Two Fronts For General Petraeus

As if facing a determined enemy in the Middle East with goals of global domination isn’t difficult enough for the General, he also must face disputatious politicians in Washington D.C. who desire his leadership and efforts to fail.

Facing anti-war hecklers and contentious Democrats, General David Petraeus returned to the capital to give the second congressionally mandated report on the progress of the fighting in Iraq. Particularly touchy for the General was the fact that he was facing his next boss, whichever Senator wins the 2008 Presidential election.

Prior to the beginning of his testimony, it became obvious that several Democrats had decided days before that his efforts have failed, regardless of previous admissions from fellow Democrats of remarkable success in the “surge” just months ago.

Republican presumptive nominee, John McCain led of the questioning by reminding all that they owed both General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker a “debt of gratitude for their selfless service.” Pointing out the many successes in the past year, McCain concluded his statement with, “the Congress must not choose to lose in Iraq. We should choose instead to succeed.”

Democrat Senator Clinton also opened her statements with, “Thank you… for your long and distinguished service to our nation,” followed immediately by, “I just want to respond to some of the statements… that it is irresponsible or demonstrates a lack of leadership to advocate withdrawing troops from Iraq in a responsible and carefully planned withdrawal. I fundamentally disagree.”

Unlike the September 2007 hearings with the General, she did not this time claim his testimony took a “willing suspension of disbelief” to accept, in spite of her critical assessment.

She continued, “… it might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced the results that have been promised time and time again,” adding shortly, “Our troops are the best in the world, and they have performed admirably and heroically in Iraq,” before going on to claim the purpose of the “surge” was for the Iraqi’s to reach political reconciliation and they have not solved all the political problems in the country.

Senator Clinton claimed that even General Petraeus himself said, “… the Iraqi government has not made sufficient political progress,” drawing a correction from the General of, “What I said {in the article} was that no one was satisfied with the progress that had been made, either Iraqis or Americans, but I then went on and actually ticked off a number of the different areas in which there had been progress…”

Rich Lowry, of National Review Online also seems to have easily found the success Senator Clinton failed to see in his article, Beyond ‘Benchmarks.'

Senator Barack Obama opened his questioning also with, “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.”

Sounding somewhat less contentious than other Democrats, Senator Obama after making the point that “Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before we went there,” asked the General, “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?”

General Petraeus replied, “That is exactly right.”

Turning his attention to Ambassador Crocker, Senator Obama sought more information on Iran and their support of insurgent forces and even the visit of Iran’s President Ahmadinejad’s visit to Iraq, eliciting the comment from the Ambassador, “Iran and Iraq are neighbors. A visit like that should be in the category of a normal relationship,” after making the point that Iraqi President Maliki is making efforts at securing the border with Iran to stem the flow of Iranian Quds Force support.

Throughout the questioning by other Senators, anti-war critics interrupted testimony, some being ejected and others just being told to “cool it.”

Both General Petraeus’s and Ambassador Crocker’s testimony was interrupted several times by Democrat Senators, most notably by Senator Ted Kennedy who took some two minutes to ask a question about bilateral agreements between the US and Iraq and then tells Ambassador Crocker to hurry up and answer before he had a chance to. He then asked a question of General Petraeus about Basra but cut him off as he tried to answer.

Senator Obama also raised the point, “We still don’t have a good answer to the question posed by Sen. Warner the last time Gen. Petraeus appeared: How has this effort in Iraq made us safer and how do we expect it will make us safer in the long run?”

Perhaps Senator Obama hasn’t noticed there has been no terrorist attacks upon American soil since that horrific attack of September 11, 2001 or fails to see that if radical Jihadism can be confronted strong enough to reduce their number and democracy takes hold in the Middle East, they won’t be able to launch significant attacks upon America and elsewhere again.

Perhaps the Democrats should pay close attention to Senator McCain’s words, “Congress must not choose to lose in Iraq. We should choose instead to succeed.”

History has shown the high cost of abandoning struggling allies.

UPDATE 1: Amy Proctor, of Bottom Line Up Front, has video of a protester interrupting General Petraeus's testimony and of Senator Levin badgering the General.

UPDATE 2: 5 Reasons America Must Win In Iraq

UPDATE 3: US Senator John Cornyn, What I Heard at the Petraeus-Crocker Hearings