'll have you.]
Great questions Brent, I hope some Capital Hill staffers read this sight and pass them on to their representatives and senators.
Do you really expect Petraeus to answer any questions which would show his prima donna tuches in a bad light? C’mon, Petraeus is all about Petraeus, of Petraeus by Petraeus and for Petraeus. When they invented the word ego maniac they were thinking of Petraeus. Petraeus need to be busted in rank, every star removed.
Betrayus will say everythng is wonderful and thus the ball will be punted down the field for the next poor slob that is president. I am starting to wonder who really is in control of the USA titanic? no one is responsible for anything EXCEPT the liberal media.
This war didn’t just “happen to us”, we started it and now, 5 years later, no one is held responsible for what they have sewn. This is beyond frustrating, it’s crimminal….
READ THIS COMMENT PLEASE.
Helman: Bush’s Stage-Managed Photo Op with Sunni Sheikhs May Spell Trouble in Future
Ambassador Gerald B. Helman writes:
Perhaps the most telling commentary on the situation today in Iraq is the choice of a remote, heavily fortified US airbase in Anbar province for the President’s third visit to Iraq. He was joined by his senior national security officials, all kinds of four-stars, including General Petreus, and Ambassador Crocker. Iraq’s senior government officials were summoned from Baghdad, as well; President Bush had the pleasant task of introducing them to some local cooperating Sunni Sheiks. One can imagine that everyone was coached to dutifully smile for the cameras.
Last year, by contrast, when the President visited Iraq he held his meetings in Baghdad’s Green Zone, met and sought to encourage, identify with, and thus strengthen Iraq’s constitutional government. Democracy was messy, the security situation dire, but still Iraq’s was a democratically elected government, ruling over a newly sovereign country, a living expression of the President’s vision of spreading democracy and freedom. It thus merited our support.
The visit to Anbar was pure theater. Bush did not need to go there to get briefed by Petreus and Crocker. He certainly has received the elaborated substance of their reports, which will be incorporated, probably in some modified fashion in the report Bush is required to send to Congress on September 15. It is hardly believable that their solo testimony next week to Congress will hold any unpleasant surprises for the White House.
The point of the elaborately staged Anbar soundbite was not to tout the claimed (modest) success of the Surge–that has been done many multiple times in the briefngs, the “dog and pony shows,” given to visiting congressmen, journalists, and analysts. Rather, it was to build up an alternative story of political success in response to the clear failure of political reconciliation among the contending parties in the Government of Iraq. It was only a few months ago that Congress and the Administration went clearly on record that the strategic point of the surge was to bring about such reconciliation, as defined by the benchmarks contained in our law. But not even the Administration, Petraeus or Crocker could claim that the political benchmarks have been met or that they are likely to be met in the foreseeable future. Rather than admit the obvious–that the Surge has been a failure because it has not and probably will not meet its strategic goals–the President and his men are now developing an alternative to the political goals set by Congress and the President three months ago. Rather than “top/down” political progress to be evidenced by meeting the stated benchmarks, what is really valuable is “bottom/up” progress, the kind that is represented by Sunni Sheiks cooperating with the US by taking our weapons to chase down largely other, radical Iraqis under the banner of al Qaeda of Mesopotamia. What we will hear next week, is testimony by Petraeus and Crocker, combined with a largely staged campaign of articles, backgrounders and op-ed pieces, that seek to redefine the political goalposts and conclude that they are being met through the newly identified “bottom-up” phenomenon.
