by Frank James
Sen. Barack Obama, had to wait until deep into the afternoon before he got a chance to ask his questions of Gen. David Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker during the Senate Foreign Relations Comittee hearing.
He was supposed to wait longer but a more senior senator on the committee, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.,) agreed to let Obama take his earlier turn since the presidential candidate had a scheduling conflict.
Obama was rewarded during his wait, however. When Sen. George Voinovich, an Ohio Republican who has soured on the Iraq War, expressed his frustration with the current state of affairs there, Voinovich was “We have somebody sitting across the table here who may be the next president of the United States. And the American people have had it up to here.”
Yes, it was that disjointed but for Obama that was sweet. It’s not everyday that a Democratic presidential candidate-senator gets to hear a conservative colleague from the other side interject that during an Iraq hearing.
But when the junior senator and Democratic presidential candidate’s moment came, he asked the kind of question generals and ambassadors typically dodge. He asked a hypothetical. In an unusual move, they tried to answer it.
Obama wanted to know what Iraq would have to look like before Petraeus and Crocker could say U.S. troops could be reduced well below 100,000 troops. (The surge peaked at 160,000.) Certainly, Obama said, the goal wasn’t as imposing as completely eliminating Al Qaeda or the terrorist group’s ability to rebuild itself. And it couldn’t be as daunting as eliminating all Iranian influence in Iraq. That’s impossible. So what level would be acceptable?
As a followup, Obama asked if the U.S. could somehow leave Iraq with the current levels of violence, democracy and Iranian influence, would that be tolerable to the present team of policymakers?
Here’s Obama’s exchange with Petraeus and Crocker:
SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL): Well, first of all, thanks to Senator
Nelson for his graciousness. And I want to thank both General
Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker for their dedication and sacrifice.
And obviously our troops are bearing the largest burden for this
enterprise. I think all of — both of you take those sacrifices very
seriously, and we appreciate the sacrifices that you yourselves are making.
I want to just start off with a couple of quick questions,
because in the parade of horribles that I think both of you have
outlined, should we leave too quickly, at the center is al Qaeda in
Iraq, and Iran. So I want to just focus on those two things for a
moment.
With respect to al Qaeda in Iraq, it’s already been noted they
were not there before we went in, but they certainly were there last
year, and they continue to have a presence there now.
Should we be successful in Mosul, should you continue, General
with the effective operations that you’ve been engaged in, assuming
that in that narrow military effort we are successful, do we
anticipate that there ever comes a time where al Qaeda in Iraq could
not reconstitute itself?
GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, I think the question, Senator, is whether
Iraqi security forces over time, with much less help, could deal with
their efforts to reconstitute. I think it’s —
SEN. OBAMA: That’s my point.
GEN. PETRAEUS: I think it’s a given that al Qaeda Iraq will try
to reconstitute, just as any movement of that type does try to
reconstitute. And the question is whether —
SEN. OBAMA: I don’t mean to interrupt you but I just want to
sharpen the question so that — because I think you’re getting right
at my point here.
I mean, if one of our criteria for success is ensuring that al
Qaeda does not have a base of operations in Iraq, I just want to
harden, a little bit, the metrics by which we’re measuring that. At
what point do we say they cannot reconstitute themselves? Or are we
saying that they’re not going to be particularly effective, and the
Iraqis themselves will be able to handle the situation?
GEN. PETRAEUS: I think it’s really the latter, Senator, that
again if you can keep chipping away at them, chipping away at their
leadership, chipping away at the resources — that comprehensive
approach that I mentioned — that over time, and we are reaching that
in some other areas already.
As I mentioned, we are drawing down very substantially in Anbar
province, a place that I think few people would have thought we’d be
at the situation we’re in at this point now, say, 18 months ago. And
again that’s what we want to try to achieve in all of the different
areas in which al Qaeda still has a presence.
SEN. OBAMA: Okay. So I just want to be clear if I’m
understanding.
We don’t anticipate that there’s never going to be some
individual or group of individuals in Iraq that might have sympathies
towards al Qaeda. Our goal is not to hunt down and eliminate every
single trace but rather to create a manageable situation where they’re
not posing a threat to Iraq or using it as a base to launch attacks
outside of Iraq.
Is that accurate?
GEN. PETRAEUS: That is exactly right.
SEN. OBAMA: Okay. And it’s also fair to say that, in terms of our success dealing
with al Qaeda, that the Sunni Awakening has been very important, as
you’ve testified. The Sons of Iraq and other tribal groups have
allied themselves with us. There have been talks about integrating
them into the central government.
However it’s been somewhat slow, somewhat frustrating. And my
understanding at least is although there’s been a promise of 20 to 30
percent of them being integrated into the Iraqi security forces, that
has not yet been achieved. On the other hand, the Maliki government
was very quick to say, we’re going to take another 10,000 Shi’as into
the Iraqi security forces.
And I’m wondering, does that undermine confidence on the part of
the Sunni tribal leaders, that they are actually going to be treated
fairly and they will be able to incorporate some of these young men of
More Top Picks Best Outdoor Canopies
military age into the Iraqi security forces?
GEN. PETRAEUS: No. That is ongoing, Senator.
As I mentioned, there’s well over 20,000 who have already been
integrated into either Iraqi security forces or other government
positions. It doesn’t just have to be the ISF. It could be other
positions.
And there are thousands of others who are working their way
through a process with the Iraqi national committee for reconciliation
in the ministry of interior and so forth.
It hasn’t been easy, because in the beginning, certainly there was
understandable suspicion about groups that were predominately Sunni —
although about 20 percent are actually Shi’a as well. But the process
is moving. It’s not been easy, but it is actually ongoing, and it is
generally now a relatively routine process, although it takes lots of
nudging.
