For What?

As my favorite professional journalist turned DFH blogger noted, today’s hearings are descending into restatements of questions already asked yesterday. One notable exception, though, was Robert Wexler. I’m not usually a fan of Wexler’s emotional displays. But Wexler boiled down the question everyone is and has been asking.

General Petraeus, last week in anticipation of this hearing, I sent an urgent email asking my constituents and other Americans if they were serving on this committee, what is the one question they would pose to you. There was an extraordinary response, with more than 5000 questions submitted. These emails and phone calls expressed deeply held frustrations about the War in Iraq and reflect the feelings of millions of Americans who feel that their opinions and concerns are cast aside by the Bush Administration. I want to thank everyone who responded and submitted a question for today’s hearing. While many of the respondents rightfully highlighted the bravery of our troops, a majority of the emails expressed a strong desire to see a withdrawal of American soldiers from Iraq and an end to this five-year war that has cost our nation so dearly.

Most of the questions boiled down to this: General, we often see President Bush and Senator McCain say we must win in Iraq. What is the definition of winning? What would a military victory look like that was sufficient enough to allow us to begin leaving?

Then, in a horrific turn of events, two of my constituents, Esther and Len Wolfer of Boca Raton, Florida, learned that this past Sunday their son had been killed for this war. Major Stuart Wolfer was a 36-year old Reservist on his second tour. He was married with three young children, ages 5, 3, and 20 months. His family was relieved that he was in the Green Zone, for they hoped he would be safe there. He was not. I spoke to Mr. Wolfer yesterday–last night–who asked me to ask you simply, "For what? For what had he lost his son?"

So allow me to combine if you will the questions of the people that responded to me and Mr. Wolfer. What has all this been for. And please, respectfully, don’t tell us as you told Senator Warner yesterday, "to remove a brutal dictator." That’s not good enough. There are many dictators in the world. For what did Stuart Wolfer and the other 4024 sons and daughters die for? And how will we define victory so we can bring this never-ending war to a close?

And if I will, when Mr. Burton asks for a definition of what is failure, we get a litany of items. But when Mr. Ackerman asks, "what’s the defition of victory," we get little. Please tell us General, what is winning?

It’s the question Cindy Sheehan started asking four years ago yesterday, when her own son Casey died. Why did Casey Sheehan and why did Stuart Wolfer have to die? I suspect Petraeus’ rather cold discussion of national interest won’t satisfy that question–but it’s still more of an answer than George Bush has ever given.

Update: By popular request, here’s the transcript of Petraeus’ answer:

General Petraeus:  First of all, Congress, let me tell you that what we are fighting for is national interest.

It is interest that as I stated have to do with Al Qaeda, a sworn enemy of the United States and the free world, has to do with the possible spread of sectarian conflict in Iraq, conflict that had engulfed that country and had it on the brink of Civil War.

It has to do with regional stability, a region that is of critical importance to the global economy, and it has to do with certainly the influence of Iran, another obviously very important element, in that region.

In terms of what it is that we are trying to achieve, I think simply it is a country that is at peace with itself and its neighbors, it is a country that can defend itself, that has a government that is reasonably representative and broadly responsive to its citizens, and a country that is involved in and engaged in, again the global economy.

Ambassador Crocker and I, for what it’s worth, have typically seen ourselves as minimalists, we’re not after the Holy Grail in Iraq and we’re not after Jeffersonian Democracy.

We’re after conditions that would allow our soldiers to disengage, and that is in fact what we are doing. As we achieve progress, as we have with the Surge, and that is what is indeed allowing us to withdraw the Surge forces, again well over one quarter of our ground combat power five of 20 brigade combat teams plus two marine battalions and the marine expeditionary unit by the end of July.

Congressman Wexler: Thank you.

image_print
29 replies
  1. bmaz says:

    Hmmm. I don’t see an answer reported by my favorite DFH blogger. Am I to take it that there was no satisfactory answer, for yet the umpteenth time? I forced myself to turn the office teevee over to CSPAN, but it is now barb lee holding court. Yesterday bored me to tears; today looks worse.

    By the way, and on the other hand, the hilarious BS going on in Frisco with the Olympic Torch is interesting. If they have to go through this cloak and dagger stuff, they should just pack it in and send the torch on out of the country.

  2. strider7 says:

    Is it true that the military commissions act will give all of the “players” involved in the torture ordeal immunity?

