[PAA-Discuss] FW: [UFPJ] Bennis Talking Points: PETRAEUS-CROCKER HEARINGS: POLITICALTHEATER ON MESSAGE

Wed Apr 9 13:25:34 EDT 2008

from one of the most knowledgeable commentators on the ME. Lee/Mom

  _____  

PETRAEUS-CROCKER HEARINGS:  POLITICAL THEATER ON MESSAGE 
By Phyllis Bennis
Institute for Policy Studies
8 April 2008

Even before the House version gets underway on Wednesday, it's clear that
Day One of the Petraeus-Crocker show is all about political theater -
starring a 4-star general with a chest full of medals and political
ambition, and a soft-spoken self-deprecating ambassador, both straight out
of central casting.  

But this is political theater - with very clear messages.

            **  Iran is the Problem in Iraq

**  The "Surge" Stopped the Violence

**  Keep the Troops in Iraq

**  Support the $110 billion Supplemental Funding Bill for Iraq War

Iran is the Problem in Iraq
The single most important purpose of the Petraeus-Crocker hearing was to
ratchet up tensions with Iran.  Much of Petraeus' opening statement, and a
major theme of both witnesses' answers to senators' questions, had to do
with the danger of Iran's "malign intentions" in Iraq.  One of the last
line's of Petraeus' opening salvo was "none of us earlier this year
appreciated the extent of Iranian involvement in Iraq, something about which
we and Iraq's leaders all now have greater concern."

The political overview was the claim that virtually all of the current
problems in Iraq come back to the dangerous role of Iran - the U.S.
occupation, apparently, has nothing to do with the violence and instability
across Iraq.  Specifically, there was a strong effort to blame Iran for
training and arming the so-called "special groups" within the Mahdi Army
militia of radical Shi'a cleric Moqtada al Sadr.  At a moment when Sadr's
influence is increasing, and his movement represents the most powerful
anti-occupation force in Iraq, there is some recognition in Washington that
it may be necessary to co-opt Sadr at some point, rather than isolating or
attacking him directly.  As a result, the claim is being made that Ira n  is
dangerous arming or backing only the "special groups" or "rogue elements"
within Sadr's movement, not Sadr himself.  This of course flies in the face
of the longstanding links between Sadr and Iran (he has spent much of the
last year in the Iranian city of Qom studying Islamic theology).

But more importantly, it represents a complete distortion of the actual role
Iran is currently playing inside Iraq.  Neither Petraeus nor Crocker, nor
any senator asking questions, mentioned anything about Iran's widely known
role in facilitating the ceasefire between al Sadr's militia and the U.S.
and Iraqi military forces arrayed against it during the recent fighting in
Basra.  Crocker, and several senators, referred a willingness to accept
"normal" relations between Iran and Iraq, but none acknowledged the strength
and normality of the relationship that already exists today.

The Petraeus-Crocker testimony added fuel to
an existing escalation of anti-Iran mobilization in Washington.  The hearing
takes place less than a month after the resignation of former CentCom chief
Admiral William Fallon, who left the U.S. military largely because of
disagreements with Bush administration policies in Iraq and especially its
threats towards Iran. The dangerous possibility of a U.S. military strike
against Iran cannot be ruled out, and must remain the target of mobilized
opposition.

The "surge" is the sole reason for this year's reduction of violence in Iraq
Both Petraeus and Crocker claimed repeatedly that the reduction of violence
in Iraq from mid-2007 was solely the result of the "surge" of 30,000
additional U.S. troops. While certainly an additional 30,000 armed soldiers
in an occupying army has some impact on suppressing violence in certain
areas, often forcing the violence from one location to another, it is
equally clear that other conditions had far more impact.

The surge began in early 2007.  From June-July 2007 through November
violence dropped dramatically.  Since then the levels have not gone down,
but largely remained flat. Both Crocker and Petraeus essentially claimed the
surge was responsible for anything good that happened in Iraq during that
period.   According to Petraeus, "the level of security incidents has
decreased significantly since the start of the surge of offensive operations
in mid-June
"

Petraeus, Crocker and all the senators ignored the three major
factors that actually played a much greater role in reducing the violence.
First, the unilaterally-declared ceasefire by al Sadr's Mahdi Army; that
action took the largest and most powerful anti-occupation force largely out
of the military business.  Second, the creation of the Sunni "awakening
councils," in which about 80,000 former anti-U.S. militia members (from al
Qaeda in Iraq to a variety of largely Sunni tribal and other forces who had
once fought the U.S. and the U.S.-backed Iraqi government) were bought off -
armed, paid and supported by the U.S. in new, and for the moment pro-U.S.,
militias. Petraeus actually admitted in his testimony that "the most
significant development in the past six months like has been the increasing
emergence of tribes and local citizens rejecting al Qaeda and other
extremists."  But there was no acknowledgement of how removing 80,000
militia members from the anti-U.S. fight just might have some impact on
reducing violence.  Third, and most horrific, is the shocking reality that
much violence ended because it had served its purpose. Much of the sectarian
violence that wracked Iraq through 2005 and 2006 was aimed at destroying the
heterogeneous mix of people in Baghdad neighborhoods and other cities, and
replacing that diverse cosmopolitanism with sectarian-defined isolation.
That has, to a shocking degree, been accomplished - so much of Baghdad's
population now lives behind 12-foot high cement walls in all-Sunni or
all-Shi'a or other forcibly homogenous communities.  With that accomplished,
much of the raison d'étre of the violence disappeared.

