Thank your for this wonderful summary. Obama's questions demonstrate his uptitude for the highest job in America.

He went right in to define the attainable success. He is sooo smart. Ya, that's the basis of the project management in any world. You have to have the correct picture of the desired outcome to end the crisis. A goal needs to be attainable and measurable. Otherwise how do you know if you have achieved or not. If the goal is too high to achieve, then you have to adjust the goal. He is brilliant. He used the opportunity for the intended purpose. It was an opportunity to ask questions to General not to vent your frustrations or blame others.

Obama for 08 for he is a cut above.

I think both Clinton and Obama did a good job in questioning. Clinton rightly questioned why the US was even thinking about increased involvement in southern Iraq (where Britain was the main force until recently). She also chastised the administration for even thinking of making a troop agreement with Iraq without consult and consent of Congress.

Obama rightly focused on the definition for success. His best question was on whether the current status, assuming it could be maintained without a large US presence, would be viewed as success. The ambassador didn't answer it and instead tried to do a tangent and talk about a precipitous withdrawal. I think that is a question that should be posed to McCain. Would he accept a messy success vs a rosy success?

I agree that this shows why Obama's a cut above.

Note that he is talking and thinking strategically, which is what a President should be doing.

Also note that he did this without attacking anyone or turning it into a shouting match. This is what he does.

I think this statement was a homerun by Senator Obama: "The amount of money that we are spending is hemorrhaging our budget, and Al Qaida in Afghanistan I think is feeling a lot more secure as long as we're focused in Iraq and not on Afghanistan."

That gets to the heart of the matter. We absurdly went into Iraq after 9/11 and Bin Laden and Al Qaida in Afghanistan have been thrilled with Shrub ineptitude ever since.

I was referring to our friend "f#$% you too", of course.

Obama was concentrating on sounding reserved and sober minded about Iraq rather than rantin' and ravin'. So it was a little sedate. But he's just playing defense, protecting his lead right now. He gains nothing by foaming at the mouth and saying anything that seems to underestimate the problem we face.

But the "gentlemen" he was questioning are very much part of that problem, not part of any possible solution. And need to be addressed as such, and not with a deference they've done nothing to earn.

Iraqis aren't under US control, only the President is:

Obama: We Have to Apply "Measured, But Increased Pressure" on the Iraqis

Don't pressure the Iraqis to cooperate with a flawed plan, a failed president and continued maladmiistration. Redirect the attention to the President: His plan, his failure, his maladminstration.

Obama seemed to have two threads going: the intro and final questions about what could constitute success and timed withdrawal and then the defining of our “enemies” there- al Qaeda and Iranian-backed factions (insurgents-friends now). I think the first was for general consumption and the second a nod to the powerbrokers who are afraid he may be soft on the whole GWOT and the "any enemy of Israel is an enemy of ours" thing. (Besides, Iran provides support to both SCIRI who mostly control the government and gets the bulk of Iranian support and Sadr’s Mahdi Army).

Clinton sounded good as did Levin but this whole show is disgusting. We have our most powerful Senators basically begging answers of a 4-star field general political-hack as to what is “success,” and when, oh when can we please just come home? This was just another phase in the Friedman game; political grandstanding while aiding and abetting our perpetual war.

I like the fact that Senator Obama was probing to find out what the specific goal and end game is in Iraq. He did not expect to get a clear answer from the Ambassador or the General. He set them up with his questions to t expose them for not having a realistic end goal.

At the same time, he was able to, in a very concise and calm manner, lay out how he will be looking at how he can get most of our Troops out of Iraq.

As he has frequently said, he wants to withdraw from Iraq in a more careful manner, than we were careless going in.

He spelled out why Iraq is never going to be the Up With People paradise that the Chicken Hawk Neo-Cons keeping bullshitting us about.

