Listen to actual chat audio on selected questions!
Erin: Welcome to our specialT2A webchat for Monday, September 17. We’re meeting VOA Correspondents Meredith Buel and Al Pessin to discuss a new report on Iraq by the U.S. commander there and the U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad. The report by General David Petraeus, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker assesses the so-called 'surge' strategy of temporarily increasing U.S. troop levels in Iraq. Last Thursday, President Bush announced he was accepting the General’s plan for a modest troop drawdown. Mr. Bush says as more progress is made; more American soldiers will be heading home. This week, Senate Democrats hope to convince enough members of the president's own political party to join them in legislation that would require that troops spend as much time at home as on their most recent overseas tour.
-------------------------------
Sanjeev, Canada (email): There is a common perception among people that the United States and its allies have done more harm than good to the people of the countries they have invaded since World War Two. Recent examples include Iraq and Afghanistan, where there are many militants. What is your opinion about this?
Al: 1) That depends partly on what you mean by “invaded.” Certainly, the people of South Korea benefited greatly from the U.S. involvement in that conflict, and continue to benefit from the presence of U.S. troops. In Vietnam, the U.S. effort was not successful, but it would seem to be a subject of debate as to whether what followed was any worse than an earlier Communist takeover would have been. U.S. involvement in Kosovo has helped maintain a fragile peace there. In Afghanistan, certainly many, many people have benefited from the U.S.-led invasion. And U.S. forces continue to work with the Afghan Army and other nations to end the insurgency that aims to return the country to the Taliban’s version of strict Islamic rule, with few personal freedoms and significant discrimination against women.
Al: 2) Victory by the insurgents would also allow Afghanistan to again become a haven for international terrorists that threaten the entire world. In Iraq, the U.S.-led invasion ousted a cruel dictator, but many analysts believe the aftermath was not well handled, resulting in years of violence. That violence resulted partly from ethno-sectarian passions released by the fall of the former government, but those passions were also fueled by outside forces in an effort to create instability and establish a radical Islamic regime, and potentially a terrorist haven. Now, the new U.S. counterinsurgency strategy is aimed at improving security and promoting reconciliation and economic reconstruction.
Al: 3) Although violence continues and reconciliation has been slower than had been hoped, there do seem to be indications of improvements. The U.S. commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will make another report in six months. Between now and then we should get a much better idea about whether there are firm positive trends. If there are, and if U.S. combat troops can continue to withdraw beyond next July while leaving a relatively stable, democratic society behind, it may be possible to conclude that the U.S.-led invasion benefited Iraq in the long term, in spite of the problems of recent years.
Al: 4) If, however, those positive trends do not become established, many analysts believe U.S. policy will change dramatically under a new administration in January of 2009, and an unstable Iraq may be left behind as U.S. troops withdraw. Either way, the Iraqi people themselves will make the key decisions that will determine whether the invasion helped or hurt the country in the long term.
Meredith: 1) Good afternoon Sanjeev and thank you for joining us today. It will be interesting to see how history will judge the wars and reconstruction programs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Please remember, the reason the U.S. sent its troops to Afghanistan is that the Taliban government refused to hand over Osama bin Laden after the United States was attacked on September 11, 2001. The Taliban government practiced a militant, extremely conservative and intolerant version of Islam. Most women could not go to school, people could not listen to music and people were not free to express their views. Much has changed for the better in recent years in Afghanistan, but Taliban fighters are still active in some areas of the country.
Meredith: 2) Afghanistan now has an elected President and parliament, millions of women are going to school and there are television stations, radio stations and newspapers that are free to cover the news and express their views on just about any subject. However, poppy production still remains a huge problem. NATO and the United States still have thousands of troops there for security reasons. I used to travel to Afghanistan when the Taliban largely ruled it, and I think the situation in many areas has improved greatly since then. In Iraq the challenges are greater, but a horrible dictator has been removed from power.
Meredith: 3) The troop surge does appear to be making some progress, especially in Baghdad, but improvements on the political front are not coming as quickly as most had hoped. It has been more than 60-years since World War Two and I think most people would say Germany and Japan have become two of the most successful countries in the world. As I mentioned earlier, it will be interesting to see how the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are judged decades from now.