    • SparklestheIguana says:

      Yes – within the United States. They could be subject to prosecution if they travel outside the U.S. There is an interesting discussion of this in Philippe Sands’ Vanity Fair article. Sands asked a foreign prosecutor about this and the prosecutor said it was a dumb move to give immunity, because this often acts as a trigger for other nations to prosecute.

      Those responsible for the interrogation of Detainee 063 face a real risk of investigation if they set foot outside the United States. Article 4 of the torture convention criminalizes “complicity” or “participation” in torture, and the same principle governs violations of Common Article 3.

      It would be wrong to consider the prospect of legal jeopardy unlikely. I remember sitting in the House of Lords during the landmark Pinochet case, back in 1999—in which a prosecutor was seeking the extradition to Spain of the former Chilean head of state for torture and other international crimes—and being told by one of his key advisers that they had never expected the torture convention to lead to the former president of Chile’s loss of legal immunity. In my efforts to get to the heart of this story, and its possible consequences, I visited a judge and a prosecutor in a major European city, and guided them through all the materials pertaining to the Guantánamo case. The judge and prosecutor were particularly struck by the immunity from prosecution provided by the Military Commissions Act. “That is very stupid,” said the prosecutor, explaining that it would make it much easier for investigators outside the United States to argue that possible war crimes would never be addressed by the justice system in the home country—one of the trip wires enabling foreign courts to intervene. For some of those involved in the Guantánamo decisions, prudence may well dictate a more cautious approach to international travel. And for some the future may hold a tap on the shoulder.

      “It’s a matter of time,” the judge observed. “These things take time.” As I gathered my papers, he looked up and said, “And then something unexpected happens, when one of these lawyers travels to the wrong place.”

      http://www.vanityfair.com/poli…..ntPage=all

  3. skdadl says:

    And please, respectfully, don’t tell us as you told Senator Warner yesterday, “to remove a brutal dictator.” That’s not good enough. There are many dictators in the world.

    I’m so glad that one of your senators has said that so forcefully. That excuse has got to be shamed out of existence yesterday.

    I know that BushCo had their private reasons for being fixated on this particular dictator, but that’s not the same thing, and it’s not a principled argument.

    • Petrocelli says:

      Hiya Fellow Canuck !

      Robert Wexler is a Congressman representing the 19th District of Florida and I know this because he was interviewed by Stephen Colbert, where in jest he said:

      “I enjoy cocaine because… it’s a fun thing to do.
      I enjoy the company of prostitutes for the following reasons: … because it’s a fun thing to do. Much like cocaine. If you combine the two together, it’s probably even more fun.”

      After that, Pelosi reportedly told all congresscritters not to go on Stephen’s show …

      • klynn says:

        Yep, he was reading a script that Colbert gave him. It was a spoof and commentary on some “other” politicians…

        Pelosi, too bad she didn’t get the joke. But the problem she was faced with was that some “righty” bloggers and radio mouths picked up the words but not the context of them and had a “day” with it. Colbert got enough mileage out of the “righty” talk radio blunderers taking it out of context for about a week. Dems spent the week having to constantly put the words in context…It was crazy.

        On topic:

        Having a brother serve for 4.5 years in Iraq with little down time (how could one get sufficient breaks if there 4.5 years) I am thankful for Wexler’s question. I might add that more who serve for us in D.C. be more in contact with constituents and the great citizenry to get our questions, our concerns and our desire for government accountability of our leaders. When the questions come from “the people” there is a reality base to the questions which is cogent, relevant and unavoidably needing honest answers, not sound bites or propaganda.

  4. earlofhuntingdon says:

    The answer, like the ultimate command of America’s military might, must come from its civilian leadership. It determines when to go to war, for what causes, when to declare “victory” (whether covered in laurels or fig leaves) and when to bring our troops home.

    Mr. Cheney doesn’t think he needs to give us a credible answer; Mr. Bush, his collar tight and his leash short, dutifully heels and remains silent, desperately hoping that what’s around that next corner is his home kennel.

    • MadDog says:

      For what did Stuart Wolfer and the other 4024 sons and daughters die for?

      Mr. Cheney doesn’t think he needs to give us a credible answer…

      Shorter Shooter: “So?”

  5. JohnLopresti says:

    OT,bmaz, maybe the mayor can arrange a bushel under which to hide the torchlight, but, not his style; he actually favors letting the public have its speech; though I have avoided that city’s principal media website today.

    lessOT, Here is an essay by an ~27-year-old scion of someone whose generation was enmeshed in the same kind of torch-passing in a different USwar; the teratogenic effects the youthful writer describes in the current issue of Orion about Agent Orange inherited defects in children of USsoldiers, which reminded me of the discussion in the mysterious case of the still secret memos on Yoo et al.’s torture tactics justifications: responsibilities are distributive, “overseen” by the president; four of the key planners of torture sent their key lawyers to Gitmo to watch ‘interrogation demonstrations’ during the crafting of the justification documents; then congress produced MCA’s lists of the impermissible, the waivers, the ignorable.

