CanadaNews’ Reporter Notes

On Tuesday and Wednesday, U.S. military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, spoke before U.S. lawmakers about the duration of the U.S. military presence in Iraq. He also took the time to discuss the political progress by the Iraqi government. While I sat there listening to the general’s remarks, I couldn’t help but think about the 10 U.S. soldiers that had died in the previous two days. Also, I thought about the remarks some people made about Petraeus in December of last year. These people were considering him as TIME Magazine’s 2008 Person of the Year; due to the success of the troop surge. I have to admit that I did think it was an impressive feet, but not worthy of Person of the Year.

The general’s arrival to the Hill is always interesting because he plays well with the press. Some members of Congress says that General Petraeus the most media-savvy general since General Colin Powell. Even the public says they like Petraeus because he speaks his mind a bit moreso then some had expected.

Anyway, I listened on the general.

A was present for much of Tuesday’s remarks and a small bit of yesterdays comments. Apparently, I missed out, and was told by a few other reporters that the two speaking before members of House of Representatives really grilled the men. Both Petraeus and Crocker pretty much said the same thing, as I expected. That was why I left. Besides, I had somewhere else to go.

During the Senate’s questions and remarks to the general, Senator John Warner; the same one who stumbled him up late last year; said to Petraeus, “Iraq has entailed huge costs.” It is true that for the Red, White & Blue, more than 4,000 U.S. troops have died there. And for a military so strained by a war on two fronts, it is grappling with the opportunity cost of being unable to conduct operations elsewhere.

Unlike the Senators, the Representatives pressed them a little harder for answers. Many of them wanted to real answers concerning the future U.S. commitment to Iraq. The members also remarked on the strains on the military and the U.S. economy.

Something else I thought about while listening to the commander and U.S. Ambassador was the violence there in Iraq. It feels as if the same is not happening at such a degree in Afghanistan. Violence may be trending down—gains that are characterized by Republicans and Democrats alike as real but relative—but at what cost to America and to its military fighting the war?

That’s a real question and the primary dilemma with which the Pentagon has to combat as well. The general had left the sandy streets of Iraq to come to Capitol Hill to press the point that once the last of the surge forces leave Iraq in July, there must then be a pause in troop reductions.

It could be that the congressmen know there is more ‘campaigning’ going on with the House side. These politicians are more closely linked with their constituents than the senators, and thus have a better view of what is going on in their districts.

I was told that Congressman Ike Skelton said, “Under these circumstances, and with the strategic risk to our nation and our military readiness, we and the American people must ask why we should stay in Iraq in large numbers?” I think that’s a bold statement/question shot to the general and ambassador. But it seems like the congressman was just asking the same question that John Q. Public wants answered.

Petraeus [and Crocker] stood behind statements that had made in the Senate when they said, “The U.S. and Iraqi gains are fragile and reversible.”

Possibly the most interesting part of the conference that I missed was Petraeus’ recommendation for a 45-day evaluation period after the last of 20,000 U.S. military surge forces leaves Iraq. This is take place at the end of July.

Those that oppose the war believe the 140,000 soldiers left is still a high number.

Added, few believe that there will be many fewer than 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq by January. President Bush then will hand this war over to Hillary, Barack or John. Keeping this in mind, Pentagon leaders have been pushing for a consolation prize of sorts—a decrease in troop deployment lengths, from the grueling 15 months that soldiers currently serve in Iraq, back down to 12 months. President Bush is expected to announce such a move later this week.

15 months is a long time…as is twelve. I have a cousin that has served one tour in Iraq. He has a wife and a couple of kids. In a few months, he is headed back, for another 15 months. By the grace of God he survived the first trial by fire, can he survive the second?