SEN. OBAMA: Okay. Let me shift to Iran. Just as — and
Ambassador Crocker, if you want to address this, you can — just as
it’s fair to say that we’re not going to completely eliminate all
traces of al Qaeda in Iraq but we want to create a manageable
situation, it’s also true to say that we’re not going to eliminate all
influence of Iran in Iraq, correct? That’s not goal. That’s can’t be
our definition of success, that Iran has no influence in Iraq, so can
you define more sharply what you think would be a legitimate or fair
set of circumstances in the relationship between Iran and Iraq that
would make us feel comfortable drawing down our troops?
AMB. CROCKER: Senator, as I said in my statement, we have no
problem with a good, constructive relationship between Iran and Iraq.
The problem is with the Iranian strategy of backing extremist militia
groups and sending in weapons and munitions that are used against
Iraqis and against our own forces.
SEN. OBAMA: So do we feel — do we feel confident that the Iraqi
(sic) government is directing these — this aid to these special
groups, do we feel confident about that, or do we think that they’re
just tacitly tolerating it? Do you have some sense of that?
AMB. CROCKER: There’s no question in our minds that the Iranian
government, in particular, the Qods Force is — this is a conscious,
carefully worked out policy.
SEN. OBAMA: If that’s the case, can you respond a little more
fully to Senator Boxer’s point? If, in fact, it is known, and I’m
assuming you’ve shared this information with the Maliki government,
that Iran’s government has assisted in arming special groups that are
doing harm to Iraqi security fores and undermining the Iraqi
government, why is it that they are being welcomed the way they were?
AMB. CROCKER: Well, we don’t need to, again, tell the prime
minister that. He knows it —
SEN. OBAMA: Okay.
AMB. CROCKER: — and is trying to take some steps to tighten up
significantly on the border. In terms of the Ahmadinejad visit, you
know, Iran and Iraq are neighbors. A visit like that should be in the
category of a normal relationship.
SEN. OBAMA: Okay.
AMB. CROCKER: I think what we have seen since then in terms of
this very clear spotlight focused on a malign Iranian influence puts
that visit into a very different perspective for most Iraqis,
including Iraqi Shi’a.
SEN. OBAMA: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I know that I’m out of time, so
let me just — if I could have the indulgence of the committee for one
minute.
SEN. BIDEN: Everybody else has. (Laughter.)
SEN. OBAMA: Thank you.
I just want to close with a couple of key points. Number one, we
all have the greatest in seeing a successful resolution to Iraq — all
of us do. And that, I think, has to be stated clearly in the record.
I continue to believe that the original decision to go into Iraq was a
massive strategic blunder, that the two problems that you’ve pointed
out, al Qaeda in Iraq and increased Iranian influence in the region
are a direct result of that original decision. That’s not a decision
you gentlemen made; I won’t lay it at your feet. You are cleaning up
the mess afterwards. But I think it is important as we debate this
forward.
I also think that the surge has reduced violence and provided
breathing room — but that breathing room has not been taken the way
we would all like it to be taken. And I think what happened in Basra
is an example of Shi’a versus Shi’a jockeying for power that
underscores how complicated the political situation is there and how
we still have to continue to work vigorously to resolve it.
I believe that we are more likely to resolve it, in your own
words, Ambassador, if we are applying increased pressure in a measured
way. I think that increased pressure in a measured way, in my mind —
and this is where we disagree — includes a timetable for withdrawal
— nobody’s asking for a precipitous withdrawal, but I do think that
is has to be a measured but increased pressure — and a diplomatic
surge that includes Iran because if Maliki can tolerate as normal
neighbor-to-neighbor relations in Iran, then we should be talking to
them as well. I do not believe we’re going to be able to stabilize
the situation without them.
Just the last point I will make: Our resources are finite. And
More Top Picks Best Canes For Seniors
this has been made — this is a point that just was made by Senator
Voinovich. It’s been made by Senator Biden, Senator Lugar, Senator
Hagel. There’s a bipartisan consensus that we have finite resources.
Our military is overstretched and the Pentagon has acknowledged it.
Our — the amount of money that we are spending is hemorrhaging our
budget and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, I think, is feeling a lot more
secure as long as we’re focused in Iraq and not on Afghanistan.
When you have finite resources, you’ve got to define your goals
tightly and modestly. And so my final — and I’ll even pose us a
question and you — I won’t — you don’t necessarily have to answer,
maybe it’s a rhetorical question. 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 have 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 have to — we’d have to devote even more resources to
it?
AMB. CROCKER: Senator, I can’t imagine the current status quo
being sustainable with that kind of precipitous drawdown.
I think —
SEN. BIDEN: That wasn’t the question.
SEN. OBAMA: 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.
See, the problem I have is if the definition of success is so
high — no traces of al Qaeda and no possibility of reconstitution; a
highly effective Iraqi government; a democratic, multi-ethnic, 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’s 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 time frame.
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.
AMB. CROCKER: And that’s because, Senator, it is a, I mean,
don’t like to sound like a broken record.
SEN. OBAMA: I understand.
AMB. CROCKER: But this is hard and this is complicated.
I think that when Iraq gets to the point that it can carry
forward its further development without a major commitment of U.S.
forces, with still a lot of problems out there, but where they and we
would have a fair certitude that again they can drive it forward
themselves without significant danger of having the whole thing slip
away from them again, then clearly our profile, our presence,
diminishes markedly.
But that’s not where we are now.
SEN. OBAMA: Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. BIDEN: Thank you.