by Frank James
Anthony Cordesman, a top national-security expert in Washington, has 20 questions he would ask if he had a chance to put them to Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker.
The questions are tough and comprehensive. Members of Congress would do well to seek answers to all of them.
Twenty Questions for Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus on Progress and Problems in IraqBy Anthony H. Cordesman
1. Both of you have said that there is no military solution to bringing stability and security to Iraq, and that success depends on political conciliation or accommodation. Exactly what steps towards conciliation are necessary and what are the current prospects for achieving each major step in terms of time and probability?
2. Exactly when do we reach a crisis point in terms of extended tours of duty and what are the levels of troops we can sustain without exceeding the desired limit from February on? What specific units will be affected over the following six months?
3. You have talked about progress in bringing security. Aside from a tribal uprising in Anbar and somewhat lower levels of violence in Baghdad, how do you justify such statements given (1) the takeover of Iraq's four South Eastern provinces by rival Shi'ite gangs with little loyalty to the central government -- an area with more than 30% of the population, and that generates 80% of Iraq's oil revenues and some 70% of the government's income, (2) ongoing Shi’ite efforts at sectarian cleansing in Baghdad and other Shi'ite dominated areas that often have the support of Shi'ite officials and Shi'ite-dominated Army and police units, (3) UNDP reports that the number of Iraqis displaced per month has risen 20% since the surge began, (4) the fact the Maliki cabinet has lost nearly half its members, (5) the lack of progress in resolving Arab and Kurdish tensions, and (6) the rise in violence in Diyala and other key areas along the Shi'ite-Sunni fault lines?
4. President Bush and others have made reference to bottom up conciliation and the tribal uprising in Anbar. Would PM Maliki and other Iraqi officials have taken any action to work with Sunni tribal leaders without pressure from the US Embassy and command? Aren't you getting constant complaints from tribal leaders, and local and provincial Sunni officials about the lack of central government cooperation and response? Don't you have constant problems with Shi'ite fears of these developments and push back from the various ministries? Isn't there a good chance that all this progress could be lost because there is so little progress towards conciliation or accommodation from the top, and the Sunni tribes will again become hostile to the Shi'ite dominated government?
5. Both of you have talked in the past about the importance of aid and that dollars can be as important as bullets. Is there a clear plan and set of programs for tying US aid and advisory efforts to achieving political conciliation, and meeting the highest priority needs in dealing with the insurgency and civil conflicts?
6. Does that plan integrate all of the aid agencies into a clear program that justifies the request for a massive supplemental budget and that includes a clear plan for FY2009 spending and the kind of action that calls for counterpart spending in specific areas by Iraq? Is there now a comprehensive aid plan for dealing with the oil sector and ensuring that Iraq can absorb and sustain past US aid efforts?
7. What links exist between the PM's office, the MOI, and MOD, and Shi'ite forces involved in sectarian cleansing? What elements of the Iraqi Army, National Police, and regular police by unit are suspected of tolerating or supporting sectarian cleansing?
8. How serious are the problems in building up Iraq's ability to sustain its current oil production and export capabilities? Are any of the key problems identified in past US government studies being solved, and if so, which ones?
9. You talk about the Iraqi ability to draft budgets and spend money as if these were measures of merit. How are these flows of money being audited? What is the effect of such spending, and how much is spending affected by corruption and sectarian and ethnic interests?
10. Just how serious are the tensions between the Kurds and Iraqi Arabs, Turkey, Iran, and Syria? Is this a potential time bomb that could bring a whole new level of conflict to the north?
11. What is the level of Iranian influence over the central government and in Shi'ite areas in the south? Is it growing or weakening? How does Iran affect the size and actions of the various Shi'ite militias?
12. Will the PRTs and EPRTs be able to operate in all of the country and go from limited localized aid efforts to broad, province-wide efforts to implement an integrated plan?
13. What Iraqi Ministries are now effective and fully functioning in serving the needs of all Iraqis, rather than influenced by various factions? What Ministries are dysfunctional, have sectarian or ethnic ties, and cannot yet manage their budgets effectively?
14. How does the current sectarian map of Baghdad, the ring cities, and Diyala differ today from the map in January. Do we see major shifts because of sectarian and ethnic cleansing? Do you agree with the UNDP that sectarian and ethnic cleansing have increased nationally and in Baghdad in spite of US efforts and the tribal awakening in Anbar? If not, what is the trend?
15. How divided are Iraq’s Shi’ites at the national and regional level? What are the current power struggles between the Sadr, SIIC, Dawa, and Fadilla factions, and how do these affect the stability of the central government and southern Iraq? Do we know who was responsible for the killing of key Sistani advisors and governors in the south?