-------------------------------
Sayed (email): After reading the new report on Iraq, I'm against any withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. First, the U.S. has to resolve other Middle East problems, including the Israel-Palestinian conflict. All harmful and extremis groups such as al-Qaida should be stopped. The U.S. still has to cooperate with some important countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Al: 1) President Bush has determined, in keeping with General Petraeus’ recommendations, that a few thousand U.S. troops will leave Iraq this year and more will leave as scheduled, and not be replaced, by next July. The generals and the civilian leaders believe security in Iraq can continue to improve under that plan. In addition, they recognize that the all-volunteer U.S. military can not sustain the current commitment of 162,000 troops beyond July without significant difficulty. Many experts also believe Iraqis must see in a concrete way that the large U.S. troop commitment is not open-ended.
Al: 2) So, while you are correct that there are other issues to address in the region, the consensus among military leaders and the Bush Administration is that a reduced U.S. presence in Iraq, over enough time to enable the Iraqi government and security forces to handle the situation, is the best approach. Most of the opposition to that in the United States advocates a faster withdrawal, rather than a slower one as you suggest.
Meredith: 1) Thanks Sayed. I am not sure where your question is, but you make some important observations. The Middle East, of course, is a powder keg and strategically one of the most important places in the world. You say the U.S. has to resolve problems in the Middle East, but ultimately it will be up to the people who live there to make the important decisions that will lead to a peaceful future.
Meredith: 2) Al Pessin and I are both former Jerusalem Bureau Chiefs and we have seen the Israeli-Palestinian conflict first-hand over many years. Secretary of State Rice has launched a new initiative to try to bring the Israelis and Palestinians back to significant peace negotiations, although the situation has become more difficult and complicated with the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip. Egypt and Saudi Arabia still remain strong allies of the United States, although both countries have to make significant changes before they are free, open and fully democratic societies.
-------------------------------
Hio, Philippines (email): What is the reason behind the U.S. government’s aggressive stance on Iraq? Is it for security purposes, or is it for continued dominance? Is it for world peace, or is it to protect America’s own agenda? Is it for oil?
Meredith: 1) Thanks Hio for joining us today from the Philippines, where it must be very early in the morning. That is a pretty sweeping question. We could probably spend an entire web chat discussing it. The United States invaded Iraq because of concern Saddam Hussein’s government either had, or was developing weapons of mass destruction. Of course, such weapons were not found after the invasion. President Bush says it is important for the U.S. to stay in Iraq for now, so that it can become a democratic and prospering country, and yes, an important ally in the war on terror.
Meredith: 2) On the oil question, there is a new book by former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan in which he makes the striking comment that “the Iraq War is largely about oil.” He clarified that comment saying he is not implying that the war was to grab Iraq’s oil supplies, but to secure the reliability of world oil supplies by removing Saddam Hussein. In any case, virtually every U.S. official has been very careful to say that oil was not the reason for the Iraq War and that the oil, and the revenue from it, belongs to the Iraqi people.
Al: I’m not sure what you mean by ‘aggressive.’ The current U.S. goal in Iraq is to help establish a stable, democratic society, that is at peace with its neighbors and an ally in the war on terrorism. The United States does not seek to control Iraq’s oil, but it does seek the free flow of oil around the world.
-------------------------------
Kemal, Ethiopia (email): 1. Is the US operation in Iraq successfully bringing change to Iraq? 2. How much damage has been done in Iraq in terms of lives lost and economical costs?
Al: Kemal, think I’ve already answered much of your first question. I don’t have statistics in front of me to answer your second question, but the cost in blood and money has certainly been high. Both sides in the debate use that fact. Some say it would be a horrible waste to abandon the effort now after all that, especially if there is a chance the new strategy will bring success within the next year or so. But others say too many have already died and too much has already been spent, and there is little chance of success, so the United States should end the effort as quickly as possible. In fact, it is likely that President Bush will be able to maintain his policy in spite of congressional opposition. So we are likely to see in the coming months whether the policy is actually succeeding or not, and whether the damage you mention has at least resulted in some long-term benefit to Iraq.
Meredith: 1) Greetings Kemal and thanks for joining us from Ethiopia. Change is certainly coming to Iraq with the removal of Saddam Hussein, but as we all know tens of thousands of lives have been lost. While the U.S. is spending billions of dollars to try to rebuild the country, many of those projects have not gone as well as planned.
Meredith: 2) The country does have an elected government, an emerging judicial system and a free press. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi troops and police have been trained, but many challenges remain. Testifying before Congress, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, said when it comes to the goal of a secure, stable and democratic Iraq, he is not sure how long it will take to reach that goal or even ultimately whether U.S. efforts there will succeed.
