Trumpets successes agains AQI and the "decline in sectarian violence" and "decline in overall civilian deaths."

Praises Iraq security forces, says "they are standing and fighting and taking losses."

"Competition between sects" is at the heart of the conflicts in Iraq. The question is will this competition occur violently or by other means.

Petraeus references Casey and Khazildad, his and Crocker predecessors as, it seems, the godfathers of the Surge.

Update [2007-9-10 13:38:31 by Big Tent Democrat]: Petraeus takes great pain to defend his data, arguing it is the most accurate as "it has been vetted by 2 intelligence agencies." Take that as you will. Now discusses his numbers.

Update [2007-9-10 13:40:12 by Big Tent Democrat]: Ethno-sectarian deaths have come down by 80% in Baghdad since December says Petraeus. The significance of this date for the Surge Strategy is not explained by Petraeus.

Update [2007-9-10 13:43:54 by Big Tent Democrat]: Outside of Baghdad, it seems clear that the decline Petraeus is reporting comes in Anbar. Petraues' review of other areas of Iraq indicate that there has been, even accepting Petraeus's data, limited to Surge areas and Anbar. This, of course, begs the question, are these declines sustainable after the Surge ends? Petraeus has not addressed sustainability at all.

And the reality is he can not, as this goes to the issue of political reconciliation. Which is to say, even if we accept Petraeus' military assessment, the success of military tactics has not produced strategic results.

Update [2007-9-10 13:45:14 by Big Tent Democrat]: The Iran card is played by Petraeus, and seemingly, at least to me, as a nonsequitor. Will he address the Iraqi government's close ties to Iran? Do not count it.

Update [2007-9-10 13:48:23 by Big Tent Democrat]: Quick intermediate take - I do not think that Petraeus is doing a particularly effective POLITICAL job here. His testimony, standing alone, is dry, detailed, filled with qualifiers, and not, to me at least, compelling.

As a POLITICAL event, I think this is not a winner for the bush Administration. Not a loser of course, a man in uniform can rarely be that. But not compelling.

Update [2007-9-10 13:54:5 by Big Tent Democrat]: It appears that Petraeus WILL emphasize troop withdrawal being a part of his plan. OF course it relies on the old saw "when the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down" line. But Democrats should take note that even Petraeus and the bush Administration feel it necessary to highlight the "withdrawal of troops" aspect of Petraeus' recommendation.

"Draw down the Surge forces." The new Petraeus mantra. Of course, as has been stated many times, this is mandated by the realities of our troop numbers as much as anything, but Petraeus and the Bush Administration will begin withdrawal almost immediately, reaching pre-Surge levels by next July, and it wil be claimed that this is due to the Surge.

Let's be clear, this is the Bush strategy. He can hardly deny Petraeus now.

The question then is what does Petraeus envision after July 2008? HE will punt of course.

The grand kabuki theater is now complete.

Update [2007-9-10 14:0:9 by Big Tent Democrat]: What Congress must NOW do could not be clearer I think. Provided funding to April 2008 and no more. Let General Petraeus return in March and explain the post July plan and explain to the Congress why fully funded withdrawal should not proceed at that time.

There is no reason why ALL Democrats can not back such a plan. At the same time, Petraeus must be required to create a wihdrawal plan to commence complete withdrawal from Iraq commencing in April 2008. To wit, the default position is that full withdrawal will commence in April 2008 UNLESS Petraeus can convince Congress to do otherwise.

Update [2007-9-10 14:6:27 by Big Tent Democrat]: Ambassador Ryan Crocker's Opening Statement.

"Will not minimize the enormity of the challenges" but US can realize its goals in Iraq -a secure, stable and democratic Iraq at peace with its neighbors. . . . The process will not be quick, it will be uneven and will require substantial resolve . . ."

A sober assessment but not a disheartneing one. Compares Iraq to the US. Incredible. No doubt Crocker has the tougher job here. He has to convince that Iraqi democracy is worht it, and that it is actually progressing.

Update [2007-9-10 14:11:2 by Big Tent Democrat]: The statements of Crocker and Petraeus seem utterly irreconciliable. Petraeus is all about success. Crocker is about how difficult the challenge is. Crocker makes it sound like it will take a miracle. Petraeus seem to argue the miracle was on its way.

It will be interesting to see if any Congresspersons ask Petraeus about the negative prognosis Crocker presents with his rosy appraisal and how these two conflicting views can be reconciled under one strategy.

Update [2007-9-10 14:44:56 by Big Tent Democrat]: Sorry, I had to take a phone call.

I am now watching Lantos' questioning. Presumably I missed Skelton's questions. Again, my apologies.

Update [2007-9-10 14:56:12 by Big Tent Democrat]: Crocker's discussion of Shia Iraq's relationship with Iran was highly misleading. No one argues that Shia Iraqis are ipso facto, Iran sympathizers. Rather, we argues that the Shia Iraqi political froups, SCIRI and DAWA had documented ties to the Iranians from the Saddam period, particularly SCIRI. Coupled with the important role of Shia theology to Shia politics, in the person of Sistani, it is clear that there are and will be close ties between Shia Iraqis political leaders and Iran.

