In yesterday's KV entry about General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testifying to the Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees, Faith brought up a good and valid point: While a lot of excellent questions were asked, and all three presidential candidates were able to present themselves tackling the issue that might make or break them, the lack of answers were the problem.
Senator Obama's line of questioning left no doubt as to where he was taking it and what point he was trying to make:
Part one:
Part two:
Video Credits: cmdrgmh
With finite resources in mind, what is the end point? What are the criteria? If it is a completely wiped out Al Qaeda without any possibility of reconstitution, a fully functioning Iraqi government and democracy, no Iranian influence, it would necessarily require a US troop presence that could stretch over decades.
Or is it a simple maintaining of Iraq as is, with only occasional eruptions of violence, but no Al Qaeda presence, and no threat to its neighbors - an achievable goal? Positing these options, Senator Obama rightly pointed out no satisfactory answers had been given during the entire hearings.
So this is where we are now, and unless we have a Democratic administration, and Democratic appointees to diplomatic positions, no hearing will get us any closer to any answer or solution.