    Petraeus’ expository is a chapter in the pre-election selling of the current twin wars to the 111th congress; juggernaut process larger than mere field marshalls.

    • bmaz says:

      I wonder, have there been Generals in the past that have been so blatantly propped up into being PR spokesmen? At least to me, Petraeus has demeaned himself, the military and the uniform.

      • Minnesotachuck says:

        Westmorland of Vietnam, IIRC, testified before Congress a number of times with TV cameras rolling. He also from time to time took the podium at the Five O’clock Follies direct from Saigon. I don’t think he was as effective a communicator, though. Much stiffer.

    • prostratedragon says:

      maybe the mayor can arrange a bushel under which to hide the torchlight,
      Thank you for covering.

  6. Neil says:

    Mark these definitions of what we’re fighing against and what result we’re fighting for

    We are fighting for national interest as defined by
    – al Qaida
    – contain spread of sectarian conflict
    – regional stability – critical to global economy
    – contain influence of Iran.

    What is it that we are to achieve?
    – country at peace with itself and neighbors
    – can defend itself
    – reasonable representative government
    – engaged in the global economy

    Believes conditions exist that would allow our soldiers to disengage… Allowing us to withdrawal the surge forces 5 of 20 brigade combat teams plus 2 marine battalions plus the marine expeditionary unit by end of July.

    Ricks thinks Petraeus thinks it’ll be three to four more years before withdrawing the rest.

    What happened to the four levels of rank above Petraeus? Shouldn’t we hear from them? Gates? Bush?

  7. al75 says:

    I think we’re all falling for the bait: Where is George Bush? He’s hiding behind Petraeus, claiming that “the general” dictates policy. He pulled the same thing with Gen Casey and Lt. General Sanchez, before it turned out that, um “mistakes were made”.

    It is George Bush who should be answering questions, not his puppet soldier of the hour.

  8. JohnLopresti says:

    To@9, too busy to watch the hearings just yet, though that BLee reference might be promising, she is usually helpful. Ew made today’s questioning sound about appropriate. My take was, as the other hearing thread highlighted, this is a time when many erstwhile supporters of the general might moderate their rhetoric in this season of an approaching election, kinda what MN C references@13. The article I linked was very well written, even though I tagged the age of the author imprecisely; he depicts Agent Orange spraying beginning with 1,000 gallons, then progresses to the narrative of >2,000,000 gallons/year; the author retained his creativity, though cripled in a hand from some birth transmitted defect from his father. It seemed more appropriate than the oratory from Orestes, which I might suspect Petraeus to have read but perhaps not Westm.

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      JohnL, thanks for that link; that article is exceptional. (I suspect that some who see your earlier comment @8 would not instantly connect ‘teratogenic‘ with ‘damage to embryo development resulting in birth defects‘).

      bmaz @9 — indeed, Petraeus’s responses don’t inspire confidence.

      LabDancer @16 – good luck!

  9. dipper says:

    I think we’re all falling for the bait: Where is George Bush? He’s hiding behind Petraeus, claiming that “the general” dictates policy. He pulled the same thing with Gen Casey and Lt. General Sanchez, before it turned out that, um “mistakes were made”.

    It is George Bush who should be answering questions, not his puppet soldier of the hour.

    Bears repeating, a175!

  10. LabDancer says:

    And isn’t this the Bush-Cheney way? Cheney didn’t talk about the mythology that was Iraq-Niger or his beloved Atta until he could say ”it was reported in The New York Times”. Rumsfeld & Feith gamed the Chair of the JCS to get him to believe they were against the torture theyd already decided to be for – indeed had already referred to Chief Justice Addington & ACJ Yoo for the obligatory paperwork. They tried their damnedest to pin the Plame outing on The Times and only resorted to one of their semi-official DBs because their usual channel was in drydock. And so on & so forth to the point where a thousand Altermans & Greenwalds & Hortons & Wheelers will not suffice to capture everything.

    Sometimes I get the impression that those in charge of this production must be no better than a pair of draft-dodging hypocritical chickenhawks.

