On Monday, General David Petraeus presented his long-awaited, eagerly-anticipated, much-ballyhooed progress report to Congress during a hearing conducted by the House armed services committee and the foreign affairs committees. Given the buildup, the hearing was mostly a dud. Petraeus was hardly a galvanizing force, no Douglas MacArthur, and the Democrats, while expressing skepticism about his we're-on-the-right-course pitch, didn't land too many blows. (ADD declared: I could only bring myself to watch about four hours of the hearing.) The event showed the limitations of congressional hearing. Each legislator had but five minutes to question Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Cocker. Considering the genetic predisposition of elected officials to bloviate, five minutes is not enough time for most of them to clear their throats, let alone craft a significant line of inquiry. On Tuesday, Petraeus faces senators. Though they also can run on a bit (paging Senator Biden), perhaps the Senate Dems will be able to put forward a more focused grilling of the man who in 2004 was claiming "tangible progress" in Iraq.

Here are some points raised during Petraeus and Crocker's first appearance that provide fodder for Democrats in the Senate.

* Why did neither of them in their prepared statements explicitly say that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is up to the task in Iraq? Crocker merely saluted Maliki's "patriotism." A lot is riding on Maliki, and as I've noted in past days, he presides over a government riddled with corruption. The senators should ask Petraeus and Crocker if Maliki's administration is too crooked or inept to do what must be done.

* In his opening statement, Petraeus said, "The fundamental source of the conflict in Iraq is competition among ethnic and sectarian communities for power and resources." Wait a moment. How does this jibe with what the commander in chief has been saying? In an August 22 speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, George W. Bush provided this explanation of the Iraq war:

If we were to abandon the Iraqi people, the terrorists would be emboldened, and use their victory to gain new recruits. As we saw on September the 11th, a terrorist safe haven on the other side of the world can bring death and destruction to the streets of our own cities. Unlike in Vietnam, if we withdraw before the job is done, this enemy will follow us home. And that is why, for the security of the] United States of America, we must defeat them overseas so we do not face them in the United States of America.

Fight the bastards there so we don't have to fight them in Cincinnati. But Petraeus is saying that the major issue in Iraq is not us-versus-the-terrorists but Iraqi-factions-versus-Iraqi factions. In his opening remarks, he only briefly discussed al Qaeda in Iraq, noting it is now "off balance." But Petraeus was confirming what many critics of the war have said: the lead mission is not rounding up anti-American terrorists but intervening in a sectarian conflict. A senator ought to ask Petraeus if he believes his main mission is to beat 'em there so they leave us alone here.

* In talking up the Iraqi security forces, Petraeus said, "Currently, there are 445,000 individuals on the payrolls of Iraq's Interior and Defense Ministries. Based on recent decisions by Prime Minister Maliki, the number of Iraq's security forces will grow further by the end of this year, possibly by as much as 40,000." Petraeus failed to mention that the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq--headed by retired General James Jones--recently reported that the Ministry of Interior is "dysfunctional and sectarian...rife with political and sectarian intrigues and is struggling to be even partially effective as a government institution." The commission noted that "sectarianism and corruption are pervasive in the MOI and cripple the ministry's ability to accomplish its mission to provide internal security for Iraqi citizens."

If that's the case, how can Petraeus in good conscious cite the number of MOI security forces as a positive factor? Maybe it would be best if this corrupt ministry had fewer troops.

* Petraeus did mention that he could foresee some troop withdrawals at the end of the year. He said that by next summer, U.S. troop levels could be back to pre-surge levels. But that prompts an obvious question. If the so-called surge takes 18 months to create a situation in which the U.S. troops presence falls to what it was at the start of the surge, is that real success?

Petraeus has a tough task: to sell a war his boss has bungled from the start (and from even before that). Democrats need not be put off by all the medals on his chest. This war is still Bush's endeavor. He's the guy who has to answer for it--and to explain it.

Posted by David Corn at September 11, 2007 12:36 AM