I've been watching the MSNBC coverage of the Petraeus/Crocker hearings before Congress all day, often wishing someone would say something tangible or constructive. I'd like to deal with the things I've heard today, piece by piece. I don't want this to be another 2008 election post, despite the obvious overtones with all 3 candidates addressing the panel. I will start, briefly, with that point to get it out of the way.



The question I was hoping to hear from any or all of the candidates (or any of the other Senators) was, "What is the minimum requirement to declare victory in Iraq that will allow us to bring our troops home?" I'd heard all the prepared statements from Petraeus and Crocker and found them seriously lacking in detail or vision. They were very careful and non-committal, generally preferring a combination of status quo rhetoric and ambiguous progress which may or may not continue in the future. Essentially, they said, "The conditions dictate our next move, and we don't know what those conditions will be at any point in the future despite optimism about recent progress."



John McCain, to use a baseball analogy, drew a walk in his inquiry. He didn't take a swing with any real questions, preferring to highlight the party line on successful benchmarks on the ground. He said more or less the same thing he's been saying on the campaign trail and while he didn't hurt himself with any ridiculous new projections about Iraq, he also never took the bat off his shoulder to get answers for us, the American people. He took his base, and passed the rest of the inning along to his Committee on Armed Service teammates.



Hillary Clinton hit a ringing double with her command of the facts, pointed questioning, and her insistence that the U.S. Congress holds the right to ratify a treaty with the Iraqi government, not the other way around. I think she missed the opportunity to ask more questions as a result of her rather long opening statement, but the tone was very very strong.



Before I get to Barack Obama, I'd like to say that I think the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, overall, was FAR superior in their tough questioning of the two guests than their Armed Service colleagues. The Democrats on the Committee on Armed Service panel allowed Petraeus to repeat his prepared statement talking points over and over and allowed Ambassador Crocker to drone on in a filibuster-like waste of valuable questioning time. The Republicans kissed their asses on a number of occasions, never asking a single productive question about where the Occupation ends.



Barack Obama was fortunate to make his questioning near the end of the Foreign Service business, after Senators from both parties had tenderized the Bush administration's front men with tough, pointed questions about the loss of life, treasure, and focus in the Middle East and on the larger battle with Islamic extremists. The Committee managed to keep the pressure on regarding our finite resources, patience, and military personnel. Obama hit a solo home run, by following a rather powerful and heated Barbara Boxer and a fairly bland George Voinovich with an almost professorial examination of the duo before him. He started slow with a bit of a wordy opening question that never materialized as clearly as he wanted, but evolved into a productive, respectful, and logical dialog. He occasionally interrupted the panelists when their answers strayed from his point, but did so with a respectful and dignified tone that kept the pair open to his line of questioning. I'm biased in Senator Obama's favor, but he asked the question that I wanted to hear. He asked about whether a messy status quo would be an acceptable outcome for the United States, especially in light of the uber-high bar the administration seems to be setting to define success. That was close enough for me, as it gets right at the heart of my own question, and far more effectively.



There was never an answer to that question that seemed remotely acceptable. We have lost 4, 024 American soldiers since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, if not more, have been killed. We have spent trillions of dollars. We have diverted attention and resources from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda. We have allowed Al Qaeda and Iran to create footholds in Iraq where they did not exist before. We stand by and allow the political stalemate in the Iraqi government dictate the tenure of our military presence. What little progress they make in the effort for reconciliation and an end to sectarian violence is offset by the corruption, bad blood, and lack of commitment to a real Iraqi state. 1,000 Iraqi soldiers went AWOL in the recent battles in Basra, refusing to fight. News reports show US inspections of Iraqi units which find them taking long lunches and sleeping on the job. There has been almost no progress on restoring electricity, water, sewage, or other important basic services, while money has gone missing at an alarming rate. The list goes on and on.



The people that needed to be seated before Congress to take the heat for this situation, or explain it to all of us, are Secretary of State Condeleeza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Those are the people responsible for the policy in Iraq. They need to address military and diplomatic goalposts for success. Could they sit there are answer the question that I wanted to ask, and that Senator Obama posed so eloquently. Senator Robert Menendez put it very well when he said something to the effect of, "You can't tell us what the end game is for success. It's almost like you're saying, we'll know it when we see it and give us an open checkbook in the meantime."



In the end, we never heard anything resembling a decent answer about where this thing goes from here. I've said in the past that I don't want a precipitous and risky withdrawal that leaves a power void to be filled by Iran, Al Qaeda, Moqtada al Sadr, militias, criminals, or civil war. I do want a reasonable withdrawal starting ASAP that indicates that Iraq needs to stand on its own sooner than later. It needs to resolve the unresolved with some measure of urgency and seriousness. A messy status quo looks good to me, as long as we stand prepared with an international coalition to provide some air cover for the Iraqi military and/or some logistic support in the area of intelligence and reconnaissance. We need to reject the idea of a long term presence in Iraq because it will be unproductive for them and for us. It will put a tremendous drag on our economy and promote ill will with the Arab and Muslim community that already sees us as imperial occupiers.



The upcoming election will determine everything about the way we move forward, and I think either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama have a good command of our realistic options for the future of the Occupation and our presence in the region. John McCain? Not so much.