16. If we do see political conciliation or accommodation in Iraq, what level of continued US military and aid involvement do you see as necessary in 2009 and during the course of the next Administration? How would this affect US troop levels and aid costs?
17. Where do we really stand in developing effective Iraq forces? What specific units in the IA, National Police, and regular police do you rate as highly effective, able to stand on their own, and free of any ties to sectarian or ethnic cleansing?
18. Do we have a detailed plan as yet – with specific costs, schedules, and programs -- for giving Iraqi forces the "enablers," sustainment capabilities, and weapons and equipment necessary to create a force that can truly stand on its own and defend the country against its neighbors, rather than simply carry out counterinsurgency? If so, what is the cost and how long will it take?
19. Do you have maps of Iraq that show where local authorities, and various sectarian and tribal groups, dominate control of the area rather than the central government? If so, what do these maps look like? If not, what parts of the country, and Iraq’s 12 major cities, are largely under local control, and what parts are dominated by Arab Shi’ites, Arab Sunnis, or Kurds?
20. What are the trends in acts of violence in Iraq if the definition is expanded to include all killings, assaults, and acts like kidnappings and force displacements – rather than limited to the MNF-I definition of insurgent and militia attributable violence and major acts of violence?
• 
• 
• 
Comments
{insert blogbot Bruce media attack}
Posted by: RNC Talking Pointbot 3000 | September 10, 2007 1:20 PM
"It's the end of the Neocons as we know them"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELyLSIkGrwE
Posted by: John E | September 10, 2007 1:22 PM
"14. How does the current sectarian map of Baghdad, the ring cities, and Diyala differ today from the map in January. Do we see major shifts because of sectarian and ethnic cleansing? Do you agree with the UNDP that sectarian and ethnic cleansing have increased nationally and in Baghdad in spite of US efforts and the tribal awakening in Anbar? If not, what is the trend?"
This is a key question. A large part of why violence has gone down recently in Baghdad
is that the Shiites have won the battle there. The Sunni's have largely been driven out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/26/world/middleeast/26sunni.html?ex=1332561600&en=17c9bf8e68ad2799&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gK4R9kVIsVXmXooccz_gqUdVG5qg
Are we sending American troops to die to support sectarian cleansing in Iraq?
Posted by: Tony | September 10, 2007 1:23 PM
Good luck getting answers to those questions.
Posted by: hoppy | September 10, 2007 1:32 PM
The Tribune presents Cordesman as an "expert" on national security. It neglects to inform us that Cordesman is a strident
partisan and outspoken opponent of the war. His questions are colored by his biases. I would respectfully suggest that the Tribune fully identify Cordesman in the future or not use his comments at all.
Posted by: A. Wayne | September 10, 2007 1:33 PM
A. Wayne,
Can we call you by your real name Bruce? How pathetic.
Posted by: janet | September 10, 2007 1:41 PM
The Tribune presents Cordesman as an "expert" on national security. It neglects to inform us that Cordesman is a strident
partisan and outspoken opponent of the war. His questions are colored by his biases. I would respectfully suggest that the Tribune fully identify Cordesman in the future or not use his comments at all.
Posted by: A. Wayne | September 10, 2007 1:33 PM
Allardice,
Shouldn't you be out with your chickenhawk Repub friends playing dress up pretend civil war games?
The Neocons probably figured out away to talk tough and avoid serving in that war too.
Posted by: John E | September 10, 2007 1:43 PM
R- Mitch McConnell tells the Snowman at CNN that the "Surge" aka "Occupation" is working:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPnFGVejIsY
The Republic Party is going to get a well deserved beat-down in 08, far worse than the one they got in 06, YESSSS!!!
Posted by: John E | September 10, 2007 1:57 PM
To John E.
I joined the military on Sept. 13, 2001, two days after 9-11, and I have served in uniform since and continue to serve. Since you don't know the meaning of the word, "neocon," which is defined as "a former liberal espousing conservative values," the rest of your comments bear the same amount of credibility. Now, what branch of the service are you in?
Posted by: A. Wayne | September 10, 2007 1:58 PM
To John E.
I joined the military on Sept. 13, 2001, two days after 9-11, and I have served in uniform since and continue to serve. Since you don't know the meaning of the word, "neocon," which is defined as "a former liberal espousing conservative values," the rest of your comments bear the same amount of credibility. Now, what branch of the service are you in?
