Iraqi Reactions to the Petraeus/ Crocker Testimony
The USG Open Source Center translates transcripts of Iraqi reactions to the testimony of Gen. David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker.
Iraqi TVs Carry Further Reporting, Commentary on Congressional Testimonies 11 Sep
Iraq -- OSC Summary
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
This summary highlights select Iraqi TV reporting and commentary on the testimonies before Congress made by General David Petraeus, commander of the Multinational Force in Iraq, and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, in Washington on 10 September. It covers reports carried on: -- Cairo Al-Rafidayn Satellite Channel in Arabic -- Pro-Sunni, anti-US Iraqi channel believed to be affiliated with the Association of Muslim Scholars -- Baghdad Baghdad Satellite Television in Arabic -- television channel believed to be sponsored by the Iraqi Islamic Party -- Cairo Al-Baghdadiyah Satellite Television in Arabic -- Private Iraqi television known for its opposition to the US presence in Iraq -- Baghdad Al-Furat Television Channel in Arabic -- Television channel affiliated with the Shiite group, the Iraqi Islamic Supreme Council, led by Abd-al-Aziz al-Hakim -- Al-Sulaymaniyah Al-Fayha Television in Arabic -- A private, independent satellite channel that addresses Iraq-related issues, supervised by Muhammad al-Ta'i, an Iraqi media figure Al-Rafidayn Satellite Channel
Within its 1300 GMT newscast on 11 September, Al-Rafidayn Satellite Channel carries the following reports:
--"Incumbent National Security Adviser Muwaffaq al-Rubay'i has welcomed the reports submitted by the commander of the US occupation troops in Iraq and the occupying power's ambassador, claiming that they were positive in general. Furthermore, he claimed that such assessment reports confirm the transparent handling and assessment of the situation, as he put it. For his part, Ali al-Dabbagh, spokesman for the incumbent government, said that the incumbent government would be comfortable with a gradual withdrawal of the US occupation troops as long as such plans are discussed with the government in Baghdad. He added: Any precipitous withdrawal would not be in the interest of any party; it would not be in the interest of Iraq or the region."
Within its 1400 GMT newscast on 11 September, Al-Rafidayn Satellite Channel carries the following reports:
--"In his testimony before Congress, Gen David Petraeus, commander of the occupation troops in Iraq, has claimed that an early withdrawal from Iraq would be catastrophic. However, he recommended that an initial reduction of troops totaling 4,000 be implemented in December. For his part, Ryan Crocker, ambassador of the US occupying power to Iraq, warned that Iran would gain from a US withdrawal from Iraq, as this would allow it to consolidate its control of resources and perhaps territory in Iraq."
This is followed by a commentary read by an unidentified Al-Rafidayn Satellite Channel correspondent, who says: "There is nothing new or unexpected in the reports submitted by US General David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, ambassador of the occupying power, in the course of the false testimonies they made before Congress." The commentary adds: "The paragraphs containing lies and the allegations made by the two US officials were the hallmarks of the theatrical show performed at a tumultuous session that was marked by disorder and chaos, which were pretty similar to the disorder and chaos the US occupation troops created in Iraq. Nonetheless, the Congress's microphones in the state which considers itself the global policemen stubbornly remained silent for some time as if they were saying: Stop the lies and allegations. War General David Petraeus, commander of the occupation troops in Iraq, repeated the claim that the strategy of the occupiers in Iraq is largely achieving its military objectives."
The commentary continues: "Despite the admission of failure seen every now and then, the US arrogance continued to demonstrate itself through the words of Petraeus, who alleged that it is possible to achieve the US objectives in Iraq as well as peace therein -- the peace that has turned into a weird term in the lexicon of the Iraqis and their daily routine. Petraeus said that it is possible to achieve peace. He explicitly accused Iran of waging a proxy war on Iraqi territory through its support for militias and armed groups and aiding them, either through weapons supplies or training."
The commentary says: "Ryan Crocker, the ambassador of the US occupying power, joined Petraeus by warning that Iran would gain from a US withdrawal from Iraq, and that if such a withdrawal were to be carried out, it would consolidate Iran's control of resources, and maybe territory in Iraq. Crocker, who shared Petraeus's views, admitted that the situation in Iraq is difficult. However, he claimed that the alternatives are worse. He repeated the allegation that it is possible to achieve the US goals in Iraq and achieve peace therein. What kind of peace, security, and stability can be achieved in Iraq in the midst of these bloodbaths and this stench of death, which is being smelled across Iraq?
