More On The Petraeus Interview

In a blog entry at his site, Michael Barone has also picked up on the 30-minute General Petraeus interview by Austin Bay through Bay's new presence at the new multi-media, Arena Channel. We posted about the convergence media interview on August 7th. If you haven't had the opportunity to check in on their interactive site, it is well worth it.

Michael mentions an observation by General Petraeus about al-Qaeda-in-Iraq having taken to operating as a "mafia" style organization, which Barone further notes is a not-uncommon historical tendency among terror outfits.

The splash page for the nascent Arena Channel can be found here. So far, there is one other contributor, Annie Jacobsen, an author whose work has focused on airline security, having a few years back, been as noted on the site "unwittingly involved in an airplane incident which many federal agents believe was a dry run for a terrorist attack."

General Petraeus -- The Man "In The Arena"

(Update, o8/08, below:)
Ever the educator, Col. Austin Bay, Army Reserve (Ret.), a PhD (English & Comp. Lit.) from Columbia, and a graduate of the U.S. Army War College, has just launched a half hour web-based telephone interview presentation with the newly-confirmed head of CENTCOM, General David Petraeus, PhD, who has, since January, 2007, commanded the Multi-National Forces in Iraq, and overseen the implementation of the surge.

The Arena Channel:

Entitled, "A Conversation With General Petraeus," the interview presentation can be found on Bay's relatively new and ambitious website, The Arena Academy, or the Arena Channel. The interview turned out to be a thorough and in-depth look at a variety of issues related to our ongoing mission in Iraq, set in the context of the war on terror. You will need to register for entry into the Arena Channel site, but that is a significant benefit, as you receive timely e-mail notices of breaking and up-coming postings.

Austin Bay views this new and ambitious project as,

"an example of the Internet’s real contribution to serious discussion – space for the expert to elaborate, for concepts to evolve, for significant facts to receive due emphasis, for the experts and the audience to explore."

It certainly does not disappoint. More on the Arena website, below.*

The Petraeus Interview:

The interview, I think, speaks for itself, and really should be heard in its entirety. The West Point and Princeton-educated General broadly addresses what has been happening in Iraq, what we can hope for in the future, and what additional needs remain to be addressed.

In describing the current period of strategic change in Iraq, Petraeus pointedly emphasizes that those changes have not been, nor are they now "light switch" moments. He says they are what he would rather describe as a whole series of "rheostat" moments throughout the provinces and local areas, gradually giving rise to an emerging and improved overall security situation. In other words, he emphasizes that progress in Iraq has consisted of incremental progress, the difficulty at times even resembling a "Sisyphean endeavor."

Petraeus discusses the important role of interagency coordination and cooperation (diplomatic and military) throughout the surge, and the remarkable string of successes both he and our coalition troops, and the Iraqi Defense Ministry, including their security forces, military and civilian, have achieved over the course of that effort. He also specifically notes the importance of the appointment of Lt. Gen. Lute as the "point man" on Iraq and Afghanistan, within the White House.

Petraeus identifies areas where there are additional needs, including continuing the emphasis on improving the "entire arena" of the role of the rule of law to further reduce AQI, and other groups resort to mafia-style gang violence.

He sets it in the overall context of the Iraqi security force growth, their increasing ability to operate independently of MNF command, and their improving professionalism. Responding to another Austin Bay question about historical context, he also addressed the overall makeup of the Iraqi military on the ground at the beginning of the operation, and talks a bit about the pros and cons of disbanding that military at the time. He also opines on the flexibility and benefits of the CERP, or Commander's Emergency Response Program, which allows a commander to quickly fund small, non-military humanitarian projects, to help maintain stability within a region.

Petraeus also speaks cautiously but candidly, for example, about where we are headed, even including expectations regarding current verbal commitments being made by Moqtada-al-Satr to "return" his Mahdi army into a "human resources" or social-services network, a commitment al-Satr has made and broken in the past.