-------------------------------
Jack, Democratic Republic of Congo (email): Hello everyone regarding strategies in Iraq I can suggest to limit US troops for not allowing sectarian terrorists to take root there. As far as reconciliation process is concerned, there may be a national unity Government
Al: 1) Well, Jack, if you're suggesting that fewer U.S. troops would result in less sectarian violence, there are many people who would agree with you. Some say, much of the violence is anti-occupation. However, it seems that violence that falls into that category would be directed at U.S. and coalition forces, while sectarian violence would mostly be related to longstanding disputes that are not directly related to the U.S. presence. It is certainly one of the goals of the U.S. strategy to end sectarian violence, and to help Iraqi groups reconcile on both the local and national level. But it is a long and difficult process.
Al: 2) Regarding the possibility of a national unity government, again, the United States is encouraging Iraqi parties to work together, and Ambassador Crocker said last week that a meeting in August was a first step toward that. He said some of the most important developments in Iraq may not be visible from Washington, and maybe they're not visible from the DRC either. The Iraqi parties have decades and more of distrust to overcome, and that is clearly taking more time than anyone would like. As to what the future shape of the Iraqi government will be, no one can say. But I can say it will be an Iraqi shape, devised by and implemented by Iraqis. That's the only way it can have any chance at all of succeeding.
-------------------------------
A. C. Rathinavel, India (email): I support the war on terror wholeheartedly, but it appears that the US is wasting lives and dollars for its efforts in Iraq. The pace of the war is slow right now; when will it end?
Meredith: A.C. all of us would like to know the answer to that very important question. Again, looking to Ambassador Crocker’s testimony before Congress, and he was testifying along side General David Petraeus, the senior American commander in Iraq, Ambassador Crocker said the process will not be quick, it will be uneven and punctuated by setbacks, as well as achievements and it will require substantial U.S. resolve and commitment. He said there would be no single moment at which the U.S. can claim victory. Any turning point, he said, will likely only be recognized in retrospect. The ambassador is an Arabic-speaking veteran of the Middle East and I think his somewhat sobering assessment is one many would agree with.
Al: Again, some of what I would tell you I’ve already written to other participants. As to your question, well, that’s what everyone wants to know, as Meredith just said. If the current positive indications become trends and continue well into next year, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has indicated U.S. troop withdrawals would continue beyond July. We may find that the fighting diminishes well before all U.S. combat troops are out. But as I’ve said already, if the trends do not continue, the fighting could go on longer, and might even get worse if a new administration withdraws U.S. troops anyway.
-------------------------------
Wondwossen, Ethiopia (email): 1. The US and Iraq are trying to reach peace but uncertain how to achieve it. The US now wants to call its troops back and has been debating this issue for some time. However, Iraq currently has no system existing to treat its people properly. What is America’s responsibility to the people of Iraq? 2. What will the next president of the US do in Iraq and around the world to fight terrorism and protect America from attacks like 9/11?
Meredith: 1) You are right, many people in the United States would like to have the troops come home, but there is much disagreement over how quickly this should be done. I would think just about all of America’s leaders feel that the U.S. has an enormous responsibility to the people of Iraq, which is why America has 169-thousand soldiers, sailors and airmen there, many of whom are in harm’s way everyday. It is also why the U.S. is spending billions of dollars to help reconstruct the country. However, most Americans are against an open-ended commitment and that is why there is so much debate in this country about how and when to bring the troops home.
Meredith: 2) As for your second question, a new President of the United States will be elected next year and the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq are extremely important issues in the campaign. The candidates have different positions on the war in Iraq, and a great deal will depend on who is elected. One thing is for sure; protecting America against terrorist attacks like those that occurred on September 11th will be the top priority of any of the current candidates.
Al: 1) The question of America’s responsibility to the people of Iraq is an interesting one, and one which I think many Americans, inside and outside of government, wrestle with. Clearly, the U.S.-led invasion and the aftermath destroyed the Iraqi government and military, and ended the repression that was holding back ethno-sectarian passions. Many Americans believe the United States has a responsibility to help put Iraqi society back together, although many also recognize that the United States cannot itself solve the Sunni-Shiite divide or other Iraqi issues. The current plan is for a slow U.S. withdrawal over the next 15 months, perhaps down to about 100,000 troops, while continuing to work to improve the Iraqi government and security forces. The hope is that during that time, and beyond, Iraq will become a stable society and the United States will have fulfilled the responsibility that many believe was inherent in leading the invasion.
