Here's the story:

Got Some 'Splainin' To Do

Looks like the Iraqi government has set aside a little multi-billion dollar nest egg. Looks like the Iraqi army can hold its own, with some air support. Looks like there's some 'splainin' to do!

What is motivating congressional Republicans to ask tough questions about Iraq?

What is motivating congressional Republicans to ask tough questions about Iraq?

The usual. The USA is a democratic nation and unable to effectively wage war in a political environment where human rights are more important than victory.

These politicians, faced with an actual war, with the mess and confusion war breeds, are unable to comprehend why they have failed to tie up Iraq into a nice and neat little package, all ready for sending on its way into the world. It is yet another shining example of why modern democracy's with their morality bound military's should stay well out of third world wars.

The situation in Iraq today is exactly what any astute forecaster should have predicted and it speaks volumes that the USA has lost its ability to predict such outcomes, relying instead on dubious 'freedom goals' as justification for using hard military power. If, as I suspect, limiting Iran was the true motive for invading Iraq, then one must conclude that so far the price has been cheap, and so the war in Iraq has been a success, but given the inability for a nation like the USA to maintain a war footing for no 'good reason' that suits the majority of the American population, then such a tactic was always going to be a dangerous gamble.

Iraq, with its tribal, Muslim society, will never be a peaceful democracy as was envisioned. At best it will become a belligerent chaos opposed to Iranian influence, but if it does so, then it will not happen to the requirements of American election politics. Those are actually a liability to America's plans, as these Republicans have come to understand. Their time is running out and the Iranians know that well. They simply have to bide their time until 'the Christians' run out of 'enthusiasm' as has always been the tradition of Islamic warfare.

Right now, the Iraqi army is largely made up of a Shia militia called the Badr Brigade, these took over from the former Saddam era military (which was disbanded by the US military) and are a client of Iran. Muqtada al Sadr, is also a Shia client of Iran, so what you essentially have now in Iraq, is Iran backing all the Shia against each other, and who so eventually comes out on top, will be beholden to Iran, and not the ever retreateing USA.

In essence, Iraq was always lost for as long as Iran remained in play. These Republican politicians, only just seem to have realised this.

A few more years down the line and Iran will have the ability to project nuclear force in any direction it wishes. GW Bush has managed to get anti missile defence agreements with Europe, but not Russia. The anti missile shield is currently considered to be a dud by most observers, and yet Moscow see's it as a direct threat to Russian interests. This leads me to consider that anti missile technology is far from being a dud and the USA is already gearing up for the loss of Iraq as a means of limiting Iranian political expansion.

If the USA is forced to withdraw from Iraq, this also leaves no where to put anti missile defences between Iran and Israel.

Its ludicrous to believe that Republicans just rubber stamp everything Bush says or does. The war has not been, as moif says correctly, as neat and clean Americans would have liked and we are impatient for a victory.

We need to ask the tough questions but we also need to realize that, even in an election year, the decisions made today about the war will have repercussions for decades to come. The conversation about strategy for the war, in this vital region, should be ongoing and free of partisan politics. Obviously this will never happen – esp. this year.

What is motivating congressional Republicans to ask tough questions about Iraq?

Perhaps they are now declining the invitation to remain in the group hallucination? It isn't politically expedient to be 'pro-war in Iraq' now, and we have a representative Republic so their jobs are banking on it.

The White House did schedule a Medal of Honor ceremony for the same day as the Petraeus and Crocker testimony before Congress. That comes across as political leverage and does our fallen hero a disservice. At best, it was an unfortunate timing "coincidence" that rankles.

That said, Petraeus and Crocker's day was pretty rough. Unfairly so at times, IMO. They were often asked about US policies at large...Afghanistan, ect. They have a limited scope of responsibility that doesn't include all areas of the Middle East. Had Fallen been permitted to be there, they could ask him those questions. But it isn't Petraeus' fault he wasn't, nor is Petraeus implementing his own policy. He is implementing theirs, and they are getting buyer's remorse and selecting an inappropriate victim to pummel.

I think it was totally unfair. Patreaus should not be put in front of America to defend Bush's policies. Patreaus's job is to use his resources to kill as many bad guys as possible. Unfortunately, Bush refuses to lead. He simply blames someone/something else, and diverts attention away from himself by using a person people will be less likely attack, and sticking his head in the sand until someone else can take his place.

What is motivating congressional Republicans to ask tough questions about Iraq?

The short answer, political floundering to reinvigorate the party. The gop is using this photo-op as a get together of sorts, a way of skirting cause and responsibility away from US command because the gallup polls are pushing for a timetable of withdrawl. If memory serves me correctly it was Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar that got the ball rolling on the inquery. While their concerns are very valid I think the democrats seized upon this as an opportunity to score some points against Bush which took away from the overall effect. The republicans saw this as an opportunity to present the "special groups" theory as another splintered Mahdi group working against the Maliki government with the hopes of fingering Iran. So in effect this was a bipartisan effort each with their own agendas. It really didn't mattered what came out of Petraus' mouth as both parties were in full scape goat mode.

This interview itself was provided for American consumption as an exercise in finger-pointing to which Petraus performed magnificantly. The farcicial way of passing the buck onto Iraqi negligence was a nice touch. The special group theory was totally discredited when each Shi ite group secretly went to Qom to broker a deal to achieve the exact opposite of what was said. I think the cynacism was due to the way the recent Basran attacks played out and how the events followed a different course from Petraus' narrative. The meeting suggests to me the cracks in Petraus' theories are beginning to show.

Much of the discussion focused around funding. This wasn't a hard day for the dynamic duo, quite the contrary, this was a long overdue vocalization of concerns to a blank-cheque war that had to come sooner or later. Remember the entire war has been conducted as an off-budget expense, an auxilliary cost to the normal operating budget. The murky data reporting has finally become an issue after five years of unrelenting free reign. This is called 'unfair' simply because this these guys happened to be behind the wheel? The justications and calls for greater transparency are a natural response to a mishandled enterprise that some here are forgetting. True they may not have started this war but they did inherent the responsibility to explain and justify past and present actions when taking on the position.

What is motivating congressional Republicans to ask tough questions about Iraq?

Despite the recent successes, some Republicans want a quicker pace and more measurable results.

The big reason, however, is the Iraqi budgetary surplusses. Why should the US government pay for security in Iraq when the Iraqi government is stashing away $30 billion dollars in our banks? This is a legitimate question and the Iraqis should certainly be asked to pony up.

The US is greatly affected by the high oil prices, while the Iraqi government benefits from it. Other countries pay for a portion of US deployment costs in their country. It is evident that this is within Iraq's power and it should be on the table.

I agree and Petraeus has said Iraq is starting to cover some expenses and will pay more. Certainly this need to happen and will happen.

I also believe we should be given the ability to buy oil from Iraq at reduced prices as part of that payment.

We bomb the crap out of their country, and you expect them to pay us for our trouble? Any wonder why they want us out of there?

I think the reason Republicans are getting tougher on Iraq is because they still need to distance themselves from Bush to survive. Once Bush/Cheney/Rove and that bunch are gone, who is going to be trumpeting that war? The Iraq war is their ugly baby, and nobody, including Republicans, wants to adopt it when they go.

I think an idicator that things in Iraq are about to change is General Petraeus has been nominated to replace Admiral Fallon as head of Centcom. I guess it was to be expected. Still, every hair on that back of my neck is on end after hearing that one.

I'd say that since polls are showing that most U.S. citizens oppose the war in Iraq, Republicans are getting scared of losing elections and are trying to distance themselves from Bush.