I understood Senator Obama, very clearly, and those of you who want him to make you feel good, by going off on a fruitless rant, that would make him look totally unpresidential, you need to ask yourselves why you would want a president to act like that. Do you love grandstanders that much, that you crave a fix.

Senator Obama is a brilliant grown up leader, and by far the best that we have available to us now.

This could be a game changer. For the first time we have a concrete definition of success, the Iraqis maintaining the status quo with limited U.S. support. Any military ability the U.S. has in Iraq beyond that is not required for our strategic objective and can come home.

Planning gets a lot easier when you know where you are going.

Yep -- that's my guy!!

Wow, seems like the audience here is so used to the limited notion of thrust, counterthrust, parsing and posturing which ad nauseum just leads to ending in dead-lock results in hearings like this....... that they missed brilliance of what Obama just accomplished [though liam at 7:36 pm caught the gist of it].

Obama, in his generous quiet non-threatening way just embedded the 'answer' to ending the Iraq quagmire within his statement and questioning, implanting that answer in everybody's brains to let it sprout and grow in season.

I don't think anyone in that room, including Petraeus and Crocker, failed to realize that they were listening to the next President of the United States. Obama is patient about letting the 'answer' grow in their minds for the next 10 months, and diplomatic and bright enough to let it blossom as something they themselves can own.

I agree that your comment is rubbish!
Actually, what I saw was a definite change in the demeaner of both Petraus and Crocker. They visibily became more tense, you could see it even on their faces. They were not anxious to get questions from the next president but, unfortunately, they didn't have any answers to our next president's questions. Even so, they know some of his questions will have to be answered soon.

For my money, there are only two commentators consistently worth paying TOTAL attention to when it comes to Iraq

Juan Cole and William Odom

Mano a Mano
Gen Odom v. NeoCon Kagan - Newshour
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june08/iraq_04-08.html

General Odom, Professor Odom, let me begin with you. In advocating a pause in the drawdown of troops today, General Petraeus and also Ambassador Crocker essentially said that there had been security gains, progress, but it was significant, but uneven, and it was fragile, but reversible, and, therefore, this was a reason to pause the drawdown, say, come July. You don't share that view, I gather? GEN. WILLIAM ODOM (Ret.), U.S. Army: The uncomfortable truth is beginning to dawn on them. The surge has sustained military instability and achieved nothing in political consolidation. Allowing these sheiks in the Sunni areas and other strongmen to sign up with the United States to be paid, where we protect them from Maliki's government, diffuses power, both political and military. The possibilities for the Shiite camp to break up have been there all along. Sadr's forces, his Mahdi Army, were standing by to see what would happen. Maliki, against the best advice of both Ambassador Crocker and Petraeus, General Petraeus, went ahead, rushed down, and got into a fight in Basra, which he lost. Now that is a huge political setback for Maliki, and it shows you how fractured the Shiite camp is, not to speak of the multi fractures within the Shiite-Sunni area. So the things are much worse now. And I don't see that they'll get any better. This was foreseeable a year, a year-and-a-half ago. And to continue to put the cozy veneer of comfortable half-truth on this is to deceive the American public and to make them think it's not the charade it is.

I wish the Senators and Congressmen would dig more deeply into these Sunni Awakening Councils aka Baathists and Dead Enders, not necessarily at these Dog and Pony Shows but in depth investigation....This whole thing stinks to high heaven

I look at a hearing like this as a team effort. You don't need every single Dem senator screaming at Patreus & Crocker.

Nobody's going to out Biden, Biden. So why not let different senator's ask different questions in their own tone.

Obama won the general election today and he’ll make a fine President too. Obama was looking for more than American Presidential Idol points today and his questions were a masterstroke of strategy. Those shallowly focusing on Obama’s deceptively passive style of questioning today failed to see one thing; he has bound the military and to some extent, the administration with the answers Petraeus and Crocker gave.

1. We cannot define success as the elimination of Al Qaeda in Iraq.
2. We cannot define success as the elimination of Iranian influence in Iraq.