Al: 2) As to what the next U.S. present will do, well, that very much depends on WHO the next president is! If things are going well in Iraq, any new president is not likely to make major changes that might disrupt that progress. But if things are not going well, as I have said, a significant policy change will likely come in January of 2009. On the global war on terrorism, some critics of the Bush Administration say the war in Iraq has reduced the amount of resources available for other parts of the effort. The administration denies that. But many experts believe that as the U.S. commitment in Iraq is reduced in the coming months and years, other parts of the global effort may benefit.
-------------------------------
Santosh, India (email): In my opinion, the lull in violence in Iraq is not on account of the troop surge, but an indicator of more violence to come. How do you respond?
Listen to actual chat audio of this answer! 
Real Audio 
MP3 Audio
Al: I’m not sure what you base that on. Coalition and Iraqi forces are working hard to ensure the violent groups cannot resurface as the U.S. troop presence is reduced. So far, we see that the violent groups still have the ability to launch attacks. And because of the underground nature of any insurgency, we won’t really know whether the strategy worked until the troops start to leave in large numbers.
Listen to actual chat audio of this answer! Real Audio MP3 Audio
Meredith: Well Santosh, that is hard to predict. I think most people here are in agreement that the surge has reduced the violence, but there is heated debate on just how well the surge is working. Certainly many al-Qaida fighters have fled Baghdad and may have gone to other areas of the country. The same can probably be said of al-Anbar province where many tribal sheikhs have turned against al-Qaida and are cooperating with American forces. Sectarian violence has also gone down, but it is an open question about what will happen next. The strategy, of course, is to turn the areas that have been cleared of insurgents over to Iraqi security forces to protect those areas from insurgents who try to return.
-------------------------------
Mamadou, Burkina Faso (email): I think that it's time for the US to start bringing the Marines home. First, this will appease the political situation in Iraq and maybe decrease the violence. I think that the violence in Iraq is ongoing because of the presence of foreign troops. General Petraeus should propose the immediate withdrawal of some troops, because we have seen that in spite of the additional troops, the situation in Iraq has not improved. Please comment.
Listen to actual chat audio of this answer! Real Audio MP3 Audio
Meredith: Thanks for joining us Mamadou in Burkina Faso. General Petraeus has warned in stark terms against a rapid pullback of U.S. military forces from Iraq. While he admits the situation there is, in his words, complex, difficult and sometimes downright frustrating, but he says the situation there is too fragile to have a major shift in the mission right now. He says an abrupt American pullout could have devastating consequences and could lead Iran and Iraq’s other neighbors to intervene even more aggressively, lead to more instability and harm America’s interests. General Petraeus does feel the security situation has improved, although he admits security gains have been, in his words, uneven.
Listen to actual chat audio of this answer! Real Audio MP3 Audio
Al: General Petraeus did propose the immediate withdrawal of some troops, about 2200 Marines who are scheduled to leave this month and will not be replaced. Also, our participants should understand that most of the U.S. presence in Iraq is Army not Marines. Several thousand Marines are there, mostly in al-Anbar Province, and smaller numbers of troops from the Air Force and Navy are there, too. Regarding your contention that the troops are causing more violence, I think I already wrote about that in another answer. As long as sectarian disputes and efforts to secure political and economic power in the new Iraq are a big part of the violence, it does not seem that a U.S. troop withdrawal will address those concerns. And your contention that the situation has not improved is certainly disputed by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. Several U.S. government reports have offered different analyses of the current situation. As a reporter who has to cover all this I can tell you that I hope over the coming months the assessments will converge as trends become clearer.
-------------------------------
Alain, Burkina Faso (email): In regards to the bomb attacks that happen so often in Iraq, what are US troops doing to counterattack these bombings?
Listen to actual chat audio of this answer! Real Audio MP3 Audio
Al: U.S. forces have made a lot of efforts under the new counterinsurgency strategy announced by President Bush in January to improve the security of ordinary Iraqis. In Baghdad, for example, markets have been “hardened” with concrete barriers to protect shoppers and merchants. But it is not possible to do that throughout the country. Other efforts include establishing a stronger presence of coalition and Iraqi troops in as many areas as possible in order to inspire confidence among the people. In those situations, more and more Iraqis are providing information to the authorities about insurgent cells and weapons caches in their neighborhoods. It’s all part of a broad and difficult nationwide effort. Regarding roadside bombs that target U.S., Iraqi and coalition forces, the United States has invested tens of millions of dollars in trying to defeat them. The money goes mainly to technology and intelligence efforts, but the details are kept secret.
