The Petraeus testimony

The outlines of General David Petraeus’ testimony to Congress tomorrow are broadly clear: The surge of US ground forces he implemented enabled a more effective counter-insurgency strategy, and – combined with the Sunni “Awakening” and a now-fraying Sadrist cease-fire – has markedly improved Iraq’s once execrable security situation. The Iraqi government has met many (but not all) of the reconciliation benchmarks “mandated” by US Congress. The hard-won gains on both the political and military fronts are real and there is room for cautious optimism, but the situation is fragile and the gains potentially ephemeral – things could still go south. If he allows himself to stray into policy he might even admit that victory is possible, and preferable to defeat, in which case further troop level decreases will have to be carefully examined on their military merits once the draw-down of surge forces is complete.

Couple that with some PowerPoint slides and I believe you will have a sense for what he came to say. What will be interesting is not just what he is asked by his congressional inquisitors – all three presidential candidates plan to question him – but how they ask their questions, and who will emerge as their proxies.

As an early and enthusiastic sponsor of increased troop levels, John McCain has the most skin in the game for the national election. If things continue positively (and the economy doesn’t implode in the meantime) he stands to gain the most. If things get worse, move sideways or not much better, his political fortunes will probably decline.

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have aligned themselves with a congressional block whose Iraq policy is divided between those who want to pull US forces out of Iraq as rapidly as possible, and those who think that “fast as possible” isn’t fast enough. You could expect drama from them even if they weren’t still locked in an exhausting, two-way fight for their party’s primacy.

Obama at least has the advantage of being on record saying that the Mesopotamian Adventure was a bad idea from the get-go – he can play the role of weary prophet, sad that events have proven him correct even while appealing to his party’s anti-war base, not to mention a general war fatigue in the broader electorate. He will probably be offered the opportunity by one or more of his colleagues to distance himself from MoveOn.org – the “netroot” community of mouth breathers and other assorted over-achievers who badly underestimated the national temperature the last time Petraeus spoke to Congress. MoveOn have also, by the way, endorsed Obama’s candidacy. It will be interesting to see what he will do with that offer.

Clinton on the other hand, who has refused to repudiate her own 2003 vote to authorize military force at great political cost, may find it more difficult to strike a balance. On the one hand is an apparently psychological need to believe that she’s more electable in the general campaign. On the other hand she needs to position herself at least as far to the left as Obama himself in order to have a chance of making it to the finals. If she goes after the general hammers and tongs in order to get to Obama’s left – or at least neutralize his advantages – she might come out looking less like a Voice of Sober Experience^‚Ñ¢ and more like an angry fishwife: The lady can seem preachy at the best of times, but when put-upon can come off as positively hectoring. If she really goes after the decorated officer with the big sticks, many an undecided Joe Sixpack sitting in his barcalounger will make unfavorable (if private) comparisons to certain mothers-in-law (or their daughters) of his acquaintance and perhaps decide to stay in come election day.

The man to watch will be Joe Biden I suspect. Although he remains personally uncommitted – he bravely offered to endorse whomever the party chooses at the nominating convention – his bona fides as an attack dog are first rate, and back in September he labelled Petraeus as “dead flat wrong” on Iraq.

“The reality is that although there’s been some mild security progress, there is in fact no security in Baghdad or Anbar province where I was dealing with the most serious problem, sectarian violence,” said Biden, a 2008 presidential candidate who recently returned from Iraq.

So, I’ve got to tell you, gentler reader – if there’s any love in there, I’m just not feeling it.

When he’s really trying to twist the blade on a congressional witness he will intersperse personal assaults – “You really are closet klansman, aren’t you?” with a series of flashing, wolfish grins. I imagine he means them to communicate, “it hurts, I know – but this is just business.” It’s a smile that never quite reaches his eyes, and you get the sense he knows that but doesn’t really care. He’s the guy asking the questions.

If I’m right, we’ll be seeing a lot of that smile tomorrow.