Update [2007-9-10 14:59:23 by Big Tent Democrat]: In answering Duncan Hunter's question about the training of Iraqi forces, it becomes necessary, unfortunately, to remind how wrong General Petraeus has been in his assessment of the training of Iraqi troops. In particular his infamous 2004 WaPo Op Ed stands as a strong strike against his judgment in this arena. One must take Petraeus' pronouncements on this subject in particular with a large grain of salt.

Update [2007-9-10 15:33:0 by Big Tent Democrat]: Rep. Spratt (D-SC), does the counting of the money and shows how expensive the Petraeus recommnedation would be in the best case.

Now Spratt turns back to the issue that really is the whole point - political reconciliation is the point of the Surge. Why is there no progress?

Petraeus and Crocker answer - Crocker - "critical and complex issues, the violence in Iraq has deepened divisions and fears (goes back to 1968 etc) did not end in 2003 and there is significant scarring.

SPRATT - How do you connect imporvement to the Surge. Crocker points to well, nothing, but says things are better. Government reaching out to Sunnis, Sunnis reaching out to government. [No evidence of this imo] points to Anbar again, admits there is no national reconciliation but give it more time etc.,

In short, "I can not give you a timeline," says Crocker. But he "hold out hope." [Of course, Hope is not a plan.]

Update [2007-9-10 15:38:37 by Big Tent Democrat]: BERMAN (D-CA) "General, you oppose mission change."

Petraeus: That is correct.

BERMAN: Al Qaida, killed or captured 2500. but I remember Rummy saying "are we creating more than we are killing?"

Petraeus: We are trying to make sure we do not foment terrorism in our anti-AQI operations. Describes methods. Petraeus says we are not arming Sunnis. [Maliki has said otherwise.]

BERMAN: Refugee issue. 2 million Iraqis fled. 2 million more displaced. Any reverse flows? Does US have special obligation to refugees?

Petraeus: Yes we have special obligation.

Update [2007-9-10 15:46:2 by Big Tent Democrat]: Crocker asked what happens if we leave 'precipitously?' Crocker evokes Sabra and Lebanon. [What that is supposed to mean, I do not know.] Iran will emerge dominant. [Pssst, they already have Crocker. Fear of genocide in Iraq is the argument apparently. Given our massive intervention in Darfur this seems a potent political argument. Oh wait, we have done nothing on Darfur. Never mind.]

ACKERMAN (D-NY) sez Petraeus and Crocker do not talk about GWOT because this is not about GWOT, this is about trying to put together a rocky marriage between Sunni and Shia. How long do we try to put this marriage together? How long?

Petraeus says "AQI is part of Greater AQ." Ackerman points out there was no AQI until 2005.

Petraeus says AQ Central is a threat to us, AQI he does not know if it is a threat to us. In other words, Petraeus will not buy into the "they will follow us here" nonsense.

Ackermsan is quite frankly, stepping on Petraeus making his point. Good start, bad finish for Ackerman.

McHUGH (R-NY) makes a mistake and misreads Petraeus, he asks him if Iraq is central to war on terror, and Petraeus focuses on defeating AQI, not stability in Iraq. I think this is a very interesting distancing by Petraeus from the Bush propaganda.

Then Mchugh follows up with a strange question on concetration in Afghanistan as being BAD for GWOT. The look on Petraeus' face at the question was priceless. To me, it said "are you really this stupid?")

Update [2007-9-10 16:9:27 by Big Tent Democrat]: Crocker sez threat of troop reductions will make Iraqis less inclined to reconcile. [Seeing as how the Surge made them so amenable to reconciliation NOT, Corcker's statement seems unsupported and counter to the evidence so far.. But in the end, it does not matter. They won't reconcile until they think it is the best option, and our troops being there does not encourage final thinking by the Iraqis.]

Update [2007-9-10 16:14:15 by Big Tent Democrat]: MANZULLO (R-IL) asks about base near Iran-Iraq border, whether expenditure of resources in Iraq hurts GWOT, and who is the biggest threat, AQI or Iran?

After explaining about base (innocent sounding explanation frankly,) Petraeus says he sees AQI as biggest threat. The long term threat "may well be Iranian supoported Shia militias." [Isn't Petraeus describing the Iraqi security forces? Isn't this the basic contradiction in Petraeus' strategy? Clearly Petraeus is not an idiot, what is he up to here? In essence, the claim is that Sadr or Hakim are the threat? Presumably Sadr. This is one of the major reasons why this policy makes no sense.]

Update [2007-9-10 16:16:15 by Big Tent Democrat]: Gene Taylor (D-MS] questions the idea that the Iraqis are standing up. Gently questions Petraeus but demonstrates real skepticism.

Petraeus protests there is a partnership.

Update [2007-9-10 16:48:54 by Big Tent Democrat]: Petraeus asked about pace of withdrawal and asserts that it was faster than dictated by troop availability, to wit, he could have kept it at 168k until April. I think that is right but to me that demonstrates something different than what Petraeus would have - to me it shows that politics is what explains the "geometry" of his withdrawal plan to July 2008.

I think Bush will be trumpeting troop withdrawals out of this hearing.

Skelton asks a great question - does Petraeus' withdrawal take us below pre-Surge numbers? Answer. NO.

Update [2007-9-10 18:7:3 by Big Tent Democrat]: Sorry. Was pulled away again.