"The Premature draw-down of our forces would likely have devastating
consequences."
A key goal in the hearing was for Petraeus to justify the White House's call
for a rapid end to the current small-scale "draw-down" of troops, and
instead to support the permanent occupation of Iraq.  Petraeus called for an
indefinite halt to troop reductions after July 2008, at which time troop
levels will be about 140,000 - the same as "pre-surge" levels.  At that
point, he said, the withdrawal of troops should stop.  It would be, he said,
"premature to make recommendations on the pace of such reductions" beyond
July, and indeed he would not even consider further reductions until March
2009.

Instead, after July there should be a 45-day period to "evaluate &
consolidate," THEN an indefinite "process of reassessment," THEN conditions
would be assessed "over time."  The "premature draw-down" equals
"devastating consequences" framework was a constant drumbeat during the
hearings, aimed primarily at the Democratic presidential candidates, both of
whom claim to support troop withdrawals.  Although both Clinton's and
Obama's plans call only for withdrawing combat troops - leaving behind
30,000 to 75,000 training, guarding, counter-terrorism and other troops -
the accusation of dangerous consequences was constant.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->Petraeus quoted a classified Defense
Intelligence Agency report (which he said he had "summarized in unclassified
fashion" - so no one could challenge him) stating that rapid troop
withdrawal would lead to "dangerous results, including high risk of
disintegration of the Iraq Security Forces; rapid deterioration of local
security initiatives; al Qaeda-Iraq regaining lost ground and freedom of
maneuver; marked increase in violence and further ethno-sectarian
displacement and refugee flows; alliances of convenience by Iraqi groups
with internal and external forces to gain advantages over their rivals; and
exacerbation of already challenging regional dynamics, especially with
respect to Iran."

Support the $110 billion supplemental funding bill
The Democratic majority in congress has made clear they have no intention of
challenging the next supplemental funding bill for the war.  But both
Petraeus and Crocker made sure to express fawning gratitude to the congress
that had authorized unlimited funds for the Iraq War, urging that it
continue.  It was hardly needed.

Key Recommendations
--No troop withdrawals after July 2008, leaving 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

--No change in the U.S. mission in Iraq.  

-- The announcement that the current 15-month Iraq deployments would be
shortened to 12 months was not mentioned; presumably it was left to Bush for
his Thursday night "address to the nation."

Two interesting questions
There was little serious follow-up from any senator, with the exception of
Republican Senator Voinovich, the only one who showed any anger or emotion
in response to the horrors of the war:  "I think Osama bin Laden is sitting
back right now looking at this thing [and saying] in effect, We're kinda
bankrupting this country. We are eating our seed corn. We've got some really
big problems today, and we are in a recession, and God only knows how long
we're gonna be in it."

Obama asked one good question, but undermined his position with his own
refusal to call for complete withdrawal of troops.

Obama asked Crocker, "if we were able to have
the status quo in Iraq right now without U.S. troops, would that be a
sufficient definition of success? It's obviously not perfect. There's still
violence, there's still some traces of Al Qaeda, Iran has influence more
than we would like. But if we had the current status quo, and yet our troops
had been drawn down to 30,000, would we consider that a success? Would that
meet our criteria, or would that not be good enough and we'd have to devote
even more resources to it?"

Crocker's answer:  "Senator, I can't imagine the current status quo being
sustainable with that kind of precipitous drawdown."

Obama's reply:  "No, no, that wasn't the question. I'm not suggesting that
we yank all our troops out all the way. I'm trying to get to an endpoint.
That's what all of us have been trying to get to. And, see, the problem I
have is if the definition of success is so high, no traces of Al Qaida and
no possibility of reconstitution, a highly-effective Iraqi government, a
Democratic multiethnic, multi- sectarian functioning democracy, no Iranian
influence, at least not of the kind that we don't like, then that portends
the possibility of us staying for 20 or 30 years. If, on the other hand, our
criteria is a messy, sloppy status quo but there's not, you know, huge
outbreaks of violence, there's still corruption, but the country is
struggling along, but it's not a threat to its neighbors and it's not an Al
Qaeda base, that seems to me an achievable goal within a measurable
timeframe, and that, I think, is what everybody here on this committee has
been trying to drive at, and we haven't been able to get as clear of an
answer as we would like."

____________________________

Phyllis Bennis is a Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and of the
Transnational Institute in Amsterdam.  Earlier Talking Points are available
at www.ips-dc.org
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=UufJeT3QBZn1xLDLcG7n
ce%2FxJ0DrsX8X> .  Bennis is author of the new pamphletIRAN IN THE
CROSSHAIRS: HOW TO PREVENT WASHINGTON'S NEXT WAR, just published by IPS. To
order, (1-202) 234-9382 or info at ips-dc.org. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://paa-tx.org/pipermail/discuss_paa-tx.org/attachments/20080409/f41f9fc9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
UFPJ mailing list

Post: UFPJ at lists.mayfirst.org
List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj

To Unsubscribe
	Send email to:  UFPJ-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org
	Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj/bartboyce%40sbcglobal.net

You are subscribed as: bartboyce at sbcglobal.net