I’ll say yes. This is not a strategic report. This report will not give away any secrets. It’s just a report on how well Iraq is meeting certain benchmarks and how well the troop escalation is working. The insurgents already know what kind of condition their own country is in and they already know what the escalation has accomplished. What is Petraeus going to be saying that the “enemy” doesn’t already know.
Yes, but they don’t know that we know that we’re doing it to them. C’mon elucidator, don’t you understand that if they learn that we know what we are doing, the terrorists will have won? This has been the point of Bush’s dummy-up strategery all along!
Jim Bowie and Davy Crockett gazed out over the sparse terrain in front of the Alamo as Santa Anna’s troops worked setting artillery pieces in place.
“I think they plan to use cannon against us, Davy.”
“Gee, no shit, Jim?”
“Best keep this to ourselves…”
So, IOW, no.
“Vhat gut es a surge strategy ef you keep it to yourself? Vhy didn’t you tell zee world?”
- Dr. Strangelove
But the questions asked by Congress won’t be limited to what’s in the report. That’s the whole reason for Petraeus to go before Congress in the first place-- so that they can dig deeper and ask any question they want. I don’t understand why two people as anti-war as you guys are want to limit the testimony in Congress to only those things Congress and Petraeus want the whole world to know. This anti-war poster sure doesn’t!!
Whose side they are on is actually a very interesting question.
The difference is you are an anti-war guy who at least has a minimal understanding of war, the military, etc. This is pretty evident by the fact that 'luci asserts that the Iraqi’s know all about what we are doing to them (well, its being done to them so they MUST know, right?) and this goes almost completely unchallenged. I don’t think most of the people in this thread who are gnashing their teeth and chewing the carpets REALLY understand the nature of what will be in the report Petraeus gives to Congress (regardless of how the WH later spins it), or the kinds of questions Congress can and will ask behind closed doors…or the kind of circus it would be (and the subsequent level of fluff with no substance) if it WASN’T behind closed doors, but instead shown to The World™.
-XT
So you do want Petraeus to give his testimony in a no-holds-barred open session with TV cameras?
Petraeus is not going to be testifying about anything that needs to be kept secret. He’s going to be testifying about bullshit benchmarks and the effectiveness of the troop escalation. What kind of questions do you think to be kept secret?
Please don’t condescend like this. There is nothing Petraeus will be testifying about which needs to be kept secret. I actually WANT it to be a circus. If the WH thinks the troops will be endangered by any of this testimony (which they won’t), the remedy is easy. You get them the hell out of there. Leaving them there is what’s irresponsible, not asking questions about bullshit benchmarks.
How about a compromise (not that it matters as neither you nor I get a say in this)? First Congress gets a closed session where they can ask the real questions and THEN they get a circus where they can posture and preen for public consumption? Deal?
-XT
I tried to add this, but for some reason the board is running REALLY poorly for me lately:
I think there are a lot of things that Congress SHOULD ask the general that we don’t want public knowledge…and I think there will be quite a bit they WILL ask that falls into that category. Even if the report itself is fit for public consumption (which I doubt…remember, we are only going to get the WH filtered version), Congress should be asking the tough questions…which they can only do in a closed door format.
I guess I really don’t get it…whats the problem with a bi-partisan committee in Congress having such a closed door session? Do you think the Dems will sell out or something?
-XT
“I’m sorry, Senator, but a full answer to your question would necessarily get into classified matters. I will make a note, and provide additional details when we get to the closed session. For now, though, I will say this much…”
And then it’s up to us to decide whether it’s legitimate, or a dodge.
They’re secret. 
I already did, up thread. And the ludicrous* idea that the other side knows everything we do and how we do it is as naive as BG’s original point about “the whole world” needing to know what Petraeus knows.
At any rate, this is a stupid discussion. The law already provides for closed sessions, so obviously Congress agrees with me and not you. They should know.
*as opposed to lucid
Absolutely not. Petraeus is legislatively required to answer these questions publicly.
The whole point of this testimony is to give a report to the public. Saying he should keep some of it secret is like saying the President should keep part of his State of the Union Address secret.
I hope you don’t think that’s a counter argument to my position. I agree with you, except that we won’t necessarily always know whether it’s a dodge or not without hearing the full answer.
WRONG! The legislation explicitly calls for closed sessions in addition to open sessions. Did you read the stuff Captain Amazing quoted from the legislation?
It’s clear at this point that this thread has degenerated in to standard Bushwhacking. I’m outta hear.
Sez who? I haven’t heard that he is required by legislation to give sensitive material directly to the public…only that he’s required to answer questions from the publics representatives (a.k.a. Congress/Senate).
He is giving a report to our direct representitives. Thats how our government works after all.
And the President SHOULD keep some things secret instead of blabbing them in the SotUA. We have a REPRESENTATIVE govenment for this very reason.
-XT
Sen. Lieberman: “What else can we do, as loyal Americans, to support your heroic efforts, General Petreus?”
General Petraeus:“Thank you for the bi-partisan support. Tomorrow, at 17:15 hours local time, an US armored division will plow straight through central Baghdad. Our vehicles haven’t been properly maintained, so we are worried that they may overheat, ignite and explode if someone sprinkles oatmeal on the road…”
Hogwash. The Bushiviks hope, once again, to spread the hanky of legitimate military and security concerns over a domed stadium. Does anyone really believe that Gen Petraeus might blurt out some operational detail to dire effect? Or that any of the assembled would demand an answer to such a question?
I fully expect that limitation to the good General’s candor and frankness. No one is going to ask such a question, and he wouldn’t answer if they did. No such threat exists, it is a phantom conjured to frighten the submissive.
To extend the point on the Generals limitations: if he truly believed that the situation in Baghdad was beyond the merely desperate, that his wisest advice was send every helicopter in the Western Hemisphere to evacuate the Green Zone right fucking now!..he couldn’t say so, his position would obligate him to obscure that fact while preparing whatever rearguard resistance he could (even if only to ensure a withdrawal route). Neccesity would oblige him to lie, and lie convincingly, and I wouldn’t dream of faulting him for it.
Of course, I lack any real expertise in such things, and humbly await the judgment of our self-acknowledged authorities. With all due awe.