Senator Webb was scheduled to preside over the Senate this afternoon, so had only 8 minutes to ask his questions in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings today. The panel consisted of Phebe Marr, author of "A Modern History of Iraq"; Michael O'Hanlon, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute; Paul Pillar, Nat'l Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia, 2000-05; and Yahia Said, London School of Economics Research Officer. I'm actually relying on my memory and not on any notes, so feel free to tell me where I screwed up in my recollections.
Anyway, Webb's first question was whether there could be any hope of resolving the Iraq situation without bringing the area players to the table. He mentioned being in Lebanon in 1983, referred to the Lebanon solution, pointed out that the regional players must understand that the U.S. is not leaving as the Brits did in the 70s, and asked for comment. Ms. Marr replied that the view of people in the region is "unanimous" that there must be a regional solution involving all players. She endorsed the Iraq Study Group's recommendations. O'Hanlon replied that contrary to what many people think Iran can be prodded into participating in talks, even though the Iranians have not recognized yet that they should do so. He pointed out that if the US is running negotiations between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the Iraqi factions, and others it will force Iran to the table just to preserve its own interests. Iran does not want a solution without its input. Yahia Said and Paul Pillar also responded the same way.
Webb's second question was short and to the point: Do any of you believe that there will ever be peace in Iraq while U.S. soldiers are on its streets? Looked like he got a unanimous no.
I kept trying to imagine George Allen asking questions like this but the thought sent me into fits of laughter ... so no.
Hoping someone Youtube's this, too.
Go to 3:30:00 to see Sen. Webb's statement and questioning.
Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
By the way, I have met Phebe Marr and spoken with her on a professional basis. She's top notch, no doubt about it.
Webb is doing a superb job of focusing the debate on questions of diplomacy and strategy. Over the past few days, in his interviews on Channel 5 and other venues, Webb has hammered home his point that the failure to have a properly defined endpoint means you have a tactic and not a strategy. I'm beginning to hear echoes of his points among other Senators and Congressmen. This narrower focus allows them to articulate better the reasons for their opposition to the war.
Isn't Condi's testifying today before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee? I'd love to hear Webb's questions for her.
Thank you voters, thank you Webb for giving up your quiet comfortable life to be recruited to the fight. Thank you.
I must admit, when guys like Webb are in office, I feel like I can relax a bit more and go back to my normal (non-political) interests. Maybe I'll go fishing again, or take those long hikes I've been missing.
james m. alexander
information systems technician seaman apprentice, usn