A Plea From Petraeus

Gallery

Congress Hears Iraq War Update

Army Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the two top U.S. officials in Iraq, are in Washington this week to update Congress on the status of the Iraq war. Senate hearings on Tuesday gave three leading contenders for the White House a chance to question both Petraeus and Crocker and promote their approaches to the five-year-old war.

» LAUNCH PHOTO GALLERY

"The American people have had it up to here," exclaimed Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio).

"I appreciate the sense of frustration that you articulate," Crocker said. "I share it. I kind of live it every day. I mean, the reality is, it is hard in Iraq. And there are no light switches to throw that are going to go dark to light."

During the two hearings, all eyes were on the three presidential candidates. As the Armed Services Committee's ranking Republican, McCain was the first to speak during that panel's session, using his statement to deliver a full-throated argument for staying in Iraq: "Should the United States instead choose to withdraw from Iraq before adequate security is established, we will exchange for this victory a defeat that is terrible and long-lasting."

But during questioning, McCain took a tougher tack, asking Petraeus and Crocker: Why did more than 1,000 members of the Iraqi security forces desert or underperform in confronting Shiite militias in Basra days ago? Why are rockets landing with deadly accuracy in the Green Zone?

McCain left it to his allies to take the debate to his opponents. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) pressed Petraeus to describe what would happen if the United States were to pull out, as Obama and Clinton advocate. Petraeus ducked, saying it would depend on ground conditions. Graham pressed harder: "At this point in time, does that seem to be a responsible position to take?" Petraeus again avoided a direct answer.

Clinton did not get her turn for another 2 1/2 hours, but when it came she promptly responded to assertions that withdrawal would be irresponsible. "I fundamentally disagree," she said. "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."

Obama's turn came near the end of the day, during the Foreign Relations Committee hearing. Although "the surge has reduced violence," he said, Iraqis have not done enough to take advantage.

He then asked what constitutes victory. "I'm trying to get to an endpoint," Obama said. If the goal for Iraq is set too high, U.S. forces could be there for decades, he said. "If on the other hand," he said, "our criteria is a messy, sloppy status quo but there's not, you know, huge outbreaks of violence -- there's still corruption, but the country is struggling along, but it's not a threat to its neighbors and it's not an al-Qaeda base -- that seems to me an achievable goal within a measurable time frame."

While Bush ostensibly stayed out of yesterday's discussion, the White House made sure to play a role. Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, and Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, the war coordinator, went to Capitol Hill to brief Senate Republicans before the hearings. And just as Bush gave the Medal of Honor to a war hero the day after announcing his troop-buildup strategy in January 2007, he gave another one yesterday.

The East Room ceremony honoring Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael A. Monsoor was emotional. Bush wiped tears from his eyes and put his arm around Monsoor's family as the SEAL's death was recounted -- he threw himself onto a grenade to save two fellow SEALs. "We see his legacy in the city of Ramadi," Bush said, "which has gone from one of the most dangerous places in Iraq to one of the most safest."