But what really appears to be happening is that the US, for valid near term tactical military goals, is supporting local traditional political structures that are tribal, authoritarian and non-transparent to combat radical Sunnis associated with local al Qaeda affiliates. The sheiks are not democratic or elected. But they are certainly important. And they also, not surprisingly, have their own political agendas. These Sunni tribal sheiks were one of Saddam Hussein’s central constituencies. They supported him, provided him with manpower and officers, and benefited hugely from his largesse. They and their constituencies were the ones who suffered most from the fall of Saddam, the rise of Shiite power, the growing Iranian influence, the Kurdish efforts to recover claimed territory, the adoption of a national constitution that failed to take account of Sunni interests and the looming possibility that they will be denied what they would consider a fair share of future oil revenues. And to top it off, radical Sunni Islamists were challenging their traditional authority, and the American army was decimating their population and landscape.
So the Sunni sheiks appear now to be doing what the Shiites and others have done: find ways to bring the US to support their objectives. The main Shiite objective was to assert its majority status in Iraq to gain political control. Democracy served that purpose at least to the extent that it allows control of substantial state assets and means of coercion, gives Shiite militias operating room, and suppresses the Sunnis. The Kurds have also improved their already favored position with the US in order to establish an almost independent state, assert their additional territorial claims largely against the Sunnis (which also would bring more oil). Both the Shiites and the Kurds have an interest in a limited government in Baghdad, under their control.
To now compete, the Sunnis can offer the US to fight the radical al Qaeda types in their midst, a truce in their armed resistance to the US army, and undying opposition to the “Persians.” In exchange, they receive weapons, training and “reconstruction teams.” But it is the arms and training that count, to be used now against radical Islamist elements, but later to help recover the status and power they lost when Saddam was overthrown. We also should not assume that by making “nice” today, the Sunni sheiks will not in their good time turn on us.
There are reasons why “reconciliation” at the Federal level has been so hard to achieve. Those benchmark measures would largely serve to restore some of the position that Sunnis have lost and assure them of some cut in the nation’s oil wealth. The same fear of Sunni revanchism leads the Shiite federal leadership to view with concern the arming of Sunnis by the US. They know what’s coming and will have none of it. From the standpoint of the US, the short-term gain in Anbar has to be weighed against the further distancing of federal reconciliation prospects and additional reliance by the Shiites on the Iranian connection. “Bottom-up,” while suggesting something snappy and positive, instead will further confirm Shiite fear of Sunni purposes and reinforce the continuing suspicion that the Shiites will again be abandoned by the US. Wittingly or otherwise, the US reinforces that suspicion through active speculation on changing the leadership or even the nature of Iraq’s government.
As far as real US policy is concerned, much of this will make little difference. President Bush continues to demonstrate that he will not budge from Iraq. He does not want his heritage to carry the weight of retreat and defeat, regardless of the lives lost and treasure wasted. He’ll leave that to the next president. Profile in courage?
Gerald B. Helman “was United States Ambassador to the European Office of the United Nations from 1979 through 1981.”
Phillip,
Please don’t quote entire articles, and if you quote an article please provide the link.
There are a few reasons for this, such as copyright. It’s also impolite to your fellow blog readers to make them scroll forever through your comment in order to read the other comments.
Please post a link for this so I can reference the original source.
Thanks!
Here’s a question for Betrayus via TPM reader JB:
Why have we switched sides?
“Fashionable to say the surge is working”
Please, someone… tell me who among the media is saying that? And if they are, don’t they follow it with a “but…”
Remember Harry Reid: “This war is lost.”
Pick just about any other Congressman, news media pundit, or DailyKos kid, and that is what you will get. Those saying it is working are few and far between.
I laugh at your dumnosity: “hahahahahahahahaha!”
Who among the media? Wanna start with Katy Couric, who after the standard dog and pony show seems convinced, among other completely daft notions, that Falluja is an absolute model of success. And how about O’Hanlon, and his sidekick whatsisname, who keep writing op eds and giving interviews in which they insist that The Surge™ is a rousing success? Shall I go on, or are you starting to get the picture?
As for the Congress members, don’t tell me you haven’t heard the ones – both Republican and Democrat – who have all come back from Petraeus’s Iraq dog and pony show all aglow about how well The Surge™ is working, and how Anbar has turned into the Switzerland of the Middle East.