Posted by: A. Wayne | September 10, 2007 1:58 PM
Spare me the tough guy talk, loser.
Posted by: John E | September 10, 2007 2:02 PM
A. Wayne:
You need to update your right wing talking points. Anthony Cordesman is actually an advisor to John McCain on Iraq and the Middle East.
Just because he doesn't think the surge is working and believes the Bush Administration has botched any chance at success in the region doesn't make him a pariah to the right wing, unless all that matters to you is that he doesn't drink your Kool Aid.
Posted by: Steve Soto | September 10, 2007 2:04 PM
A Wayne -
Mr. Cordesman's hypothetical questions are all valid queries - regardless as to his personal political leanings.
Posted by: Buster | September 10, 2007 2:07 PM
A. Wayne, If anybody isn't stridently partisan at this point, then they aren't paying attention.
Posted by: Tom O | September 10, 2007 2:10 PM
..."The Tribune presents Cordesman as an "expert" on national security. It neglects to inform us that Cordesman is a strident
partisan and outspoken opponent of the war. His questions are colored by his biases. I would respectfully suggest that the Tribune fully identify Cordesman in the future or not use his comments at all.
Posted by: A. Wayne | September 10, 2007 1:33 PM"...
...y...a...w...n...
Posted by: The Original BZ | September 10, 2007 2:10 PM
..."To John E.
I joined the military on Sept. 13, 2001, two days after 9-11, and I have served in uniform since and continue to serve. Since you don't know the meaning of the word, "neocon," which is defined as "a former liberal espousing conservative values," the rest of your comments bear the same amount of credibility. Now, what branch of the service are you in?
Posted by: A. Wayne | September 10, 2007 1:58 PM"...
...you're a pathetic, fair-weather patriot...
...most of us who served our country did/do so without wearing it on our sleeve...
...why did you have to wait till after 9/11 to join?...why didn't you love America before 9/11?...
Posted by: The Original BZ | September 10, 2007 2:14 PM
I'll ignore the personal attacks by the paranoids obsessed with unimportant me (guess they have to vent their hate-delusions somewhere), to merely observe that sane people would wait and hear what Gen. Petraeus reported, prior to drawing conclusions.
Is that asking too much?
Posted by: Bruce | September 10, 2007 2:22 PM
to merely observe that sane people would wait and hear what Gen. Petraeus reported, prior to drawing conclusions.
Is that asking too much?
Posted by: Bruce | September 10, 2007 2:22 PM
Cordsman posted question he would like answered.
No conclusions are drawn.
Is your mind open Bruce? Have you drawn conclusions?
Posted by: Tony | September 10, 2007 2:31 PM
It took me 2 minutes to find an expert who's "been there" that Frank James will never talk to: Colonel Joe Repya--
"Today, Monday, September 10, 2007, US Army General David Petraeus, Commander of Multi National Forces – Iraq will be publicly persecuted by some members of the US Senate. Not all will join in the attacks, only those Senators more politically vicious and partisan will participate. They will be the same Senators who only months ago voted unanimously to appoint General Petraeus to run the Iraq war. Remember this is the war that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) recently told American troops and their families, “We have already lost.” That statement creates a major problem for defeatist Senate Democrats, like Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), Ted Kennedy & John Kerry (D- Massachusetts), and Hillary Clinton (D-New York), who claimed Democrats were swept into power in the election of 2006 because the American people were tired of the war. The change of strategy or “Surge” that General Petraeus developed and implemented is showing positive signs that we can actually win this struggle. Instead Democrats attack General Petraeus’ report as untruthful, misrepresenting the facts, manipulating and/or “cherry picking the numbers.” All this before General Petraeus even delivers his report to Congress.
As a former soldier I find the idea of surrender in Iraq to be quite contemptible. The American people realize we must be victorious in Iraq. Unconscionably, Senate Democrats, many of the 77 Senators who voted for war authorization, now attack the very people, “OUR TROOPS”, fighting this war. Sorry to state the obvious, but General Petraeus is one of “Our Troops”. To imply that he is untruthful, misrepresents the facts, manipulates the numbers or allows intelligence reports to be “cherry picked” is an insult to all of us who currently serve, have served or will serve in Iraq. There have been many mistakes made both militarily and politically in Iraq. Our intelligence was not foolproof in March of 2003. Those with military experience know that our intelligence wasn’t accurate at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 or in December 1944 at the Battle of the Bulge. Certainly intelligence was lacking before the attack on 9-11-2001. However, Congress approved the Iraq war based on 16 separate reasons (WMD’s being only one reason). It is appalling to me that voters are so willing to accept the spin that their politicians “were duped and lied to” by President Bush. If that is true, how could any thinking educated individual ever vote again for a person so easily bamboozled?