Noting that the General is about to assume the position of CENTCOM Commander, which will put Afghanistan within his bailiwick, Austin Bay asked Petraeus if he "had any thoughts about the campaign in Afghanistan right now?" Petraeus cautiously demurred: "Austin, I do, but I think it would be premature to offer them candidly."

Recently, Petraeus did offer a hint about his possible views in a recent AP interview story run in the Boston Globe, and written by AP military writer, Robert Burns, to the effect that al-Qaeda may be shifting some of their emphasis from Iraq to Pakistan and possibly Afghanistan, having seen the string of substantial defeats in Iraq:

"We do think that there is some assessment ongoing as to the continued viability of al-Qaida's fight in Iraq," Gen. David Petraeus told The Associated Press in an interview at his office at the U.S. Embassy.

Whatever the result, Petraeus said no one should expect al-Qaida to give up entirely in Iraq.

"They're not going to abandon Iraq. They're not going to write it off. None of that," he said. "But what they certainly may do is start to provide some of those resources that would have come to Iraq to Pakistan, possibly Afghanistan."

He said there are signs that foreign fighters recruited by al-Qaida to do battle in Iraq are being diverted to the largely ungoverned areas in Pakistan from which the fighters can cross into Afghanistan. U.S. officials have pressed Pakistan for more than a year to halt the cross-border infiltration. It remains a major worry not only for the war in Afghanistan but also for Pakistan's stability.

However, he also said he was cautious about the reliability of the intelligence. But it could indicate that al-Qaeda is having to reassess their long-held desire to establish Iraq as a militant Islamic state.

That goal, of course, would have required driving the United States out by political means, through a forced withdrawal, a reactive position long favored by many Democrats in Congress, including Senator Barack Obama. But the notable success of the surge over the past year has, at least temporarily, forestalled that pressure.

Finally, asked by Austin Bay to address a topic of his own choosing, the General immediately took the opportunity to credit the extraordinary contribution of the young men and women of the American military who have served there, under extremely difficult conditions.

He said of our young soldiers that they had performed magnificently, especially in conducting counterinsurgency warfare, requiring them to perform "offensive, defensive and civilian support operations, sometimes all in the same hour," and adding at the end of the interview that they have been called "'the new greatest generation,' and I absolutely buy into that."

Update: Early today, 08/08, Powerline posted more on the importance of this interview, together with a link to a transcript and audio located at Pajamas Media, located here.

* More on the Arena Website:

Bay's web presentation format itself proves to be quite user-friendly, consisting (with this interview) of a five-frame page, with three on the left side, starting at the top with a controller frame from which you stop or start the presentation. That window contains four summary choices to chose from, -- Summary, Credits, Chapters, or Resources. I kept it on the Chapter frame, a general bulleted outline that tells you at a glance where you are in the interview and presentation.

The third window, located beneath that is a feedback survey frame with a few queries that are posted during the course of the presentation, i.e., asking whether you supported or opposed the surge, or, toward the end of the interview, whether you found the presentation useful. It gives you instant summary feedback on the percentages and number of respondents.

The fourth and largest frame, really the focal point of the presentation, is located on the top right corner of the screen. It complements the audio with simultaneous "running" summary slides, in this case with Petraeus' responses, the text of each generously laced with links to a separate and considerable body of additional background information, accessable in separate windows.

In other words, during the interview, and while Petraeus is responding to a question about our coordination with the growing Iraqi army's responses to AQI, you see in that the upper right-hand quintrant of your screen, a slide containing a bulleted summary of Petraeus's response.

So, when he refers, for example, to the special groups, you could, if you wish, click on the embedded link for special groups and read background information about them, while listening to hs answer -- or, you could pause the interview, read the separate window, and then return right to where you left off in the interview, as you wish.

In the introduction portion of the interview, you can also follow any of the many links to read General Petraeus' bio, or link to descriptions of West Point, or to information about units he has commanded, or other related material. So you could click on and open a separate window and read and view public domain information about Multi-National Security Transition Command Iraq, or MNSTCI, as he succinctly describes its development and role.

