Excerpts of Tuesday’s Senate Testimony

Excerpt of Tuesday’s Senate testimony:
Sen. John Warner (R-VA): “Can you now, just in simple language, tell us, ‘yes, it is worth it’ and ‘it is making us safer here at home’?“
Gen. David Petraeus: “Senator, I do believe it is worth it … I took on the task, the privilege, of command of Multinational Force-Iraq, because I do believe that it is worth it and I do believe the interests there are of enormous importance, again, to our country, not just to the people of Iraq and the people of that region and the world.”
Sen. Warner: “Mr. Ambassador, how do you answer? Is it providing greater security here at home?”
Ambassador Ryan Crocker: “Sir, I will try to answer that at two levels. First, in the little over a year that I have been in Iraq we have seen a significant degradation of al Qaeda’s presence and its abilities. Al Qaeda is our mortal and strategic enemy. So, to the extent that al Qaeda’s capacities have been lessened in Iraq, and they have been significantly lessened, I do believe that makes America safer.”
Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, a longtime critic of the administration’s war strategy, told Petraeus: “The American people have had it up to here.”
Petraeus responded, “I certainly share the frustration.”

But when it came to promising or predicting a timetable for further withdrawals, Petraeus didn’t budge. He said he had recommended to Bush that he complete, by the end of July, the withdrawal of the 20,000 extra troops. Beyond that, the general proposed a 45-day period of “consolidation and evaluation,” to be followed by an indefinite period of assessment before he would recommend any further pullouts.
The Petraeus plan, which Bush is expected to embrace, reflects a conservative approach that leaves open the possibility that roughly 140,000 U.S. troops could remain in Iraq when the president leaves office next year.
On Thursday Bush will make a speech about the war, now in its sixth year, and his decision about troop levels.

In exchanges with several senators, Petraeus refused to say when he thought it would be safe to resume troop reductions beyond July without risking “fragile and reversible” security gains.
Asked Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee: “Could that be a month, could that be two months?”
Petraeus began to respond: “Sir, it could be less than that. It could be. …”
Levin: “Could it be more than that?”
Petraeus: “It could be more than that. Again, it’s when the conditions are met that we can make a recommendation for further reductions.”
Levin: “Could it be three months?”
Petraeus: “Sir, again, at the end of the period of consolidation and evaluation. …”

On they went in the same vein, even after a demonstrator – “Bring them home! Bring them home!” – interrupted the hearing and was escorted out.

When Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., started in again later, Petraeus said it would defy logic to establish a timetable before knowing what conditions will be like this summer.
Petraeus said.: “If you believe as I do – and the commanders on the ground believe – that the way forward on reductions should be conditions-based then it is just flat not responsible to try to put down a stake in the ground and say this is when it would be or that is when it would be,”
One of three senators who could be the new president by January, Hillary Rodham Clinton, said much earlier, not in a response to Petraeus, that she disagreed with those who criticized lawmakers who are calling for an orderly withdrawal.
Hillary Clinton: “Rather, I think it could be fair to say that it might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced the results that have been promised time and time again at such tremendous cost to our national security and to the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States military,” she said.
Sen. Barack Obama, her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, told Petraeus that while he wants U.S. troops out of Iraq he would not initiate a precipitous withdrawal. And he said talking regularly to the Iranians is critical to getting to the point where it would be safe to end American involvement.
“I do not believe we are going to be able to stabilize the situation without them,” Obama said.
War supporter John McCain, who will be the GOP nominee, said: “Our goal – my goal – is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops. And I believe we can achieve that goal, perhaps sooner than many imagine. But I also believe that to promise a withdrawal of our forces, regardless of the consequences, would constitute a failure of political and moral leadership.”
Petraeus said his plan is supported by Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has been notably public in his expressions of concern that the heavy commitment of troops in Iraq has limited U.S. military options elsewhere and has put enormous strain on troops and their families.
Petraeus made no mention of reducing soldiers’ tours of duty in Iraq from the current 15 months to 12 months, but the administration is expected to announce a decision to do that this week. It would take effect this summer, coinciding with the completion of the drawdown to 15 combat brigades in Iraq.
Petraeus said the recent flare-up of violence in Basra, in Baghdad and elsewhere points up the importance of the cease-fire declared last year by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and highlighted the role Iran allegedly plays in funding and training Shiite militias through cells the U.S. military calls “special groups.”
“Unchecked, the special groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq,” Petraeus said.
Testifying beside Petraeus was Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, who also focused on the violence in Basra, where Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki dispatched Iraqi security forces to combat Shiite militias.
Crocker said : “Taken as a snapshot, with scenes of increasing violence, and masked gunmen in the streets, it is hard to see how this situation supports a narrative of progress in Iraq,” “There is still very much to be done to bring full government control to the streets of Basra and eliminate entrenched extremist, criminal, and militia groups. When viewed with a broader lens, the Iraqi decision to combat these groups in Basra has major significance.”