Webb's phone press conference this morning

I took extensive notes, not quite verbatim (unless I use quote marks it will be my best summary) which I will offer below the fold.

Let me simply state before getting to the recapitulation that two things stood out to me.  One, the inanity of some of the questions he was asked by the press.  Two, and far more important, the intelligence and - yes - wisdom he showed in what he said.  Every time I again get a chance to watch Jim as our Senator I am increasingly proud of whatever small part I may have played in helping get him into the race and then helping him win.

And now to the presser.
Senator Webb started with some opening remarks, that he was  happy to be here.  He had just gotten off the plane and landed this morning  and wanted to do this press availability "before going comatose."  He said he viewed this trip as a piece of a lot of things he has been doing for many years in his life, including growing up in a military family, his own life and military service, his time in the Pentagon and his work as a journalist covering the military.

The Senator also saw this a trip as one of many other related things going on now, such as the Middle East conference in Annapolis, that all fit together with the situation in Iraq, which is
also one piece so many other things going on now, on which we need to focus in the region.

His trip began in Kuwait, where he met with top American military and civilian officials before heading to Ramadi, where his son Jimmy had served with the Marines. While there, he met with top US military officials and a number of Iraq civilian officials.  He went out with company & platoon-level Army and Marine units.  To him, this was a a very illuminating thing.  It was where his son had served during the bad fighting more than a year ago, which made for an interesting and reflective moment.  

He described what they are calling "the awakening" as the result of several things.  It is true that the troops we have put on the ground have been effective in carrying out their missions, but what is perhaps greater importance is that Al Qaeda overplayed its hand in this region.  Webb noted that Al Qaeda had not been active in this region until after we invaded.  There has been a three-part struggle, among the local Sunnis led by the tribal sheikhs, al Qaeda, and the Americans. Because Al Qaeda overplayed its hand, that gave us an opportunity for a joint (with the sheikhs) confrontation against Al Qaeda, something facilitated by the effectiveness of the American forces in carrying out their assigned missions.  

From Ramadi, they traveled to Baghdad for a series of meetings, including with the top planners doing logistics, part of which included what it would take when we do draw down, and what the challenges would be.   While there, Webb met with both General Petraeus and Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, as well as with other leaders, including the Special Inspector General for Iraqi  Reconstruction.  Webb described the difficulty of getting into the field for a full examination, and what what it would take for full accountability, an issue which concerns Sen. Webb because of the bill he introduced along with Sen. McCaskill to get an overall accountability for those abuses that have taken place.

They also visited an army unit stationed along the Sunni-Shi'a divide, and went with company level forces on security patrols, and also met with Iraqi Civil leaders.  This was in a town some distance from Baghdad whose name he did not immediately recall but which he said the reporters could obtain afterwards from his press assistant.  Finally on the way back he stopped to visit a Virginia Guard battalion based in Kuwait but with half of its members in Iraq who escort convoys into Iraq.

Webb described the trip as a time to sit down and listen as much as anything else.  It put into perspective what is happening.

The first question was from Mark Russo of WRVA in Richmond, who asked if the surge is working.  The next block of text is the notes I took on Webb's response.  It is NOT word for word, but from here on in I want to separate out the words of the Senator from those of the questioners.  Unless I use quotation marks remember that what you are reading is my summary.

There are number of different pieces to that.  Wherever you send US military they will do their job.  Question is the strategic umbrella under which that job is taking place.  When surge was announced in February, Bush indicated a number of other things were going to happen along with military part of it.   The  Iraqi government was to step up and be in control of all provinces by end of year - this has not happened.  Iraqis were  to put 10 billion into reconstruction, yet only about 25% of that has happened. He is not pretending his visits give him a complete picture. Our military young men and women have done their jobs.  The question as always is whether we are going to the job on the diplomatic level.  That is not necessarily a sequential term.  The great difficulty in resolving Iraq has bee been not stepping on on the diplomatic side.  This is just like how it took 5 years to step up on the Palestinian problem as they finally did in Annapolis.  He referred to a speech he made in Kansas before he had decided to run for the Senate of the importance of addressing all the issues on a regional diplomatic basis.

Next we heard from Jonathan Weisman of the Washington Post, who noted that Webb had expressed concern about the stretched military, with the forces being worn down.  Weisman wanted to know Webb's read on the readiness front after this visit.

"Everywhere I went I saw quality people.  I also heard at every level that this has been an incredible burden, the repeated deployments."  People are proud to serve their country, but our leaders need to put the  rotations into some common sense structure.

If you look at Ramadi tribal leaders who once were in insurgency now part of governmental structure.  That means people like the Marines there can be rotated out and perhaps move them to Afghanistan as the Marine Commandant recently proposed, where they would be  doing missions compatible with the normal role of the USMC.  He said that his dwell-time amendment seems to have a lot of support from troops on the ground, at least there is anecdotal evidence to support that position.

Norfolk blogger Vivian Paige asked the next question: "You guys in Congress need more help."  She then asked about possibly electing people who had served in Iraq, such as the guy running in the special election in the 1st CD in Virginia (an unnamed reference to Phil Forgit).  