Immediately afterward, an unidentified anchorman conducts a live telephone interview with Nizar al-Samarra'i, a writer and political analyst, in Damascus.
When asked about the Congressional testimonies by Petraeus and
Crocker, Al-Samarra'i says: "First, what can we expect from a report prepared by officials of the US Administration? The US ambassador is associated with the State Department and acts upon the directives of the US president. Likewise, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (corrects himself) the commander of the US troops in Iraq is associated with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the defense secretary. What can we expect from an official government report on the situation in Iraq except embellishing the image of the US behavior in Iraq by saying that the US strategy is making big successes in Iraq? This report seems to be a response to the Hamilton-Baker report, which recommended a change in the US strategy in the Iraqi arena."
Al-Samarra'i adds: "What is important is that the US president wagered immensely on the reports prepared by the commander of the US troops in Iraq and the US ambassador. This is due to the pressures that could be put on officials. Given this, it is easy to understand that the report was fully harmonious with the wishes of the US president." In conclusion, he notes partisan rivalries and differences between the Democrats and Republicans over Iraq. Baghdad Satellite TV
Within its 1700 GMT newscast on 11 September, Baghdad Satellite Channel carries the following reports:
--"Gen David Petraeus, commander of the US troops in Iraq, has said that the number of US troops could be reduced to some 130,000 by next summer, which is the number of troops before the surge ordered by US President George Bush this year. But, it is too early to say when this number could be reduced to below 130,000, Gen Petraeus noted."
This is followed by a report, which says: "With regard to the local political elites, veteran Iraqi politician Mahmud Uthman, MP for the Kurdistan Alliance, said that President Bush's recent visit to Iraq was driven by a desire to hold consultations with Ambassador Crocker and Gen Petraeus before they submit their reports to the US Congress." The report adds: "Commenting on the testimonies of the two men, Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih expressed regret over the government's political performance, which has not measured up to the required level of handling the unseen challenges posed to the country. He affirmed that the US troop surge achieved palpable security gains, but noted that these gains will be squandered unless Iraqi politicians work to achieve national reconciliation. For his part, Adnan al-Dulaymi, head of the Iraqi Al-Tawafuq Front, said that the two reports were realistic and reflected the situation in Iraq. He noted that the two reports stressed the need for national reconciliation, and for the government to heed real interests, which could foster the construction of Iraq. Izzat al-Shahbandar, MP for the Iraqi List, was not surprised by the content of the reports submitted by Petraeus and Crocker. He noted that the two men had earlier stated that a US withdrawal from Iraq would give Iran the opportunity to control Iraq. Nasir al-Isawi, MP for the Al-Sadr bloc, said that the reports are an attempt to buy more time ahead of the laying out of a new strategy in Iraq."
Then, Iraqi laypersons are shown expressing their views on the Congressional testimonies. An unidentified middle-aged Iraqi man is shown saying: "By God, I am personally opposed to the notion of an immediate withdrawal by US troops, the international troops. Why? Because the situation here in Iraq is unstable. There is a need for a timetable for the withdrawal of the US Army."
Afterward, a young man is shown saying: "Definitely, we are all sure that a US withdrawal is inevitable. We do not disagree over this matter at all. Meanwhile, we have a good government, enlightened people, and good field commanders. If a sort of general solidarity is achieved, we will support and bless a US withdrawal." Al-Baghdadiyah Satellite Television
-- At 1400 GMT on 11 September, Al-Baghdadiyah Satellite Television begins to carry a live relay of the closing session of the US Congressional testimonies by Petraeus and Crocker. Crocker is shown making his testimony. Then, Petraeus is shown making his testimony.
At 1420 GMT, Al-Baghdadiyah Satellite Television conducts a live telephone interview with Iraqi MP Mufid al-Jaza'iri for comments on the testimonies of both Crocker and Petraeus. Al-Jaza'iri says: "I think that this report was largely harmonious with the approaches of the US policy in Iraq. To do it justice, this report was largely honest in depicting developments in the security situation."
Al-Jaza'iri adds: "Following this report, I think that many tensions here in Iraq will be defused. Better conditions for rapprochement and understanding among the various political forces will be made available. Likewise, in general, an environment that is conducive to addressing outstanding issues, particularly those pertaining to national reconciliation, which is key to any true progress in the coming period, will be created."
