Crocker's Somber Surprise

The New Republic: Ambassador's Iraq Testimony A Stark Contrast To Peppy Petraeus

(The New Republic)  This column was written by Eve Fairbanks.

---

Right from the start, the appearance of General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker in the House today looked like it would provide lots of excitement but little news: a strange combination born of our months-long anticipation of the hearing and the fact that we already knew what Petraeus would say (the surge is working; I need more time). When the two men entered the hearing room in the Cannon House Office Building, its inhabitants rushed the stage like teenage girls at a Beatles concert: Some hundred photographers and writers swarmed the tiny hearing table (House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos brought over his wife); one over-eager member of the horde even knocked over Crocker's water bottle and cup, causing Crocker to momentarily hide his face in his hands and mutter, "Aaaah!"

But the actual value added today by Petraeus's statements boiled down to the series of crisp, colorful charts the general presented, which impressed mostly because they showed how much better the military is at making charts than the employees of lawmakers' offices. (A data point for the military-v.-civilian culture wars, I suppose.) The hearing did end up packing a surprise, though: Ambassador Crocker.

Ambassador who? Amid all the hoopla over Petraeus's testimony, I - like many in Washington - had almost forgotten we were going to hear from Crocker today, too. The Washington Post wrote poignantly on the unequal star treatment given the two men:

Two witnesses will testify to Congress today on progress in Iraq. One arrived last week from Baghdad aboard a military aircraft, flanked by a bevy of aides and preceded by a team of advisers assigned a suite of Pentagon offices. The other flew commercial, glad that the flight was long enough to qualify for a business-class government ticket.

Yet it was Crocker, not Petraeus, who came to Washington with the critically important information about the situation on the ground in Iraq, since the whole point of the military surge was to make space for political progress, Crocker's jurisdiction. Plus, unlike Petraeus's findings, his testimony wasn't extensively previewed. So what did he have to say?

The headline to come out of his testimony will be that a "secure, stable, democratic Iraq" is "achievable" - an assessment for which he'll be ridiculed as another Bushie slapping a smile on a disaster. But he had to say that - independent as he supposedly is, he still has a boss. Behind the "achievable" slogan, though, Crocker's outlook was grimmer than one might expect from a Bush official. Compared to the peppy, man-in-charge Petraeus, he sounded morose. "I am frustrated every day I spend in Iraq," Crocker told the room darkly. "There will be no single moment at which we can claim victory," he added, alluding to - and wholly repudiating - Bush's victorious "mission accomplished" moment on the aircraft carrier.

And unlike Petraeus, he didn't try to put a positive spin on the good we could do by staying - he simply offered that he thought the alternative would be even more apocalyptic. During his opening statement, he also avoided mentioning benchmarks by which Iraqis were supposed to measure their political progress. Pressed by Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton on how soon they would be achieved, he replied bluntly, "I frankly do not expect us to see rapid progress through these benchmarks."

So what's to feel happy about in Iraq? Don't think in terms of benchmarks, Crocker advised. To truly judge how Iraqis are doing politically, Crocker said, "We should ask if the way in which they are approaching these issues gives us a sense of their seriousness and ultimate capability to solve these problems." In contrast to Petraeus's kill-stat-based portrait of Iraqi society, which inevitably evoked a primitive civilization ruled by animal passions and riven by bursts of violence as unpredictable as the rains, Crocker spoke of Iraqis grappling with the kind of advanced political-philosophical questions Americans did at the time of our founding. "I have found it helpful during my time in Iraq to reflect on my own history," he said, in a wishful tone. "At many points in our early years our survival as a nation was questionable." As there was in our early days, he claimed, "There is a budding debate about federalism" now going on in Iraq's political class, and a conversation about the extent to which small, practical steps can overcome problems that can't seem to be solved by sweeping deals. In other words, Crocker does see the fewest seeds of what might someday, somehow, grow into a vibrant democracy.

It's a pretty idea. It assumes some modest desire to repair the country on the part of Iraqi leaders. And it affords their struggle to get it together politically a certain dignity, instead of writing them off as corrupt or idiotic. But unlike the fresh-faced political appointees who went to Iraq in 2003 with the idea of installing democracy in a couple months and going home, I got the sense Crocker didn't believe his vision was ever going to be realized. "It is no exaggeration to say that Iraq is, and will remain for some time to come, a traumatized society," he said, morosely. Simply to provide adequate electricity in the country, he estimated, would take $25 billion through 2016. That's about eight years longer than we've got, given the growing support for withdrawal. And that's just electricity - not emotional healing.

Crocker is right that Iraqi leaders' intentions and how much actual power they wield is more important than whether they have accomplished a specific set of benchmarks - or whether withdrawal will do more harm than good. But his cautious optimism didn't even seem to convince himself. Even when he was describing areas like provincial reconstruction in which he'd had "pretty good luck," Crocker sounded depressed. I think he's well on his way to becoming another tragic figure of this war: well-intentioned, capable, but brought to his knees by the mistakes of others and the sheer immensity of the task he was given. Success is "achievable"? You wouldn't know it from Crocker's manner at the hearing today - a subdued, this-is-all-hypothetical-anyway spirit, like a doctor whose careful and long-ranging diagnoses are for naught because the patient in front of him is already gone.