Here’s a follow-up question to TPM reader JB’s question above:
If Bush’s strategy is switch sides and start supporting Iraqi Sunni factions in order to bolster opposition to Iran, then wouldn’t that mean the Bushies have been arming and training Iranian agents in the Shiite-dominated political sphere, such as the Maliki government [Dawa]?
I am going to break with tradition and insert a link here which is not relevant to this article but is a poignant reminder of the plight of ordinary Iraq’s.
Some of you may have read Riverbend’s blogspot.
Several months ago many of us who read her blogs were relieved when she announced that she and her family were leaving their home to become a refugee in either Jordon or Syria. However no one has heard from her since.
Here is a link to her blogspot where she writes that her family is now safe in Syria.
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#828763212765794127%23828763212765794127
Thanks Bill, what a relief!
Even though he really doesn’t deserve it, Petraeus will get the kid glove treatment just like Ollie North did for his treasonous activities during Iran Contra (and in full disclosure, those missiles were pointed at my ships when we were in the Gulf and NAS). It was truly embarrassing to see Inouye in particular, who did know better from his own combat experience, give North a series of softball questions and a free pass. North’s subsequent conviction was overturned on a technicality. My buds in DC noted at the time that it was the only time they’d seen North wearing the uniform while in DC, the rest of the time he was a suit-wearing REMF desk jockey.
The other thing to remember is that this is WH Kabuki at its core. Petraeus isn’t writing the report, the WH already admitted it is, and the GOP claims it will merely “tweak” the unvarnished [yeah, right] assessment from Gen P. That admission alone means that we aren’t getting the truth on Iraq from Petraeus. However, Gen P is a cheerleader in his own right, and has everything to gain career-wise from being more optimistic than warranted by the actual facts on the ground. The list of purged generals is already lengthy, and Gen P knows bad news adds his name to it.
Is Lt Gen Lute going to testify? As the “War Czar ™” he should be able to tell us how the old coordination is going, but I haven’t seen any press since his nomination. Hmmmmmmm…….
[...] [Click the title, above, to read more of Brent’s tough questions for Gen. Petraeus. Send a message about this essay to letters@thehill.com, and if your letter is good enough to be published, it may be read by your senators and congressman! This essay was cross posted at Larry Johnson’s No Quarter.—Caro] [...]
[...] with MacArthur, but in terms of his actual record the hype does not match the actual performance. Brent Budowsky’s piece published on this blog last week presents chapter and verse on Petraeus’ so-called [...]
How dare you disparage our next Secretary of Defense (under Hillary Clinton) like this! Why, if you tear down this good man’s character, then he’ll have none left to burn as he explains to Congress why Hillary needs another $500 Billion in 2010 to continue the occupation of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebannon, and Egypt.
japanese bdsm…
While Everyday Mommy is saying goodbye, Everyday Design
…
ladyboy fuck…
Easily Author and Administer your own Training Content,
…
free discrete erotic picture sex stories…
of a rather ordinary-looking lamb named Dolly made front pages
…
hardcore incest porn…
New music community where composers, students
…
Asian Squirt…
An English-language quarterly magazine targeting professional
…
Dbz Anime Porn…
Jon Tester is a third-generation Montana farmer who understands
…
Hentai Babes…
Jon Tester is a third-generation Montana farmer who understands
…
Online Cartoon Porn Games…
Jon Tester is a third-generation Montana farmer who understands
…
Cartoon Sex Porn Xxx…
An English-language quarterly magazine targeting professional
…
Free Cartoon Porn Moves…
Jon Tester is a third-generation Montana farmer who understands
…
Twin Incest…
well as a complete archives section, filled with hundreds of
…
Zoey…
Resources for your Torres Repol family tree research project
…
Diamante…
solo exhibition. LIQUIDATED LOGOS presents a new docufiction film
…
Hey, I saw that!