-------------------------------
Erin: Meredith, in his report to congress, General Petraeus touched on the possibility of pulling out the 30,000 troops that represent the “troop surge” by next summer. What are experts saying about the likelihood that this will actually happen? What are experts saying about the chance of a full troop pullout in the future or do they say this war will continue for several more years?
Listen to actual chat audio of this answer! Real Audio MP3 Audio
Meredith: 1) First the numbers, and Al please correct me if I am wrong, the troop cuts that President Bush has approved would total at least 21-thousand-500, according to what Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell told reporters last week at the Pentagon. This month about two thousand – two hundred Marines will start heading back to the United States. In mid-December an Army brigade of about 35-hundred soldiers will leave Iraq and not be replaced.
Meredith: 2) Between January and July of next year four more Army brigades, each with about 35-hundred soldiers will depart and not be replaced. By July, two Marine infantry battalions, totally about 18-hundred Marines, will leave Anbar province and are not being replaced. In addition, the Pentagon sent roughly 85-hundred support troops as part of the buildup and many could remain, although the Pentagon says exact numbers have yet to be decided. It seems certainly likely there will be an American troop presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future.
-------------------------------
Erin: Meredith, what are members of Congress saying about setting a troop withdrawal timetable?
Listen to actual chat audio of this answer! Real Audio MP3 Audio
Meredith: Well some Democrats in Congress say the Bush administration’s plan to keep about 130-thousand troops or more in Iraq through mid-2008 is unacceptable. This week they will be weighing various proposals, including one to shift the American role to training and counter-terrorism, in order to reduce the force by more than President Bush has authorized. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says the president’s policy is unacceptable. Democratic presidential contenders like Senator Barack Obama are calling for the withdrawal of one or two combat brigades a month, starting immediately. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and others are also criticizing the president’s strategy. It is not yet clear what the Congress will support and, of course, President Bush can veto any legislation he believes will harm his strategy.
-------------------------------
Erin: Meredith, since the “troop surge” tactic began, what are analysts saying about how much progress has actually been made in terms of lowering violence levels?
Listen to actual chat audio of this answer! Real Audio MP3 Audio
Meredith: General Petraeus says his forces have dealt significant blows to al-Qaida in Iraq. He says security incidents have declined in eight of the past 12 weeks and recently reached the lowest levels since June 2006. Petraeus says civilian deaths are down 45-percent since December and 70-percent in Baghdad. He says sectarian deaths have fallen by 55-percent. He says U.S. forces have killed or captured nearly 100 leaders of al-Qaida in Iraq and two-thousand-500 rank-and-file fighters.
-------------------------------
Raul, Madrid: As Voice of America correspondents do you get any special preferential treatment in covering the war in Iraq?
Raul, the short answer to your question is 'No.' VOA reporters operate alongside reporters from other news organizations, with no special treatment. Any reporter gets access to information based on his or her reputation among people he or she is covering, and also based on what news organization he or she works for. That is, newsmakers who want to reach a certain type of audience are more likely to provide access for reporters who have that audience. In the case of VOA, having an overseas audience helps in some situations, hurts in others. I think any reporter would say the same about his or her news organization. At the Pentagon, I get the same basic access as any reporter, and I get additional access for interviews or trips, or not, depending on my relationship with the people involved, and how interested they are in reaching my international audience. Again, just like any other reporter.
-------------------------------
Erin: That wraps today’s special chat about the Iraq Progress Report. Our thanks to VOA Correspondents Meredith Buel and Al Pessin and to you for joining us. You can learn more about the report and the latest on the war in Iraq by going to voanews.com. We hope you’ll join T2A on Wednesday, September 26th at a special time, 17 hours universal time. We’ll meet the widow of Jack Valenti, who died in May, just before his new book This Time, This Place was published. The book tells the story of how Mr. Valenti became a special assistant to President Lyndon B. Johnson in the wake of John F. Kennedy’s assassination. It also gives an insider's view of the Johnson White House – and chronicles Valenti's 38 years as chair and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, an organization with close ties to Washington politics. We also meet current MPAA President Dan Glickman, who has served as U.S. Agriculture Secretary and Congressman. That’s Wednesday, September 26th at 17 hours universal time on voanews.com. See you then.
Back to Past Chats