And the final frame at the bottom right is set up to be either an automatic "feedback" e-mail window, a notepad, or comment thread, allowing participants to forward the link to friends or share comments with Austin Bay.

This website is, therefore, an extraordinarily informative and interactive tool for anyone seeking solid information on our ongoing role in Iraq. Prior to viewing the interview, I clicked on and viewed the entire Academy presentation on the consequences of a premature withdrawal, "A Rapid U.S. Military Withdrawal from Iraq," updated to, "CONSEQUENCES IRAQ UPDATE: Strategic Overwatch." It is hard to imagine anyone writing informatively about Iraq today without at least perusing the ample material available at Austin Bay's new website.

Acknowledging Success in the Counter-Insurgency

Replying to the last post,* suggesting that Senators Obama and McCain consider holding a Presidential debate in Iraq, I got a funny but sarcastic e-mail from one friend and regular reader saying, "Obama can stay there after the debate." I also replied sarcastically in turn, "Heh. Maybe he could be a community organizer." Another sardonic e-mailer followed with: "And let Senator Byrd be the moderator."

But that got me thinking. Addressing the situation on a more serious level, one thing that continues to surprise me is that Senator Obama does not acknowledge, in any respect, the extraordinary work and sacrifice of our military over the past year by specifically addressing the notable success of the counter-insurgency operation, implemented through the leadership of General Petraeus.

In spite of the risks, that strategy has turned the tide in huge areas of Iraq.

Here we have in Senator Obama someone who should be able to appreciate first-hand the difficulties of confronting demagoguery and building trust in a situation involving severe social dislocation, through his work as a "community organizer." Obviously, I am not suggesting there is a direct correlation, given the exponentially greater dangers our military encounters, but certainly he could candidly recognize and acknowledge their work in winning the support of Iraqis, in reversing the explosive potential we faced before the surge began.

Whether or not one opposed the initial incursion into Iraq, is simply immaterial in that sense. Lawrence Wright, the author of "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, arguably the seminal book on the rise of al-Qaeda, has acknowledged in an interview with Hugh Hewitt that, though he opposed the incursion into Iraq, he is now finds himself opposed to the withdraw.

From Hugh's interview with Wright:

Lawrence Wright: "Well, you know, there are two really important intellectual centers in the Arab world. One is Egypt, the other is Iraq. And the idea behind the invasion of Iraq, which I was opposed to, was to set up this model democracy that would then become a beacon for reform all over the region. It’s going to be really hard to achieve the goal that we had set out, although now, I am in the awkward political position of being opposed to withdrawing. I think we should stay there as long as we can to try to hold this entity together until they are able to remain stable, create a fairly reliable electoral process, police force, and that kind of thing, and take care of themselves. I don’t know if we can achieve that, but it’s hopeful to see that Iraq has been, you know, I don’t want to say that they’ve been put to death completely in Iraq, but they certainly are in retreat. And that’s critical, because if al-Qaeda won in Iraq, who knows how far it would go."

I also believed that the Democrats' 2006 demands for immediate withdraw and redeployment, or even their silly withdraw schedule amendment last summer, containing the unworkable "targeted counter-terrorism operations against al-Qaeda" language so effectively responded to on the Senate floor by Senator McCain, were utterly irresponsible. Hamstrung in the ability of our military to respond as a result of the myriad Democrat limitations, we could now be witnessing a real humanitarian debacle, had we simply "cut and run" the way they intended.

Who can dispute that al-Qaeda in Iraq, and indeed the entire movement, would have gained a huge victory by our military defeat, underscoring their history of tempestuous rampage, and perhaps even justifying it in the minds of many people throughout the world?

And who can also doubt that this would have spelled out a major strategic setback for the United States in the most dangerous region in the world?

As it is, Lawrence Wright now reports reports in his article in The New Yorker (H.T.Hugh Hewitt, here) that even a "mastermind" behind the al-Qaeda justifications for the employment of extreme violence, Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, aka, "Dr. Fadl," a man whose early works were used to underscore the "justification" for such extremely violent jihad, has now openly repudiated those views.