When asked on whether this report backs the Iraqi Government or casts doubt on its successes, Al-Jaza'iri says: "In general, I think that this report came to lend a measure of credibility to (the performance of) the Iraqi Government. This report certainly noted some aspects over which the US side represented by Petraeus and Crocker and the Iraqi Government were in disagreement. Nonetheless, in general, all in all, the report can be considered positive, given how it viewed the evolution of the political process. Of course, the report did not fail to mention an important issue; namely, that there are many aspects which still need to be addressed. Greater efforts could have been made in the past to address these aspects. "
When asked to respond to some detractors who described Petraeus's remarks regarding the security situation in Iraq as "fabrications," Al-Jaza'iri says: "I do not think that they are fabrications. Many of the things he talked about are palpable things that we feel every day in our daily life. The security situation has certainly improved. There is no doubt about this, but the political situation has not improved."
When asked about the remarks that Petraeus and Crocker made on Iran and Syria, and whether there could be US military action against them, Al-Jaza'iri does not rule out this possibility. However, he adds: "The use of military force against either Syria or Iran because of Iraq is a matter that has thus far remained out of the question or unlikely. However, the United States might wage a war against Iran due to the (Iranian) nuclear reactor or other pretexts."
In conclusion, Al-Jaza'iri says: "We must take into account that the reports submitted by Petraeus and Crocker are not directed to the Iraqi or Arab public. Rather, they are directed to the American public and meant to address the political situation in the United States. They are meant to be factored in the struggles among various political forces in the United States. They are meant to provide some sort of ammunition for the battle being waged by President Bush against his Democratic opponents, who, for their part, are sharpening their weapons and getting prepared."
Immediately afterward, Al-Baghdadiyah Satellite Television says: "US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker had warned that Iran would stand to gain from any US withdrawal from Iraq. In his testimony before the US Congress, Crocker noted the possibility of Iran carrying out an intervention in Iraq in case the United States withdraws its troops from there."
At 1433 GMT, Al-Baghdadiyah Satellite Television says: "Husayn al-Falluji, member of the Council of Representatives for the Al-Tawafuq Front, has said that the reports su bmitted to the US Congress by Gen David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker have affirmed that the problem in Iraq is political rather than security-related. He added that the reports constitute a message addressed to the United States, given the fact that they noted that the US strategy is being implemented properly."
--"Mustafa al-Hiti, MP for the National Dialogue Front, today criticized the Crocker and Petraeus reports, saying that they painted a rosy picture of the situation in Iraq at a time when life comes to a standstill at 1800 in Baghdad."
The Al-Baghdadiyah Satellite Television report adds: "Al-Hiti expressed the belief that the reports came to embellish the image of the Al-Maliki government, or the image of the Bush administration and his party, which is facing opposition and crises in the United States." Al-Furat Television Channel
Within its 1700 GMT newscast on 11 September, Al-Furat Television Channel carries the following reports:
--"Ammar Al-Hakim (son of Abd-al-Aziz al-Hakim, chief of the Iraqi Islamic Supreme Council) has received Australian Ambassador to Iraq Marc Innes-Brown. During the meeting, the two sides discussed the key points enshrined in the reports submitted (to Congress) by Gen David Petraeus, commander of the Multinational Force in Iraq, and US Ambassador in Baghdad Ryan Crocker. They also discussed the enhancement of friendly bilateral ties. Furthermore, they discussed the latest political and security developments in Iraq and the region."
--"The US Congress listened to two reports submitted by US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and Gen David Petraeus, commander of the Multinational Force. In his report, Crocker commended the efforts made by the elected government on the political and economic fronts, and also in the area of national reconciliation. He also praised the high sense of national responsibility felt by Iraqi leaders in the course of their handling of national issues. For his part, Petraeus stressed that any progress on the political front is contingent upon progress on the security front."
--"The (Iraqi) Government has welcomed the two reports submitted by US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and Gen David Petraeus, commander of the Multinational Force. At a news conference, National Security Adviser Muwaffaq al-Rubay'i affirmed that the issuance of such assessments of the political and security situation in the country confirms that there is transparency in assessing the political and security situation in the country."
Afterward, the Al-Furat Television Channel carries a report saying: "The Al-Tawafuq bloc has described the results (enshrined in the two reports) as realistic. The Kurdistan Alliance considered the two reports positive, noting that they harmonize with the government's efforts to safeguard security and stability."
