Mission Accomplished

Alissa J. Rubin and Damien Cave write in the New York Times from Baghdad: "The assessment that Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador to Iraq, gave to Congress on Monday left unmentioned or glossed over some of the most troubling developments of the past nine months. His portrait of Iraq did not include many of the signs of deepening divisions between Sunni Arabs and Shiites and within each sect, which have raised fears among many Iraqis that their country will fracture further.

"His testimony did not address the continuing wave of internal displacements, only glancingly mentioned Baghdad's starved infrastructure and said almost nothing about the government's inability or unwillingness to deliver services to other parts of the country as well.

"His description of the growth of provincial power neglected to mention its darker side: Some provinces are becoming rival power centers and could as easily contribute to the country's disintegration as to its stability."

Ann Scott Tyson writes in The Washington Post that what Petraeus calls a "very substantial withdrawal" does no more than bring U.S. forces closer to the pre-surge level of about 130,000 troops by the end of next summer.

Washington Post military reporter Tom Ricks was liveblogging the testimony for washingtonpost.com and shared some fascinating observations. In one post, Ricks noted: "One problem with hearings is that they tend to be sprawling affairs. Today's has been especially disjointed, as it combined two full committees.

"The result, I think, is a feeling of a lack of direction. Republicans have spent a lot of time defending General Petraeus, who doesn't really seem to need their help. And Democrats just seem in despair, and certainly not speaking with one voice, or offering a clear alternative.

"In this case, the tie goes to the administration. So it looks like the U.S. may have troops fighting and dying in Iraq for years to come."

Watch the Rhetoric

In another post, Ricks wrote: "The more I listen, the more I think today's message from Petraeus and Crocker is that they think that keeping U.S. forces in Iraq for years to come isn't a great idea, but is better than any other idea they see out there."

Indeed, while Petraeus and Crocker were doing exactly what the White House needed them to do, they didn't do it with the same sort of rhetoric, enthusiasm or even optimism that you normally hear from Bush and his White House aides.

As DeYoung and Ricks write in their Post article, the two men did not "cast the war in terms the White House is fond of using -- a global fight against terrorism, where failure would threaten the U.S. homeland. Iran and al-Qaeda in Iraq are both problems, Petraeus said. But 'the fundamental source of the conflict in Iraq is competition among ethnic and sectarian communities for power and resources.'"

Also lacking: Much of a sense of history. "Neither Petraeus nor Crocker mentioned the nearly 4 1/2 years of U.S. military involvement that began with the March 2003 invasion; both seemed to date U.S. involvement in Iraq as beginning anew with the troop escalation that started early this year."

Here is a transcript of the opening remarks and exchanges yesterday. Here are some "rapid responses" from the Senate and House Democratic leadership.