A year ago, Dr. Fadl sent out a fax outlining his latest views from where he is confined in Tora prison in Egypt.

From the beginning of Wright's article in The New Yorker:

Fadl was one of the first members of Al Qaeda’s top council. Twenty years ago, he wrote two of the most important books in modern Islamist discourse; Al Qaeda used them to indoctrinate recruits and justify killing. Now Fadl was announcing a new book, rejecting Al Qaeda’s violence. “We are prohibited from committing aggression, even if the enemies of Islam do that,” Fadl wrote in his fax, which was sent from Tora Prison, in Egypt.

Fadl’s fax confirmed rumors that imprisoned leaders of Al Jihad were part of a trend in which former terrorists renounced violence. His defection posed a terrible threat to the radical Islamists, because he directly challenged their authority. “There is a form of obedience that is greater than the obedience accorded to any leader, namely, obedience to God and His Messenger,” Fadl wrote, claiming that hundreds of Egyptian jihadists from various factions had endorsed his position.

By all means, please read the New Yorker article, and Hugh Hewitt's extremely important interview of Lawrence Wright.

And if you have not done so, please try to pick up a copy of The Looming Tower. It is truly an extraordinary read.



*(This post began as my own comment on our prior post, but took on a life of it's own.)

Quick, Wolfy Needs Our Help!

Folks, as you know, the CNN Democrat Presidential contenders debate in Las Vegas will be off and running in just a few hours! Bet it did not occur to you that talking heads like Wolf Blitzer -- especially Wolfy -- may need our help right now!

No doubt you're aware, reports indicate that Wolf was warned by the Clinton Campaign to go light on Hillary and not try to "pull a Russert" by asking her tough questions, or pressing her for answers! Of course, that really means that Wolf will need to ask some hard questions to avoid being tagged forever as a complete sell-out weenie! The one thing that a top level talking head cannot afford is to be disrespected by both the right and the left!

Just ask Tucker Carlson over at left-leaning MSNBC!

Well, as you also know there is a writer's strike on! That's right! Who is going to write Wolf Blitzer's questions for him, huh? He can leave it for the rest of the panel to ask the usual fascinating questions of Hillary . . . questions like, "Has powder blue always been your favorite color?"

But Wolfy has to hammer home at least a few tough ones, or else he'll be the one remembered as the "potted plant" from this evening's debate.

For that reason, we've jotted out few quick suggestions for him. They're really in rough draft shape, but I assume he can edit out what he doesn't like, no?

The only other thought we had is that reports state the recent Harvard study showed that CNN is very, very left wing -- "the most hostile to Republicans." No doubt the writers there are as well. Group Think, you know?

That means he may be unfamiliar with the focus we've taken, and perhaps the style as well. Hey look, nobody is perfect! At least we tried to help the poor guy out!

So, if you can think of a few quickies to add, please do! And more importantly, if anyone has an e-mail address for Wolfy, please be sure to forward this link on to him, along with any additions you might want to make. Just copy us for the file as a courtesy, if you would.

Thanks! Whew!

So, at last, here are our 10 suggestions, arranged by subject matter, for questions that Wolf Blitzer might ask Hillary Clinton tonight!


Experience:

Senator Clinton . . .You have repeatedly said in earlier debates, that you are the most experienced of the Democrat candidates for President. But your critics note that you have never run anything, never made a budget, nor have you ever been responsible for the lives of tens of thousands, or even millions of citizens and residents. And, you never served in the military, though you reportedly once thought about it. They also note that as First Lady, you failed miserably at those few things you personally became involved in, such as health care and the travel office. Even so, one could argue that you are more experienced than some of the would-be candidates on the dais with you . . . some, but perhaps not all. Would you please turn to Governor Richardson, who has actually run a federal government department, and who is now the Governor of a State, and please explain to him exactly what makes you more experienced than he is to be the President of the United States, and the Commander-in-Chief of all of our military forces?


