The Hearings So Far: Some Thoughts

(a) Republicans play up the threat of Al Qaeda; Crocker seems to be measuring success by the progress against Al Qaeda in Iraq and the reduction in violence; Neither Petraeus nor Crocker is willing to sketch out a vision for an end-game; it seems as if their 45-day pause request will be extended -- how much political progress can be made in 45 days? ... Lieberman says the Basra conflict showed Maliki's willingness to confront Iranian presence in Southern Iraq.. other Republicans use the Basra affair to show that Maliki is developing some spine and independence.

(b) Democrats are bent on portraying metric-based progress as ephemeral; security gains are elusive and based more on temporary internal politics than on durable political agreements; it was Sen. John Warner who asked the political question: "Are we safer?"

(c) Maliki has threatened to prevent Mokdata Al-Sadr's political party from participating in the fall provincial elections unless the Mahdi Army disarms. Al Sadr has said that it only would be possible with Sistani's permission; for a while now, he and other clerics have been hesitant to inject themselves in politics. So far, only Sen. Jack Reed has engaged Petreaus on this question: what happens if the most popular political party in Iraq is banned from participating in the fall elections?

(d) No real debate yet about the state of readiness of the Iraqi forces; about the extent of Iran's support for US allies

(e) Sen. Olympia Snowe: "Why should American troops continue to take the lead in combat operations at this point?"