'Do you have the authority you need to {invade Iran} to stop them waging a proxy war or whatever?'
First, if there is real evidence of malign Iranian actions, a dossier should go to the United Nations. Let's not walk over too many more borders, no matter how justified, without diplomatic efforts.
Second, there's no problem pressuring Iran publicly to stay out of Iraq, perhaps it doesn't do to preach too loudly. After all, there is a strong chance, given reporting on the matter, that our own CIA is actively trying to ... er, alter things inside Iran.
Senator Graham, R-ubberstamp S.C., takes top slot, on my list (perhaps even ahead of Inhofe, and that's hard to do), for boneheaded questions.
First, his "worth it" question, which is unfair and unwise to pose, for the reasons mentioned in the post just below. ALSO, I view this question possibly as a mean-spirited way to trap Petreaus by making him complicit, unable to speak his mind, in the end, without becoming damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. It makes it very hard for him to resign, if he needs to, in response to further Bush-Cheney machinations, IMHO. It may not turn that way, but that's how I see these guys.
I wish that Petreaus had stuck to his formulation about his confidence in the strategy, rather than jump into Graham's ugly roaster.
Second, for his continuing to put words into troops mouths, this time with, "I'm here because I don't want my kids to come back." This kind of thinking is just stupid. Sometimes you retreat, in order to come back stronger, force the enemy to expend energy to try to consolidate their gains, to call a bluff and thereby discredit an opposing force, to provoke an overconfident response. The list is long. The bottom line is that it took days to topple Saddam, and it would take "kids" days to topple anything that "al-qaeda" tried to establish, most likely. What's more even a hundred sixteen-day "wars" might be a lot cheaper.
Third, his "dysfunctional" versus "failed state". A state is failed when it cannot exercise its sovereignty. This is the Iraqi gov't today. They simply do not have the capacity, nor do they have a single will to do so (as in Lebanon).
ADDING 'WORST CASE' ANALYSIS TO GOP'S TYPICAL BENEFIT-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Interesting that the Senator brought up "worst case analysis". It's clear (I thought) from the answers, that this type of analysis is not driving policy formation.
I can think of other 'worst case' scenarios:
- 1. From a military perspective: forced withdrawal - stay too long or against increasingly negative odds
and on the other hand - 2. From a moral perspective: leave when you might have brought stability (type-I error)
also - 3. Continue too long with a non self-financing standing army in a foreign country and suffer the fate of so many imperial powers of the past who depleted their treasuries, etc., in doing so. [Not that Lindsey Graham knows too much military history, apparently.]
- 4. Chronically understaff a critical National Security effort that could have used a draft (i.e. another 250,000 troops 'in reserve') or the French Gendarmes from the outset --- [adding: possibly avoided in order to win an election to a second term or try to consolidate a 'permanent political majority' domestically - we'll see when and if the final story is told of who knew what when].
- 5. "Drain a swamp" of al-qaeda (in Afghanistan) only to fill up another (in Iraq) that is several orders of magnitude more easily accessed by them and ten times more difficult to drain.
- 6. By pursuing an unpopular policy under discredited politicians too long, destroy the American willingness and ability to properly respond to threats (as happened to Europe after WW-I while Hitler re-armed).
Runner-up: close call, but Senator McCain is up there, with his notion that we fight (or continue to fight) "wars" or stabilization operations for our troops, and not with our troops. Oopsie!
