Senators sceptical of surge testimony

Back in January, Bush expected big things from the surge by now. Iraqi troops would tackle and disarm the sectarian militias in a door-to-door search in which U.S. troops would merely back up. The Iraqi government would be in control of all of the provinces, and benchmarks would be met. Twice as many Iraqi police and military would be trained as currently exist. In short, Bush would be basking in the glow of success and saying "I told you so" to Democrats who had the audacity to doubt his brilliant plan.

Instead, we have phony numbers, a whole lot of corpses, the sectarian militias are as strong as ever, the Iraqi government is even weaker than it was back in January, and those troops can't seem to be trained. The 'bright' spot is that we've taken some of the terrorists and dubbed them "good guys". Meanwhile, Bush is doing his best to expand the military effort into Iran and Syria, in order to bring 'progress' to more of the Middle East. Once again, the best possible outcome is being entertained as the only possible outcome. And if it goes wrong, then it's the next President's problem. How many doubt that those Republicans who say that it's treason to criticise a sitting President in times of war will strangely have no problem blaming a Democratic President for the situation they are handed?

Meanwhile, the marginal, largely lateral moves from the surge are being inflated. This is not what Bush anticipated, and Republicans know it. By the next election we will have seen five years of Bush asking for patience, and only phony progress at the margins to show for it. Bush has had an absolutely free hand in this war and occupation. Nothing has been denied him. Yet he will blame Democrats for his failure, due to their dissent. Republican dissent against the action in Kosovo didn't seem to turn that into a major disaster, but facts don't matter to neocons.

story from Xinhua

General's account on Iraq meets skepticism in U.S. Senate

The top U.S. general in Iraq received deep bipartisan skepticism as he provided assessments on Iraq's situation at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing Tuesday morning.

The opening statement from Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) set the tone for what would prove to be a heated discussion of U.S. policy in the war torn country, which Gen. David Petreaus maintained is improving.

Lugar compared the operation to a farmer risking his savings to plant on a flood plain.

"As policymakers, we should acknowledge that we are facing extraordinarily narrow margins for achieving our goals," he said, calling for a troop drawdown beyond pre-surge levels, contrary to Petreaus' recommendations.

Others, such as Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE), questioned the disparity between Petreaus' assessments and that of the General Accounting Office (GAO), delivered to the committee last week.

Petreaus attributed the difference to his having an data collection period at least five weeks beyond that of the GAO report.

Sen. Chuck Hegel (R-NE), however, was not convinced.

"We've got too many disconnects here, general, way too many disconnects," he said.

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) echoed Hegel's view, saying "our troops are owed a policy that is worthy of their sacrifice."

Gen. Petreaus, for his part, pointed to "signs for hope," including moves toward sharing oil revenue, progress in the Anbar Province and an overall reduction sectarian violence over the past month.

Ambassador Crocker, who accompanied him at the hearing, acknowledged that "there is an enormous amount of dysfunctionality in Iraq, and that is without question," but said that he is encouraged that "Iraqis are talking about that type of dysfunctionality."

Although some Republican senators appear to doubt about Petraeus' assessments, it remains to be seen if Democrats will gain enough Republican support to pass proposed legislation calling for the troops to come home by next spring.

Source: Xinhua