Hearteningly nuanced presentation, uncomforting open-ended forecast
WASHINGTON - Army General David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker yesterday gave Americans something that many say they've been yearning for: a straight, sober, and nuanced presentation of the situation in Iraq.
The two officials' air of sincerity and competence probably put to rest the notion, advanced by some liberal groups, that they would parrot the agenda of the Bush administration.
But the upshot of their congressional testimony - the US military mission is achieving its aims but still has no clear end, and the long nation-building process will be, in Crocker's words, "slow, uneven, punctuated by setbacks as well as achievements" - may still be a shock to those Americans who expected that the troop "surge" would foster a quicker political solution.
"Our experience in Iraq has repeatedly shown that projecting too far into the future is not just dangerous, it can be misleading and even hazardous," said Petraeus, in refusing to commit to a timetable for troop reductions beyond next summer, when forces will return to presurge levels of about 130,000.
The general's suggestion that US troops will be needed well into the future represents a clear challenge to antiwar forces and sets the terms for what is sure to be a contentious congressional debate throughout the fall.
President Bush can take heart in Petraeus's support for continuing the surge until next year and his declaration that "the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met."
But Crocker's report, in particular, also marked a clear rejection of the administration's sloganeering approach to success in Iraq, which for the past two years has been marked by its use of the poll-tested term "victory" to describe its aim.
"There will be no single moment at which we can claim victory," said Crocker. "Any turning point will likely only be recognized in retrospect."
This is not what most Americans expected when Bush took the country to war more than four years ago, with a stated goal of stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction. And the public, in polls, has gradually turned against the mission.
"There are consistent majorities to bring the troops home," said Carroll Doherty, associate director of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, which has closely tracked public opinion on Iraq. "But when you get down to the timing there's a big division between those who want to pull out right now and those who want to do so over a year or two."
Neither group is likely to be comforted by the assessments of Petraeus and especially Crocker, who used the opportunity to request additional economic aid for, among other things, building "a large-scale operations and maintenance facility [in Iraq] based on our Highway Trust Fund."
Americans, in polls, have shown less support for nation-building than for other goals in Iraq, such as fighting Al Qaeda.
Several congressional Democrats raised questions at the hearing about the rising cost of the war, which Representative Tom Lantos, Democrat of California, said "is limiting our ability to address our global security needs, as well as pressing domestic problems such as healthcare, crumbling infrastructure, and public education."
The two reports also provided substantial ammunition for Republican opponents of congressional efforts to withdraw troops. Petraeus and Crocker said a quick withdrawal would have disastrous consequences. And Petraeus, in particular, invoked the sacrifices of the average soldier.
"It remains an enormous privilege to soldier again in Iraq with America's new 'Greatest Generation,' " Petraeus said.
And there was the commanding general himself, whose aura of competence might have restored some faith in the mission.
"In general, the American people follow the leader," said MIT professor Stephen Van Evera, a political scientist who has studied the war. "Will Petraeus and the president persuade the American people to keep a large force in Iraq? I think they'll succeed because American people tend to follow the general and follow the president."
But troop levels may not be the determinant of success, said Van Evera, who suggested that Crocker's may have been the more significant report.
"Unless Bush is willing to coerce the parties to come up with a peace plan and get the neighboring countries to support that plan, we're still going to see a big civil war in Iraq," regardless of troop levels, he said.
