Does Petraeus Have the Answers?

And former Clinton defense secretary secretary William Perry offered more questions during the course of his testimony before the House Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees last week:

"Since the surge began earlier this year, how well has the Iraqi government used the breathing space it provided?

"How much longer will coalition forces be needed to provide breathing space for the Iraqi government?

"In order to achieve American goals in Iraq, how much longer will American forces be needed at or near present levels in Iraq? Is the readiness level of American contingency forces today adequate to meet plausible contingencies?

"If present or near-present levels of troops are needed in 2008 in Iraq, how will the replacement forces be provided, and what will this do to the readiness levels of our contingency forces?"

The implicit question in Steven Simon and Ray Takeyh's Los Angeles Times op-ed: Does what any of you say matter? Simon and Takeyh write: "The intense focus on Gen. David H. Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker obscures the essential irrelevance of the report they will make to Congress on Monday and, in a larger sense, the irrelevance of U.S. troops to Iraqi politics. The pacification of a few pockets of resistance can scarcely reconcile Iraq's warring factions or salvage the American enterprise. The future of Iraq hinges on the outcome of its raging civil war, not on any recalibration of U.S. military strategy."

Here's CBS News's Bob Schieffer on his Face the Nation commentary yesterday: "We haven't lost this war, but we're not winning it. We're hanging on. Victory would be obvious. Iraqi families would be strolling the streets of Baghdad, and Osama bin Laden would be walking out of a cave somewhere with his hands up.

"Instead of that question, let's hope the general will be asked what we so often forgot during Vietnam: Is this worth the cost in lives and money? . . .

"What we need to know now is whether keeping a large American military force in Iraq is the best way to make America safer. To me, that's the real question."

Even the pro-war Washington Post editorial board raises some tough questions: "If Iraqis are not moving toward political reconciliation, what justifies a continuing commitment of U.S. troops, with the painful sacrifices in lives that entails? U.S. generals have said repeatedly that tactical military successes will be unsustainable without political breakthroughs. . . . If there is to be no political accord in the near future -- and such an accord seems as distant today as it did in January -- what will be the goals of the U.S. mission in Iraq? The president needs to spell out concrete and realistic aims for American forces -- and limit troop levels to those necessary to accomplish them."

A Bit of a Charade

George Packer writes in the New Yorker: "The Petraeus-Crocker testimony is the kind of short-lived event on which the Administration has relied to shore up support for the war: the 'Mission Accomplished' declaration, the deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein, Saddam's capture, the transfer of sovereignty, the three rounds of voting, the Plan for Victory, the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Every new milestone, however illusory, allows the Administration to avoid thinking ahead, to the years when the mistakes of Iraq will continue to haunt the U.S.

"The media have largely followed the Administration's myopic approach to the war, and there is likely to be intense coverage of the congressional testimony. But the inadequacy of the surge is already clear, if one honestly assesses the daily lives of Iraqis."