 |
|
 |
| [-] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Prev | List | Random | Next |
This is becoming a great example of the influence of media on conduct of a war.
From Senator Levin's opening comments at the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on the Current Situation in Iraq and Afghanistan:
LEVIN: Recently, Ambassador Khalilzad announced that Iraqi officials had agreed to a timeline for reaching benchmarks to confront the sectarian militias, to implement a reconciliation program, to share oil revenues, and to recommend changes to the constitution.Levin will become Committee Chairman next year, but the good Senator may have been duped by inaccurate press accounts of the day. A complex matter, but for full understanding you might want to re-visit these three posts before reading on.Prime Minister Maliki repudiated that timeline the next day, providing additional evidence that the Iraqi political leaders do not understand that there is a limit to the blood and treasure that Americans are willing to spend, given the unwillingness of the Iraqis themselves to put their political house in order.
Senator Levin's comments weren't limited to his opening statement, and he appears to be eager to get to the truth of the matter. He directed questions on the topic to Ambassador David Satterfield, special assistant to the secretary of state for Iraq:
LEVIN: Ambassador, you testified that it is critical that we work with the government of Iraq to set out measurable, achievable benchmarks on the three tracks that you have mentioned -- political, security and economic.Apparently, there were some benchmarks and time lines that were said by Ambassador Khalilzad to have been agreed upon by the Iraqi leaders, and he made that announcement, and then the next day Prime Minister Maliki rejected what apparently the ambassador thought had been accepted.
LEVIN: Were we surprised when Prime Minister Maliki rejected those timelines?
SATTERFIELD: Senator Levin, the Iraqi government has articulated a sense of goals and objectives on the political process and they've been actively engaged in articulating with the United Nations a very detailed set of goals and objectives on the economic side.
On security, the discussions between our two sides continue.
And with respect to timelines, there is a timeline embedded in the political process outlined by the Iraqi government as well as on the economic steps now in the process of finalization.
Similarly, on security, we think it's valuable, very valuable, for the Iraqis to articulate -- certainly with our input -- where they intend to move, how they intend to move and over what timeline on security goals, as General Abizaid has outlined. But all of these processes are very much in train.
LEVIN: Apparently there was a specific document which Ambassador Khalilzad was referring to when he said that certain timelines and benchmarks had been agreed upon. Is that true? Is there a document?
SATTERFIELD: There is a document on political benchmarks, that is a document articulated and published by the Iraqi government in mid-October.
LEVIN: Did we present a different timeline and set of benchmarks to them from the one you just referred to?
SATTERFIELD: No, Senator. I think whatever confusion may have been reflected in Prime Minister Maliki's remarks has been resolved. I would not overplay the significance, certainly at this point, of those comments.
Meanwhile, no one questioned either guest on these statements by Maliki:
"They think building Iraqi forces will need 12 to 18 months, for us to be in control of security," Maliki said, referring to remarks two days ago by U.S. commander General George Casey.In spite of the fact that a "four to six month" timeframe for withdrawal was discussed endlessly - and is favored by Senator Levin."We agree our forces need work but think that if, as we are asking, the rebuilding of our forces was in our own hands, then it would take not 12-18 months but six might be enough."
We should put the responsibility for Iraq's future squarely where it belongs: on the Iraqis. We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves.Of course, Maliki's rather rosy scenario didn't get as much attention in the press as did his "rejection" of an agreement that never existed in the first place. Perhaps even Senator Levin doesn't really believe such a timetable is practical.The only way for Iraqi leaders to squarely face that reality is for President Bush to tell them that the United States will begin a phased redeployment of our forces within four to six months.
That is not precipitous. It is a responsible way to change the dynamic in Iraq, to stop the march down the path to full-blown civil war on which the Iraqis are now embarked.