Rather than grandstand on the outrage of the war, he has built his ammunition for a contrast with McCain in an election by going after the core of their BS argument and you will see it come to pass.

You see, the political objectives for the war in Iraq, other than the overthrow of Saddam, have been soundly defeated. They cannot be achieved militarily. Generals fight wars and they do so to achieve political objectives set by responsible Commanders-in-Chief where diplomatic action has failed. If the decorated General Petraeus and the very experienced Ambassador Crocker sat there and basically said, the political objectives for which military commitment is being requested are not attainable, and are not reasonable definitions of success, the case for staying the course in the long-term is destroyed. This is not the same as advocating hasty withdrawal, which has been McCain’s parrot refrain.

If you chose to be impressed with the theater, you missed the strategic point of the questions. Senator Obama asked his questions very innocuously (he had to look passive, otherwise it wouldn’t have worked) and they probably didn’t fully understand the ramifications of their sworn answers on how they sell the military strategy going forward. If they tell Bush to redefine success more realistically, they’re basically agreeing with Obama; if Bush and McCain press on, they are disregarding expert professional and military advice from the ground.

Another thing the General and Ambassador went on the record as saying, courtesy of Senator Biden:

3. Chasing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan is more important than chasing Al Qaeda in Iraq.

…and people say Obama isn’t a smart guy….. Wow! He’s brilliant!

Our military has fought bravely and done what armies are meant to do i.e., take territory. They can return with honor knowing they did that. They cannot police Iraq for the Iraqis.

The political objectives that are impossible to attain militarily are:

1. Democracy in Iraq - Iraq is no more democratic today than Saudi Arabia or Iran. Voting blocs in Iraq are controlled by violent militia who must be co-opted and bribed into government for the government to be stable, that's a shameful situation for a global superpower. Soldiers basically pay former insurgents millions of dollars not to fight. There are Americans walking with backpacks of cash in Iraq doing exactly that.

2. Al Qaeda in Iraq has established itself from non-existence under Saddam to a potent, violent source of instability in the region; they can be contained but General Petraeus has admitted, on the record today, that completely eliminating them militarily is an unattainable objective and cannot be used to define success.

3. Iranian influence: Iraq under Saddam Hussein had no visible powerful Iranian influence. Iraq in fact, acted as a useful buffer against Iranian influence in the region. Enter George W Bush, now Iran is a powerful broker in Iraq with more power there than the United States. Ambassador Crocker today went on record as saying; the elimination of Iranian influence in Iraq cannot be a military objective. It is unattainable.

4. Stability in the Middle East - I don't need to tell anyone, Republican, Democrat or otherwise, that the Middle East is more violent and unstable today than it was in 2002. Iran is in an arms race with Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian-Israeli Peace process is stagnant and America's diplomatic credibility is weakened with key Arab allies like Eqypt. Military action has not made us safer.

5. Elimination of weapons of mass destruction – well, I don’t need to explain that to anyone. Instead, hundreds of tons of weapons and ammunition were left unsecured for months after the invasion. It is quite possible that some of that loot is being used by snipers and insurgents to kill our troops today.

Obama asked these questions and he got the admissions the American people needed to hear. Extending this war serves only to defend a Republican-led mistake. He had to be respectful of the General and his style was deceptively disarming. Make no mistake, he and Biden rehearsed this well.

Borrowing money from China to send our troops to die for political objectives that are militarily unattainable is infuriating to many senior officers who value the ultimate sacrifice of their colleagues.

Today was a masterstroke!

When a nation is so misled as the US was to launch this war, it is not particularly smart to look to the Senate which authorized that invasion for the resolution of the difficulties caused by it. Unless we look to those who opposed it from the beginning or were not yet a member of the body.
To shame the members who approved, let's review Robert Byrd's prophetic speech:
www.commondreams.org/views03/0212-07.html

No.

We just have to come home.

Now.