Webb did not get into the specifics of the special election.  

It is not necessary to have military background, but it does help. Someone who has it can assert it, and put some reality into budgeting process. What we really need is  to stop having these disagreements purely along party lines and who will win or lose from the political perspective.  The  dwell time amend didn't get 60 votes because Republican senators were afraid of giving the president a defeat on the issue of Iraq.

Mark Sherman of AP asked, "should Congress send spending bill without time limits" to avoid the layoffs the administration says are impending.

With respect to the layoff notices, that is gamesmanship from DOD - they did same with dwell time amendment.  He knows from his 5 years in Pentagon, including addressing issues of force management.   The problem Congress faces is that one power they have is the ability to appropriate, yet by de facto actions this administration is by fiat rolling this nation into a generational long commitment to Iraq.  Webb noted the briefing by General Lutes on the recent agreement which excluded the Congress but did not exclude the Iraqi Parliament, and warned that lumping everything together does not give an opportunity to meaningfully discuss the parts of proposals .  There is real need to get control of the the wrongful actions that are being taken.

The next question came from Phil Goodwin of WJMA-FM,who started by recounting that in his military service he remembered that his chain of command began with the president at the top.  Doesn't that mean when the president makes a request shouldn't we just back him up?

"...that would be an accurate description of an autocracy."  The power of the presidency has grown over time to a point where we do not make distinction between when troops are in harm's way or when they are not.  Webb offered an historical overview of the powers as commander in chief, including why the Founders set it up as they did - so a president could respond to an attack, or a seizure of Americans by a foreign government, without having to wait for the Congress to authorize.  He referred to the 2002 AUMF and noted that it did not give the president blanket authority in all military matters.

Susan Cornwell of Reuters said "Today, the Turkish army says it has entered northern Iraq" to tackle a group of  50-60 Kurdish rebels.  "I wonder if this is true what you think of it and what sort of American  action should be taken diplomatically and otherwise in response?"

This what I have been trying to explain over the past few years, including how media has covered it.  Administration has been successful in narrowing discussions to what they want covered.  Thus Petraeus and Crocker when they testified, and I sat on both committees, Armed Services and Foreign Relations, for ten hours of hearings, answered only on questions of Iraq, not in the larger context with issues such h as Afghanistan, or the limits of executive authority.  

If you look at region as a result of Iraq it is now a region in chaos, from Lebanon to Pakistan.  People warned before Iraq that the situation in Pakistan was far more serious to the US than anything in Iraq.  Turkey is an example of how insecurity has increased.  Turkey has traditionally been a strong supporter of the US, and yet now the level of support inside Turkey for the US is probably around 15%.  Their parliament his given the authorization to go into Iraq.  What would papers say had Iranian parliament voted similarly?  We are not addressing the issues in the larger sense.  US leadership in Iraq is trying to keep pressure on the Turks not to go into N Iraq, but there has been a destabilizing factor.  This is an an example of why we need to get strong regional diplomatic agreements.  US must lead as the only country that can bring all the parties together, and this has been the missing element all along.

A man from the Virginia Pilot asked the Senator to "talk to us a bit more what you learned about the civilian side in Iraq," noting that the surge was supposed to establish  stability, allowing civilian rule to take over.

In the Sunni areas, the question of cooperation among civilians depends upon decision of the  tribal sheikhs -- al Qaeda overplayed its hand, and this  gives us an opportunity, and they cooperate.   We therefore  need to begin to move out and hand over -  and to see Iraqi government put money into the reconstruction process.  It is time for us to start getting Iraqis to step forward and take responsibility for their own country. . .

If I were al Qaeda right now, I would  be moving towards the Pakistani border

Mitchell Miller of WTOP asked if there were any doubts from Petraeus and Negroponte, any concerns.

Petraeus is doing exactly what he thinks the president wants him to do.  The problem is for Congress to put things into context.  Petraeus  and Negroponte are cautiously optimistic. They are not saying any actual turning point has been reached - that is up to the political process.

I could not hear who asked the final question, which was:  given the economic instability  in this country, and oil prices, was any concern expressed about what impact US economic uncertainty might have upon the war effort and reconstruction ?

He raised this in meetings, doesn't think it is on radar screen for US military and civilian planners in Iraq.   He notes that there are in fact two time lines, the truth is that Petraeus has a timeline for an optimal solution, and there is also  a timeline with respect to American people with what they think is realistic  with respect to their sacrifices.  Our economy is suffering in part because of  the commitment to iraq.   "I think one of the key political issues over the next year" is not going to be when the  withdrawal is, ... "but what is it that we are going to leave in Iraq when we get our troops off the streets in Iraq."    The administration apparently believes in an ongoing commitment of 50K troops, - that is not in strategic interests of US.

I hope this recapitulation is useful.  I apologize for the periodic gaps in my notes, but I was typing as fast as I could.

Peace.

Comments

More excellent photos (Lowell - 12/1/2007 4:27:38 PM)