Abizaid and the Politicians

The Senate hearing was pretty much pathetic. The only thing worse is the actual reporting on it. The politicos got up and gave what their "professional" opinion on what the strategy should be, and then took a couple of minutes to belittle Abizaid. Graham and Lieberman were about the only reasonable politicians in the room. You also have to get a kick out of the reports on how the Repugs arrived late or didn't show up. Funny that that was not mentioned during any of the committee hearings on the SCOTUS nominees. I watched those and the majority of the Dems showed up for their speeches and then left. Fair and balanced, no gloating over the election to be seen here.

But no sooner had Mr. Levin outlined his case for a phased pullout of troops beginning in four to six months than the new Independent Democratic hero of the hawkish wing, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, began acting the role of cross-examiner, leading Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top American military commander in the Middle East, to say that such a withdrawal would increase violence and instability.

“I take it by your answer that you profoundly disagree?” Mr. Lieberman asked. With the Democrats, he meant. “We have a window of opportunity and, really, responsibility now, after the election,” he said, “to find a bipartisan consensus for being supportive of the efforts of our troops and our diplomats there to achieve success.”

Now, does that sound like a neutral reporter to you? I also read a few other articles and find it fascinating that they completely fail to report on Abizaids full statements. Especially toward McCain. I'm going to move onto another article, due to the excessively pathetic reporting by the NYTimes.

This one is from the LATimes, and it is a bit better. They don't detail the timing of the coming and going of the Repugs, so there was actually some reporting on the relevant facts.

With Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's pending departure and the Democratic takeover of Congress, top generals are likely to face greater criticism.

"I must say that I come to this hearing with a great deal of skepticism, because, prior to this hearing, there's been a great deal of obfuscation by the witnesses in front of this committee as to what the truth is," said Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla.

You have to love when they start off calling the witnesses names. That just makes those testifying so much more cooperative.

Against a barrage of questions from some lawmakers calling for phased withdrawals and others advocating an increase in troops, Abizaid defended the status quo, warning against timetables and insisting current troop levels were adequate to quell violence and help prepare Iraqi forces.

Now I watched this, and I never saw Abizaid defend the status quo. He did directly speak against it when replying to McCain's snotty shots when he was told that troop levels are where they need to be. But try to find that quote in a MSM article.

Abizaid said that although sectarian violence remained at unacceptably high levels, it had declined since August, when he told the same Senate committee that Iraq was at risk of sliding into civil war.

Abizaid's steadfastness on troop levels drew ire from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, particularly Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a probable 2008 presidential contender who has become the most vocal advocate for an increase in U.S. troops in Iraq.

Seizing on Abizaid's acknowledgment that western Anbar province was not under coalition control and that troops who might have been used to secure the Sunni insurgent stronghold had been diverted to Baghdad, McCain said Abizaid was failing to prevent a return of insurgent control.

"Wouldn't it make sense to ... get both Baghdad and al-Anbar province under control before we have another battle of Fallujah and lose many more lives?" McCain said. "I don't understand that tactic, General."

Abizaid conceded that sending 20,000 additional troops into Iraq might temporarily quell violence, but he said it also would upset American efforts to get the Iraqi government to take more responsibility for the country's internal security.

Abizaid added that, even if it were in Iraq's best interest to increase the presence of U.S. forces, it would be difficult for the Pentagon to find additional combat troops without increasing the size of the active-duty military.

Nonetheless, Abizaid acknowledged that he planned to increase troop levels in the near term. Abizaid ordered the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit, which has been on ships in the Persian Gulf for months as a backup reserve force, into Iraq.

So in fact troop levels will be fluctuating, but not to the level that the Senators seem to desire. That would be complete withdrawal for the Dems and a huge increase for McCain (for those of you not keeping a score card).

Forbes reports the McCain troop flap this way.

So far, McCain and Levin can agree that Abizaid's testimony this week was unsatisfying. Both called the general's recommendation of accelerating the training of Iraqi forces an unacceptable status quo.

"I regret deeply that you seem to think that the status quo and the rate of progress we're making is acceptable," McCain told Abizaid. "I think most Americans do not."

Abizaid responded that he thought sending more troops was unsustainable because of the strain forces are under already, and that added deployments would have only a temporary effect. On the flip side, he said, pulling back troops could cause an uptick in sectarian violence and threaten the newly formed government.

Why bother actually quoting the general? I mean he did actually respond directly to an irritated and snotty McCain about his "status quo" remark and I thought was logical in his statement. Not that the politicos were listening. They didn't hear what they wanted so they all pretty much were in a snit.

This event again begins to have that foul stench of a lesson not learned from Vietnam. Something along the lines of letting the Generals fight the war and let the politicians decide if it's succeeding. Obviously the politicians are condemning the war and are also trying to run it.

I find this especially amusing, in a really irritating way. It should be completely obvious that the actual combat theater in Iraq is very complex at the moment. I'd say to the level that it isn't clear to the public and the politicians in general. Of course the MSM has been handy in making sure that it's unclear above and beyond the complexity. You'd think that the politicians would have asked more questions to understand the theater rather than blast the general because, in their opinion, the military isn't getting it done quickly enough.

So what does all this tell the enemy? (That being the Iraqi insurgency and the terrorists.) I'm going to take a precarious stand and state that it tells them that the US population and the politicians that represent them haven't the nerve or stamina to fight any war that takes longer than three years. That's perfect for them, since most insurgencies depend on their opponent to lose nerve on the home front. The military doesn't lose wars any longer, the public does.