Campaign candor -- Two questions:

a) Mrs. Clinton . . . A spokesman for Senator Barack Obama quipped to the New York Times in a story published today, that since it took you, "two weeks and six different positions to answer one question on immigration, it’s easier to understand why the Clinton campaign would rather plant their questions than answer them." Would you please take the opportunity right now to respond directly to Senator Obama, or would you be more inclined to just let that one sit out there unanswered?

b) Mrs. Clinton . . . when specifically did you first hear that your campaign was planting questions with audience members, and who exactly did you hear it from? Has anyone who participated in the planting of such questions been removed from your campaign, and if so who, and when?

Immigration:

Senator Clinton . . . you and one of your potential opponents on the Republican side, Senator John McCain, both voted for the so-called "comprehensive immigration reform" package that was before Congress recently, which went down to defeat. Since that time, Senator McCain has noted that we have really had a genuine national debate on the immigration question, and that he now understands and agrees with those who say that we must first deal with the question of border security before we can implement any broad provisions that would automatically enhance the status of the millions of illegal immigrants currently in our country. Do you agree with him? Would you also be in favor of firmly securing our borders before passing such status provisions?


Health Care:

Mrs. Clinton . . . critics of your national health insurance policies point out that in jurisdictions that have taken a more socialized approach, such as you propose, that it is common for individuals to be stuck in long waiting lines, or hampered by lengthy waiting periods of time for sophisticated procedures, such as MRIs. Suppose that, under your system, your daughter suddenly developed a condition that required an MRI, but she was forced to endure a long "waiting period" for the procedure. Where would you take her to get around that problem, as many foreigners often do now when they come to the United States for treatment? Canada? Great Britain? Cuba?

Iraq & War on Terror -- Two questions:

a) Senator Clinton . . . now that another month has passed, in Iraq few could deny that our military has made considerable additional progress on the ground in defeating al-Qaeda and it's affiliates. Do you think that the time may now have come for you -- and the rest of the candidates here as well - to publicly apologize to General Petraeus, in your case, for specifically implying to his face that he was a liar when he gave his testimony?

b) Senator Clinton . . . you recently said that you would not vote for any more money to support the troops in Iraq without a withdraw schedule attached. Now it appears that the President's surge strategy is working well, and specifically without a congressionally-mandated withdraw timetable. You want to be Commander-in-Chief. You also voted for the authorization for this war. If you were the Commander in Chief, would you invite Congress to put specific timetable limitations on your ability to do your job? And if not, why do you want to do that to the current President, whose strategy is now quite clearly working without any such timetables?

Campaign Finance:

Mrs. Clinton . . . I assume by this time that your campaign has finally identified all of the donors "bundled" by Norman Hsu, and if so, how many were there exactly, will you publicly release a complete copy of that donor list? And if you have returned all of the money, how many came back to you in "voluntary donations" from those specific donors? And, what about the so-called "dish-washer donors"? Does that sit well with you, or are you troubled by the fact that a substantial number of minimum wage workers, many of whom cannot even speak English, are somehow each coughing up a few thousand dollars to contribute to your political campaign?


Press Relations:

Mrs. Clinton . . . The New Republic has just published a lengthy and very, very unflattering piece by editor Michael Crowley about your campaign's media strategy -- Bunker Hillary: Clinton's Strategy for Crushing the Media -- addressing questions like, and I quote, "the Clinton camp's reputation for fearsome omnipotence is its treatment of media figures who cross them." Just in the past few days, unmistakable comments and pieces have been published that have been interpreted as "warnings to me" not to try to "pull a Russert" in this debate and ask you tough questions. Did you or your spokesman Howard Wolfson know anything at all in advance about any veiled threats from your campaign for me to go easy on you with my questions? And do you condone any such actions?

And, finally, not to bring up old news, but tough is tough:

Mrs. Clinton . . . have you forgiven Monica Lewinsky in your heart for having taken advantage of your husband's, shall we say, weakness -- the one you specifically identified years ago as having arisen in his childhood out of the conflict between two strong women raising him, i.e., his mother and grandmother?