Iraq will suffer until The US Occupation ends. Iraq will suffer much more after the US Military ends The Occupation.
Only then will Iraq be able to become a peaceful land. Only then.

There are going to be American troops in Iraq for a long time. The quagmire that Bush/Cheney created cannot be undone in a few years, and they got us into a marriage we did not need and should not want. But we are there, and in a real sense stuck. So a solution where there are absolutely no troops there within 2 years is fantasy.

The goal is to stop the killing, draw down as many troops as we can without leaving a killing ground there, help Iraq build its own security forces, and then the hardest part --- propping up a tripartite near-anarchic Iraqi government until they can govern themselves. That is going to take a long time. Democracy cannot be exported to Iraq the way we import Chinese made toys.

Obama is a realist about this. His drawdown plan envisions the above scenario, but let us face it...there will be at least some troops in Iraq for a long time. The Dems would be making a mistake to promise an Iraq totally free of American forces within 2 years. Obama has not made that promise, neither has Clinton. In fact he has been criticized for not going far enough in drawing down troops.

The only worthwhile thing Colin Powell said in the run-up to the war is to quote the Pottery Barn principle : You break it, you own it. And we broke Iran, and now in a real sense we own it...at least we own its problems.

Fog;
You are an ignorant bigot.

No, Obama was not making some magical, mystical,telepathic, transcendental grand master chess move. There was no below-the-radar, five-fingers-of-death, Machiavellian scheme at work here. He was simply re-establishing the goals and defining the enemy as the admin sees it in his non-partisan compromise mode in asking, “Can we attain this same status quo with fewer troops”? He's accepting the Petraeus' and Crocker's authority and trying to win them over to a draw-down and some kind of end game. This is OT, but since when are our generals basically calling policy shots?

I believe Obama was signaling his plans not to have a total withdrawal in the 16 months he was projecting before to establish a fig leaf that we can call success. He is not snookering anyone because, even politically, there is no reason for either Dem candidate to be acceding the characterization, policy and strategy of the war to current leadership. There is no reason to get these guys on the record about anything, either. In spite of the lying cheerleading press corps, no campaign is needed to convince America that Iraq is FUBAR; the country wants out.

Bush wanted to stretch it out and drop the mess in the Dems' lap, and with starry WH eyes, they are happy to oblige. Yes, it will take years to wind down, but a couple of years not ten or fifteen and getting all combat troops out not some reserve force. There is nothing to be won in Iraq. Any “victory” will have to be spun. That spin is not the impediment to ending the occupation (or shouldn't be). The best we can do is leave. Radical Islamic groups are at war with America because of our intervention in their states. Is it really helping to try and stick a splinter right in the middle of the ME and have forces occupying Iraq indefinitely?

We comment on the poster rather than the post...when the poster never has anything to say. Jesus, even Matthew Weaver makes more sense than fogu2, who tells us what he thinks about us in his nick, but nowhere else.

To address the posts, though, it's possible through semantic analysis to determine that fogu2 is completely anorchidic. While this does save some tailor bills, I think we just have to maintain our concern for fogu.

Yep, that's the ticket. Lots of concern.

Dearest fogu2,

You disparage the concept of "Cut and Run"
What's wrong with cutting our losses and doing something intelligent?

Invading Iraq was the worst, most incredibly stupid thing the United States has ever done in the realm of foreign affairs. Continuing to occupy Iraq is the second worst.

There is nothing we can do to improve the situation besides leaving. Only when we leave will Iraqis be able to finalize the horrific process of putting their country back together. There will be blood. There will be a multitude of deaths. There will be mayhem. We CAN NOT STOP IT.

Cut and Run? Sounds like a smart thing to me.

You missed your calling. Obamic strategy is where you should be. You think Obama is comfortable with this as hs strategy:

"Cut and Run! It's the smart way to get out of Iraq!"

Bwhahaha. Pathetic but typical of the Obamic.