[skyk-2009]

Osama has threatened to dissolve Israel and turn it into Palestine. He hopes to oust Maliki and make Iraq his outpost for international terror. Bin Laden believes that Karzai will be forced out, if NATO retreats. He expects the GOP to lose next year''''s election to the Democrats. That would require American Forces to leave the Middle East. Osama thinks he can defeat American Navy Special Operations. Without the Navy''''s Elite, Bin Laden plans to rout the Americans.
Posted by Antillo99 at 12:30 PM : Sep 11, 2007

You neglected to ask the question, why did Bush LIE to us about Bin Laden. You state what you believe Bin Laden is saying... but you never once mention the fact that after 6 years he IS saying it. It should be obvious to all concerned that the Republican Party USED 9/11 and Bin Laden for their Political advantage and dropped the ball in defending and protecting America. Otherwise Bin Laden isn''t sending us tapes AND we have THOUSANDS more American Fighting Men alive and well PLUS BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of tax payer dollars to fix Bridges and other needed things. IRAQ was not just a mistake IT made Bin Laden what he is and gave him a rebuilt organization to do with. That is called LOSING and FAILURE!!

[nearl4511]

Yes.....

Although the military can perform efficiently, the political solutiion is moving forward just as fast as a herd of turtles.

No wonder Senator Lugar has doubts.

[dmgenet]

The "somber" report by the Ambasador may have a feel of reality but remember the same group think that came out of the Republican and Democratic bunkers during the Vietnam War. Dog and pony along with direct lies to support their position. Denial is an ugly state.

This is all but stall tactics in an attempt by Bush to secure a positive legacy. Iraq is his burden to bear and he should be so lucky that he even has alligators nipping at his butt. Draw out the process, parade a few patriotic army guys and then pass the buck. Harry Truman he is NOT.

[tibu987]

General Patreus, as all of the other generals that have commented on Iraq, must toe the political line as they have. All have mentioned the progress that has been made.
I suggest they poll the Iraqi public, and, for that matter, the American public.
Iraq is in ruins, no to little infrastructure despite billions having been paid to numerous contractors.
So many young American lives lost along with those of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children.
There will be no winners here.
If we "win", what do we win?
If we lose, what do we lose?

[j4401]

The Real Reason We''re In Iraq:

An influential group of conservatives convinced President George W. Bush that it was in America''s best interests to conquer Iraq as a first step toward dominating the oil-producing nations in the Middle East. There was no "exit plan" because we never intended to exit. The plan was, and is, to build military bases in Iraq and stay there forever. Our leaders see Iraq as a place to make money. So Bush & Co. have set up their friends to cash in on the rebuilding of Iraq.

[superdem]

Iraq is NOTHING like our own history, where we overthrew our own oppressive monarchy from the grassroots up. The Iraqis, so adept today at attacking the American super army, which we are told constantly is the best in the world - never attacked Saddam''s army this way, there was no daily guerilla insurgency supported by Iran launching hundreds of attacks, no IEDs blowing up Saddam''s trucks and men. There were no sectarian militias at war in the streets, no mosques were blowing up. And if there was, we NEVER heard about it. There was order, there was electricity, there was food, there was a self contained system that did not have fighting in the streets. Of course it was an oppressive dictatorship - so what ? That''s par for the course in the Middle East, and of no concern to us. NO - WE CAME FROM THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY AND INVADED IRAQ, for which there is NO JUSTIFICATION, and we are trying forceably to install a government to our liking. We did in Iraq what the Soviets did in Afghanistan. And we are suffering the same fate.

[pepperp1]

CHOOSE LIFE FOR OUR TROOPS call your Senator and tell him 5 years later, 4,000 dead, 34,000 wounded, tens of thousands of Iraqi dead, and 2 Trillion is too much CHANGE THE MISSION.


%u2026%u2026%u2026%u2026modify the American mission to emphasize the training and advising of Iraqi security forces so that Iraqis would be pushed into the lead and a vast majority of American combat troops could be quickly withdrawn.





[phone] for the Senate, and [phone] for the House


Do not be distracted the facts are simple the math just as simple, the guilty sacrificing our soldiers and their lives unnecessary are the Republicans in the Senate Bush and Petraeus can not keep our troops in Iraq if 17 Republican Senators switch their vote for America and our Troops so they may come home and live long lives with their families.



28 Soldiers dead in 6 days since Bush declared we are kicking arse in IRAQ. Ask Romney if he to would also want to live vicariously through our soldiers since he too did not serve in the last war.

[grazinggoat]

" As there was in our early days, he claimed, "There is a budding debate about federalism" now going on in Iraq''s political class, and a conversation about the extent to which small, practical steps can overcome problems that can''t seem to be solved by sweeping deals. In other words, Crocker does see the fewest seeds of what might someday, somehow, grow into a vibrant democracy.

-This is what we''ve been claiming long and strong for the past four years of invasion. Invasion serves only the interests of a group of wealthy and filthy rich people around the Walking-Liar. We did not have to spend so much resources over Iraq in order to change it''s regime to become a federation (a political structure that is most appropriate to similar yet different societies/nations). Diplomacy and economical pressures would have been a lot better this blood and useless war over the Iraqi people. Best example again: Ghaddafi''s Lybia.

Finally, wish Ryan a great success and a bit of credibility in the Eyes of our Fellow Americans. He seems to be a good boy, contrary to the Walking-Liar and his boot-licker PetAreUs.

[hwk_i67]

Wow! What a powerful, articulate, and extremely acturate article. Finally, someone with balls to say out loud what many of us here feel.

Good job Amb. Crocker! You can pick up your pink slip at the door.

[walt1944-2009]

It''s Viet Nam all over again! Generals saying they need more time, more money, more troops because they are "showing progress" (they had been saying that for 5 years!!). Politicians getting nervous about staying in office because the Commander in Chief wouldn''t listen to the people! The people themselves getting more disgusted as the war dragged on with no end in sight, casulaties mounted, and reports of American "vengence attacks" like Mi Lai began hitting TV.

In 40 years, we haven''t learned a thing!!!

SIG HEIL, BUSH!!!!!