Most of the testimony from General Petraeus and Amd. Crocker was at least credible. Some of the qualifications were a little odd, like attesting that the U.S. military was judged to have the best data ... "in Iraq". Compared to who? The Ministry of Health? Iran? Al-qeada? Sunni insurgents?
Questions about force levels, however, strained credulity.
He was refreshing when he observed that no commander doesn't want more troops. Much better than when Rumsfeld-Myers-Abizaid "shushed" the chain by suggesting that requests for troop levels were all being filled. One just knew that was b.s.
However, Petreaus adopted the posturing of Myers-Casey-Abizaid, when he said that he had all that was available. That's a dodge, because what is desired or required may well be different than what is available.
The problem with those machinations for a guy who is used to being forthright - even handed - is that you can end up contradicting yourself. This happened when, in spite of attesting that he probably had all that was available, he went on to say that he didn't know what was available:
* General Petraeus Also Acknowledged There Were Not Available Reserve and National Guard Troops Either.
REED: My sense is that the Reserve and National Guard forces are not available to replace this.
PETRAEUS: I think that's the case. But, again, I don't know because I have not asked. [Testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker to the Senate Armed Services Committee, 9/11/07]