Salim Abdallah, MP for the Iraqi al-Twafuq Front, is shown saying: "My preliminary assessment is that they (the two reports) are somewhat realistic, particularly with regard to the issues pertaining to the security situation and the improvements that have taken place." Then, Muhammad Khalil Qasim, MP for the Kurdistan Alliance, is shown saying: "We welcome this assessment. We within the Kurdistan Alliance support the government, his excellency the prime minister, and the efforts to render the political process a success."
--"Parliamentary quarters have described the two reports submitted by Crocker and Petraeus as positive and constructive, and considered them as additional boost to the momentum of the political process, and to the elected government as well. MPs indicated that the two US reports underlined the (Iraqi) political leaders' efforts and their determination to face up to challenges in the country. Besides, these reports highlighted the notable progress made on the security front, they added."
--The Al-Furat Television Channel adds: "Shaykh Khalid al-Atiyah, first deputy speaker of the Council of Representatives, has considered the reports submitted by Crocker and Petraeus as positive in general. He added: The two reports highlighted the key obstacles facing the national unity government in the course of its efforts to achieve national reconciliation and consolidate security and stability in the country, which were identified by government officials.
"MP Ali al-Allaq affirmed that the US reports contained positive and constructive aspects and underlined the (Iraqi) political leaders' efforts to face up to challenges in the country, noting that the two reports, in general, support the ongoing political process in the country. For his part, MP Qasim Dawud called for handling the reports submitted by Crocker and Petraeus seriously to ensure su pport for the march of the democratic process. He added that the reports noted many positive points, including the stabilizing security situation being witnessed in Baghdad and Al-Anbar compared to what it was last year." Al-Fayha Television
Within its 1300 GMT newscast on 11 September, Al-Fayha Satellite Channel carries the following reports:
--"US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and Gen David Petraeus, commander of the US troops in Iraq, yesterday, Monday, submitted their anticipated reports on field developments in Iraq on the political and security levels. Gen Petraeus affirmed that US troops, in cooperation with Iraqi troops, managed to largely weaken the clout of the terrorist Al-Qa'ida Organization in Iraq over the past eight months, and to deprive it of a safe haven in Iraq, which strongly boosts the troop surge strategy. He commended the Iraqi tribes' role in cooperating with the Iraqi Government to help achieve security and stability. For his part, US Ambassador to Iraq Crocker affirmed that Iraq is currently experiencing a revolution, and not only a political regime change. This is because Saddam Husayn left a sectarian regime behind him, Crocker argued. He noted the Iraqi leaders' determination to confront tough problems. The Crocker-Petraeus report harmonizes with the views of the Iraqi Government, which Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki expressed before the Council of Representatives."
--"Gen David Petraeus painted a positive picture of developments in the security situation in Iraq. In a testimony before the US Congress, he affirmed that the US troop surge in Iraq resulted in defeating the remnants of the terrorist Al-Qa'ida Organization in Baghdad, and that the effort to clear the remaining cities is under way."
This is immediately followed by another report, which says: "Americans view the dialogue with Petraeus and US Ambassadr Ryan Crocker in Congress as an important milestone in the ongoing debate in the United States on the status of US troops in Iraq, which Bush pledged will stay in the country until full security is achieved. However, many Democrats, who control the two houses of Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate, are saying that the presence of these troops must be brought to an end."
--"Iraqi Government Spokesman Dr Ali al-Dabbagh has described the report Petraeus submitted to Congress as positive. However, he added that this report mentions some difficulties encountered in the field, and that it is important to provide time to fully prepare Iraqi security troops. Al-Dabbagh went on to say that Iraq will be comfortable with a gradual withdrawal of US troops as long as such plans are discussed with the Baghdad government in advance. He said that a precipitous withdrawal would not be in any party's interest; such a withdrawal would be in the interest of neither Iraq, nor the region."
Labels: Iraq

|
5 Comments:
Dear professor Cole
While we are looking the other way.
Officials in Washington said that the most likely targets of the raid were weapons caches that Israel’s government believes Iran has been sending the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah through Syria. Iran and Syria are Hezbollah’s primary benefactors, and American intelligence officials say a steady flow of munitions from Iran runs through Syria and into Lebanon.
In the summer of 2006, during fighting between Israeli and Hezbollah forces, the militant group fired hundreds of missiles into Israel, surprising Israel with the extent and sophistication of its arsenal. Israel has tried repeatedly to get the United Nations to prevent the arms shipments across the Syria-Lebanon border.
One Bush administration official said Israel had recently carried out reconnaissance flights over Syria, taking pictures of possible nuclear installations that Israeli officials believed might have been supplied with material from North Korea. The administration official said Israeli officials believed that North Korea might be unloading some of its nuclear material on Syria.