    I am of course prepared to issue an apology for an unintended offence – in writing & fully detailed & in triplicate to each and every individual in a the leadership position in this administration or who has accepted & acted on a commission to carry out its policies, to the full extent the underlying instigation was unintended, though not one eyelash more –

    which might take up a lot of my time but somehow I feel should leave more than enough left over to attend to a little pet project:

    trying to figure out how a gang leader can succeed in gaming a pardon for all the members of his gang in the absence of the prosecuting attorneys in his pocket having pursued any of them to conviction. Wish me luck!

    [You might want to keep an eye out for a sporty new product line from the Congressional Research Service.]

  11. NorCalJon says:

    O/T, but I need assistance from the attorneys that always help my understanding around here. On Think Progress National Lawyers Guild calls for Yoo disbarment, the comments indicate that Mr. Yoo may not be licensed to practice law in the state of California. Does anyone know where he may me a member of a bar? Is it a requirement (typically or specifically) to be a member of a bar to be a (seemingly) tenured professor? I assume that DOJ would require this, no?

  12. bmaz says:

    Yoo is a member of the Pennsylvania bar. Is NOT a member of Calif. bar. Not necessary to be a bar member to be a law professor. I believe DOJ requires bar membership for all attorney positions; but to the best of my knowledge, it is not required by law unless they are going to appear in a formal court.

  13. NorCalJon says:

    Isn’t it funny how they go ahead and bypass Congress on so many Executive Orders, Signing Statements, etc. — but when it came to retroactive immunity they made sure to push the MCA through a more compliant Congress? And how interesting that it may come to bite them in the butt regarding “triggers” for other countries’ decisions about war crimes prosecutions! Think they relied on Yoo for Paraguay’s extradition rules?

  14. prostratedragon says:

    One keeps hearing about some special US-Paraguay non-extradition treaty that’s supposed to protect all Bushes like John the Conqueror root, but

    1) has anyone actually seen the text of this thing? I can’t seem to find it, though I did finally come up with a reference to a treaty from 2001 (fascinating little document from the US Embassy, full of references to the activities of the GOP —Government of Paraguay, naturally); and

    2) since on the one hand the MCA would keep W et al. from being indicted here so long as it’s in force, but on the other Paraguay is still a ratified member* of the International Criminal Court**, how would this non-extradition thing offer protection if the ICCt found a way to go after one of them?

    *Other members include Afghanistan, Albania, Hungary, Jordan, Liberia, Macedonia, Poland, Romania, and many European countries that have airports. Unratified signers include Egypt, Syria, and Thailand.

    **It appears from the ICCt’s own jurisdictional statement that an exception to the rule that either the crime be committed in the territory of a member, or that the accused be a national of a member state is referral by the UN Security Council. Would that happen next year? Probably not. But there’s lots more time after next year.

  15. klynn says:

    Today Juan Cole writes:

    April 9, yesterday, marked the fifth anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein. But for many Iraqis, it was more notable for marking the beginning of a long-term American military occupation of their country.

    The US military was so little in control after five years that two mortar shells slammed into the Green Zone, the American HQ in Iraq. On Sunday, a similar attack killed two US military personnel while they were jogging.

    It was a somber anniversary. In Baghdad, Samarra, Tikrit and some other places, vehicle bans and curfews were in place to stop there being any demonstrations or violence to mark opposition to the occupation.

    More here:

    http://www.juancole.com/

    A perfect and “clarified thinking” type of read after another round of hearings…

  16. lllphd says:

    besides the fact that none of those glowing goals the general lists is at all possible as long as US troops are in iraq,….

    now we need them to define ‘national interest’.

    that’s when things should get really, erm, interesting.

    because they can list our national security, but patraeus has already admitted that we are no safer now than before our invasion. ‘peace and safety in the region’ doesn’t fly either because we don’t know what that would look like either, and it sure won’t happen as long as we’re there.

    no matter what answer they offer, it only further begs the question, and we all know ultimately where this thread will lead.

    we’re there to control the oil. they can dance around it all they want, but that’s the bottom line. strategically, that resource is even more important than the geographical location.

    and oil is why we must subdue iran, as well. they’ve gotten way too uppity about this bizarre notion of owning their own resources, just like that scary dude chavez, and they’d love to just shut us out of the entire process.

    but these american powers that be can’t let that happen because their entire world, their empire has been built with oil as the currency, and to abandon it would pull the plug on their immense wealth and the subsequent control over the world they’re determined to dominate.

    or destroy. they can’t seem to tell the difference. or maybe it’s more like there is no difference despite all their efforts to deny any connection one to the other, or even of themselves to either.

Comments are closed.