Michigan Senators React to Petraeus Testimony

Michigan Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow both responded to General Petraeus’ testimony before the Senate on Iraq yesterday. The two largely objected to the Bush administration’s policy, although they failed to offer new suggestions. This is a direct contrast to Grand Rapids Representative Vern Ehlers who used Petraeus’ testimony to argue that the United States’ Iraq policy is making “progress.” This favorable review of Petraeus’ testimony was shared by other Michigan Republicans who expressed a general willingness to maintain the current troops levels.

Senator Stabenow released a statement saying:

“Four and a half years after the ill advised, poorly planned and mishandled invasion of Iraq, this administration still doesn’t understand that victory on the ground cannot be achieved without political progress. Our military is getting the job done, but the Iraqi government has failed to make the kind of tough political decisions required to bring stability and safety to their nation. Only the Iraqis can secure Iraq, and American troops cannot serve as a substitute for Iraqi resolve. Our brave men and women in uniform deserve a strategy that brings them home safely and responsibly.”

Her assertion that the “military is getting the job done” is questionable as her terms are not defined–does she mean in terms of security or in terms of fighting the insurgency? With regard to both possibilities, numerous reports exist suggesting that the “surge” and the continued occupation of Iraq is not meeting the goals set forth by the Bush administration. While she describes the need for “a strategy” that brings the troops “home safely and responsibly” she advocates for no specific course and shifts the majority of the blame for the situation in Iraq to the Iraqis, who according to Stabenow, lack “resolve.”

Stabenow’s reaction to Petraeus’ testimony is fairly consistent with the rhetoric coming from Michigan Senator Carl Levin, who has repeatedly assigned blame for the situation in Iraq to the Iraqi government and Iraqi people. Yesterday, Levin’s comments were similar, with Levin speaking “Iraqi leaders:”

“…who dawdle while their nation is torn apart by sectarian strife, and while their people are killed and forcibly ejected by sectarian militias or killed if they refuse to be ethnically cleansed. The Iraqi politicians dawdle while our casualties and our expenditures keep climbing.”

Levin went on to correctly point out that “the surge” has failed to achieve its goal of giving the Iraqi government space to focus on finding political solutions. Levin again argued that a consequence of the Iraqi government’s “failure” should be a withdrawal of some US soldiers. It is interesting to note that he is using this as a sort of “punishment” designed to show that the United States’ “patience” has worn thin, rather than basing such a withdrawal on the wishes of either the Iraqi people or his own constituents.

Despite this, Levin did criticize the Bush administration’s policy and argued in support of a limited withdrawal:

“Telling the Iraqis the surge will end by the middle of next year, and then we will make a decision as to whether to reduce our troop level from the basic pre-surge level of 130,000, does not change our course. It presents an illusion of change to prevent a real change of course from occurring – it is aimed at taking the steam out of the engine of change. I hope that we aren’t deterred from continuing to press for true change and that the momentum for a true change of course is not defused. It must continue until by our deeds we get the Iraqi political leaders to understand that for our security and theirs, the American presence in Iraq needs to be significantly reduced after four and a half years of U.S. sacrifice, and that the future of their country is in their own hands.”

In addition to these statements, Senator Levin also spoke at a press conference today held by Senate Democrats. At that press conference, Levin said that:

“If President Bush is simply calling for reductions to pre-surge levels – and not a change in mission to get our troops out of a civil war – then it is not a change in policy, but simply an illusion of change. We in Congress need to press for a real change in course.”

Senator Jack Reed argued that there is a need for a “change in course” while remembering what is in “our nation’s best interest.” According to Reed, this includes “continu[ing] to hunt down terrorists operating in Iraq” and not putting “American soldiers in harm’s way to buy Iraqi politicians another six months of political breathing room.”

It is important to remember that regardless of what Democrats are saying in the media, none of the strategies being supported by the Party would end the occupation of Iraq. Senator Levin’s recent legislation would leave an unknown number of soldiers in Iraq indefinitely.

Related posts:

1. West Michigan Legislators React to Petraeus Testimony
2. West Michigan Representatives and Michigan Senators Vote for Iraq Funding Bill
3. Ehlers uses Petraeus’ Testimony to back his Support for the Continued Occupation of Iraq
4. Michigan Senators Split on Bill Calling for Iraq Redeployment; Oppose Republican Proposal
5. Michigan Senators Vote in Support of Controversial Iran Resolution