“The Israelis think North Korea is selling to Iran and Syria what little they have left,” the official said. He said it was unclear whether the Israeli strike had produced any evidence that might validate that belief.
The chorus for keeping US troops in Kurdistan is just to get a base for this kind of provocative raid.
Surrounding Syria looks like part of the agenda for the next President to rubber stamp
Juan, thanks for the translation of Iraqi media outlet reactions to the Gen Petraeus/ Amb Crocker report. It was very informative.
Excellent analysis, as usual, Mr. Cole. I've always liked reading your stuff and listening to your spots on the radio.
To me, the big story of not just the hearings, but of the Iraq debate in general. Despite the fact that what's happening on the ground (at least since May of 2003) is not a war but a bloody and botched occupation, politicians and activists on both sides continue to unproblematically use this term in discussing Iraq.
This is quite dangerous and, for those of us who disagree with the president's policy in Iraq, counterproductive.
(If you're interested, I've blathered about this in more detail here: http://tedremington.org/blog/?p=14
Dr. Cole, et al,
A friend who grew up in the region and is intimately familiar with the culture and history has been very consistent about the ingredients of any viable solution. He also expressed the opinion that America, or at least this administration, does not have the guts--one could say political will--to pursue what would work. The ingredients are:
1. Complete resolution of the issues relating to Israel, Palestine, and all other affected parties. He thinks that is possible if real pressure is exerted in all the right places.
2. Cessation of all interference in Lebanon.
3. Cessation of the pursuit of solutions involving the US Military and direct involvement of forces from that region if military presence is required to achieve stability, e.g., in Iraq. He claims that this will not lead to long term animosity between peoples as the blame will be assigned to governments.
4. Complete resolution of any and all border disputes in the region.
5. Liberal application of cash aid to governments in the region to create and maintain the conditions for cooperation over the long term.
This would also require involving qualified and experienced Arabists to handle the negotiations, i.e., this could not be done by political hacks who don't speak the language and are clueless about the culture.
In general, he is of the opinion that everything else is details that can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction although that does not necessarily mean in a way that most Americans would understand. In particular, he thought that nationalism in Iraq was strong and partitioning would be nonsense.
My friend has been consistently right about the consequences of the this administration's policies and does not think what he is suggesting is all that much different than what was in the Baker-Hamilton study.
The problem remains this administration and the inability of the Congress to minimize the damage they are doing. Unfortunately, one does not really hear anything coherent coming out of the presidential candidates on either side and it seems quite likely that the administration will invent some legal fiction to bomb Iran, which certainly would not make anything better. Why? Because that is the kind of people they are.
It is very puzzling as to why no one seems to be able to get through to the people and the Congress. The media is a problem but those in Congress can speak out and take the high ground. One wonders what they think they have to lose. In many cases, it is probably not their seat. Are they just misguided, effectively bribed, or just plain chicken or some combination of the above?
It remains a mystery why people are not convincing their representatives that they want action as opposed to self-serving rhetoric.
We seem to keep getting caught up in the particulars of a disastrous, if not criminal and treasonous, foreign policy and everyone seems to keep giving the architects the benefit of a doubt. They have no credibility and sitting around and parsing the lies seems counterproductive. On wonders if something could gel for some bi-partisan group of senators and representatives. It's their job to put together coalitions like that but they can't if they can't come up with a clear alternative. Is there anyone who can provide that for them? They have lots of resources and ways to help flesh it out and can hold hearings to keep it in view. They could just throw in the towel in dealing with the administration and be candid about it.
This a a very serious problem. The public knows that and most know that the administration is not up to the task and think the Congress is sitting on their hands. The administration is not going to budge. Congress could. One wonders what might inspire them to get off their duffs.
There seems to be an increased negative reaction in Baghdad to the excessive force used by US Special Forces on their urban raids, which invariably result in a number of innocent Iraqi's casualties. One recent raid was particularly murderous and left an unusually high number of women and children casualties. It resulted in a large protest in Baghdad.
The solution is to make sure Iraqi forces take the lead in these urban raids - after all Petraeus praised Iraqi special forces. In a dense urban setting like Baghdad the violent tactics of the Special Forces seem about as popular as Al Qaeda. We can guess the mild-mannered General Petraeus who appeared before Congress likely doesn't seem familiar to some residents of Baghdad.
Post a Comment
<< Home