Petraeus’s Killer Confession

During the Petraeus hearings in the Senate on Tuesday, there came a crucial and unexpected confession from the general. He was being gently walked through his paces by Republican Senator John Warner, who read a passage from George Marshall’s diary about how important it was to let the President know about the casualties in the field.

Petraeus acknowledged that it was.

But then Warner asked whether the war in Iraq was making America any safer, a pretty fundamental question, one that Russ Feingold had tried to get an answer to a little earlier but failed.

Warner succeeded.

Here’s what Petraeus said: “Sir, I don’t know, actually.”

After 3,750 U.S. soldiers dead, 28,000 wounded, and maybe close to a million civilians killed, and the leading U.S. general in Iraq can’t tell us whether it’s made us any safer?

“Sir, I don’t know, actually.”

What a confession, what a concession for Petraeus to make!

Why are we there, then?

And how does he ask more soldiers to risk their lives for a war that he knows might not (indeed, is not) making us any safer?

And how does he talk to families of our fallen soldiers when he can’t affirm that the war is doing any good?

And how does he console a mom whose son sustained horrific brain injuries in Iraq when he doesn’t know, actually, whether Bush’s war is making us any safer?

Nor could Bush have been happy with that answer, for Petraeus’s confession undercuts Bush’s whole rationale for this war in the first place, the notion, repeated ad nauseum, that the Iraq War is crucial for our safety.

Maybe that’s why, several hours later, Petraeus retracted the statement. In response to a follow up from Senator Evan Bayh, Petraeus said the question had caught him off guard. It came as “a bit of a surprise,” he said, adding, “The answer is yes.” Meaning: The Iraq War is making us safer.

But it isn’t, as even he, in an unguarded moment, suggested.

Other lowlights from the hearing included Joe Lieberman goading Petraeus to try to agree to invade Iran.

Lieberman: “Is it time to give you the authority in pursuit of your mission in Iraq to pursue those Iranian Qods forces in Iranian territory in order to protect American troops in Iraq?

Petraeus didn’t take the bait: ‘Sir, I think that really the Multinational Force should just focus on Iraq. Any kinds of outside-boundaries operations should be rightly overseen by the Central Command.”

When Lindsey Graham took his turn, he coldly laid out what lies in store for U.S. troops and U.S. taxpayers.

He got Petraeus to acknowledge that we would have more than 100,000 troops in Iraq a year from now.

He got Petraeus to acknowledge that we are likely to lose between 60 and 80 troops a month in combat deaths between now and then (which would total 720 to 960 more U.S. troops dead in a year).

And he got Petraeus to acknowledge that it would cost U.S. taxpayers in the neighborhood of $9 billion a month—another $108 billion.

Petraeus said it would all be worth it. But he didn’t make a very strong case for that.

And he did finally acknowledge, both to Senator Susan Collins and to Senator Hillary Clinton, that in a year from now, if the situation hasn’t improved dramatically, “I would be very hard-pressed at that time to recommend a continuation.”

But he is willing to risk close to 1,000 U.S. troops and $100 billion to find out if the situation can improve: And by that he means reducing the sectarian violence and securing an Iraqi government that does America’s bidding.

I doubt most Americans are prepared to go along with that improbable wager.