I have met General Petraeus a number of times while on active duty. I knew many of the officers who trained, mentored and molded this brave warrior. He is a brilliant tactician and our top expert on counter insurgency warfare. Questioning his integrity, for partisan political purposes, is nothing less then shameful. It is terribly troubling that at a time of war we would have elected officials so willing to perpetuate their political agendas that they would assault our military and its leaders in this manner. I only wish that these partisan politicians in Congress were held to the same ethical standards as our military.
Many Democrats, pandering to their extreme anti-war interest groups, turn a blind eye to the headway that even the CBS anchor Katie Couric and the New York Times have acknowledged. You only need to look at recent headlines, the terrorist arrests in England, the Netherlands, and Germany, and Osama Bin Laden’s tape to realize that the “Surge” is forcing Al Qaeda to prove they are still relevant in Iraq. Now MoveOn.org has called General Petraeus a traitor, an insult to all who serve in our military. Where are the Democrats denouncing the ad by MoveOn.org?
This week our enemies gleefully will watch this public display of political theater unfold, complete with repeated partisan attacks on a good and honorable man. General Petraeus is an impeccably honest leader and soldier, a man who has dedicated his life to the service of this great nation in time of war and peace. His family has suffered the same long and painful separations all military families have endured. Yet Senate Democrats have already questioned his honesty and others will attempt to shed him of his dignity. Meanwhile, their accomplices in the media will attempt to raise questions as to the accuracy and validity of his report and testimony. This is the shameful state of American politics today. For General Petraeus and the men and women in our military that he represents to be subjected to this circus during wartime is beyond the pale of human decency. Is there any wonder when polled that the American people claim so little faith in our Congress?"
From www.captainsquartersblog.com
Posted by: Bruce | September 10, 2007 2:50 PM
A. Wayne and Bruce, let the a-holes on the Left continue to spew their hate. Print out their hate and BS for all your moderate and indepedent friends to see. I do, and you know what? They all shake their head and say something to the effect of: "Seeing that only makes me want to vote Republican no matter how much Bush has pissed me off."
Let the Left spew their hate. It'll only come back to bite their fat, lazy a$$ses come November 08!
Posted by: John D | September 10, 2007 2:52 PM
Bruce-
Colonel Repya sounds stridently partisan to me.
Especially as he has said he's considering for the Republican Senate nomination in Minnesota, and recently lost in an attempt to become Chairman of the Minnesota Repyblican Party.
I would respectfully suggest that you fully identify Repya in the future or not use his comments at all.
Posted by: Tony | September 10, 2007 3:03 PM
It'll only come back to bite their fat, lazy a$$ses come November 08!
Posted by: John D | September 10, 2007 2:52 PM
You are one to talk. We've seen your picture Shamu. Take another trip to the buffet table, Johnny D.
Posted by: janet | September 10, 2007 3:04 PM
Oh Dumb Dumb Janet, have you seen my picture? Shamu? Take another trip to the buffet table?
Well, Janet, dear, I am sure you are an overweight slob. Me??? Well I weigh in at 175 on a 5'9" frame. Can you run 5 miles in 35 minutes? I can. Doesn't sound like Shamu to me!
Posted by: John D | September 10, 2007 4:30 PM
Ahh, John E. and BZ supporting our troops.
Such wonderful people the left are.
Posted by: JD | September 10, 2007 7:44 PM
The questions that need to be asked are these:
1. Are the Sunnis and Shia in the military and police force getting along?
2. Are the Sunnis and the Shia in the military and police force able to put aside their religious differences for the good of the nation?
3. Are the prison guards making sure the prisons are meeting code?
4. Will the Shia be able to follow the Mandela example in South Africa and forgive their oppressors, or will they be unwilling/unable to do so?
Answers to this line of questioning will tell us not whether you can crush dissent for a few months; but whether it is worth the effort to crush dissent for a few months.
Ultimately the U.S. Army will have to stand down. Ultimately, the Iraqis will need to take charge of their own country. The longer we control Iraq, the more likely the Iraqis will come to resent us rather than appreciate us.
Answer the tough questions honestly. Don't side step the tough questions.
I pray for Iraq's future. For the sake of the young children of Iraq, I hope the Sunnis and Shia can come together and resolve their differences. But nothing I have heard from Petraeus or Crocker lead me to believe we will be out of Iraq before 2010.
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | September 10, 2007 11:49 PM