What The General Had To Say

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

Posted April 10, 2008 | 04:18 PM (EST)



Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

General David Petraeus is an admirable man and soldier. Not only because of his extraordinary career in the military, but because he can sit comfortably in a room full of true and striving erudite interrogators and talk for hours telling them little more than they already know.

There is much to be said for not spilling the beans to the enemy regarding how you'll go about achieving victory -- even if we had a definition. And a "realist," as he refers to himself, knows that all too well. It would be ludicrous to pull out a series of slides showing which regions of Iraq will be targeted in the near future, how that will occur, and how long it will take to the hour.

The General thus had the upper hand as he spoke before senators on Tuesday. And yet he addressed each with respect, listened intently, and graciously allowed that often their concerns were his as well.

Petraeus adeptly replied to Senator Evan Bayh's defense as patriotic the views of those who differ with current military policy. "Senator, we fight for the right of people to have other opinions" the general replied -- a conversational nanosecond between question and answer. His conviction was total. If you didn't have a lump in your throat a moment before, you likely did after that compelling expression of the real reason for war - to protect and preserve what we as Americans hold dear.

But is that what we're doing in Iraq? Here again skill was evident. And I don't mean deception. In fact, General Petraeus' most impressive communication attribute is his ability to respond to all questions in a forthright manner. If only such conviction could be bottled. This is not to say that he avoids all forms of diversion, fractionation of larger issues into smaller ones, segues to more favorable topics, and strategic ambiguity, but he doesn't appear to lie. Study his demeanor for micro-expressions and disconnects indicating otherwise, and you're likely to come away wanting.

His winning smile is no small asset either. Could you have a beer with this man? Probably even two. And it would be a most pleasant memory.

Were the senators and congressmen duped this week? No. They were simply outmatched. Many good questions were posed. Positions were advanced, during which the general remained largely silent -- not tempted to interrupt with reckless defense. This willingness to listen is an extremely rare talent in both communication and persuasion.

The respectful general patiently delivered the single most important message - we are stuck in Iraq for a very long time to come. Conditions are constantly shifting on the ground, and so no prediction is worth more, he seemed to convey, than the air its expression would emit.

As many a senator attempted to "appear" a commander-in-chief, pressed by the press to do so, the general remained sure that the real one was not in the room. Until he is actually face-to-face in the White House with the next one, this soldier has little to say about what constitutes acceptable, admirable and ideal victory even if someone thinks to ask for such a breakdown. His mission is clear, his commitment complete and until we get our act together, he will do as both instruct.


 
 

Comments
17
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:

Dear Dr. Reardon,

Does not get anymore forthright than that, I would expect that the General would do no less even under water-boarding by our enemies. You're spot-on!

Sure seems a strange choice that Senator Clinton says that if elected President She will not consider what men like General Petraeus have to say. Go figure. Agape.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:42 PM on 04/10/2008

Actually, it wasn't their ability to ask a tough question, but rather the lack of will and political courage to attach a consequence to the responses that they were receiving. Both Petraeus and Crocker knew that all they had to endure was a few hours of grandstanding and "tough" questions meant to put on a display of seriousness for the television viewers and reporters who were present. They also knew that no matter what anyone on either side said, at the end of the day, the Democrats weren't going to do anything to change the status quo. So sitting there was like enduring a toothless nagging session with the parents when you were a teenager, knowing all the while that when it was over you were still going to get the car keys and you were still going to get to go to the party. So why should they break a sweat when they were sitting in an air-conditioned safe space (compared to the conditions even in Iraq's Green Zone. Hell they probably enjoyed the break from the Iraq.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:33 PM on 04/10/2008




Once again, asking a military man about a problem which is not a military problem is what was wrong in the first place.

You ask him to take a hill, he'll take that hill for you no doubt. Patraeus has proved himself a capable military leader. But the problem in Iraq isn't a military one. Killing rival militias is just taking sides, and compounding the problem. We're the bodyguard bully siding with Maliki, alienating Al Sadr and the people who want us out of Iraq even more.

That's the problem. Our presence in Iraq is the problem. The Iraqi people, like the Viet Namese three decades ago want us out of their country, and for the sovereignty we promised when deposing the Sunni Baathist regime who held them captive. They want access to the vast resources denied to them all those years, and should be allowed to fight for those resources, just as we in this country have done.

They're not children. If we leave the room they're going to fight sure, but as Al Sadr showed by calling that ceasefire in Basra, even Iraqi's have a conscience, and some respect for fellow Iraqis. The genocide we imagine won't be eradicated by a prolonged presence, just postponed, if that is indeed what they plan. But we should have more faith in the innate humanity of people, if we're sincere in delivering democracy and self rule to them.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:55 PM on 04/10/2008

but BushCo is not sincere and Petarous is a 4 star liar and the sheeple were watching American Idol the past few nights

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:15 PM on 04/10/2008




I don't think Petraeus is a liar, I think he's being asked irrelevant questions, and answering them honestly.

They should have asked him, if in supporting Maliki we're backing the wrong horse in this race. Or is it possible to back a right horse in Iraq, as anyone we side with, and fund, and arm will be seen as a puppet. Its a no win scenario, our presence in their country is top priority.

Al Sadr seems to be the peoples hero, and we're building his Robin Hood-like appeal by siding with Maliki. We're building a monster, whose strength lies in his opposition to our occupation. Only he's not really a monster, he's Iraq's next leader.

As for his brutality, a country like Iraq is not going to be ruled lightly.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:27 PM on 04/10/2008



Correction, our absence in Iraq is their top priority. Our presence the problem.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:49 PM on 04/10/2008

Hear, hear!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:02 PM on 04/10/2008

Have changed my mind slightly, in that I now think Petraeus and Crocker are reasonable people to listen to about Iraq. But we should not give too great an importance to strictly military considerations. It is possible that our best choice is to decide we made a serious mistake in destroying Iran's biggest enemy; and just live with the increased Iranian influence. Most of the costs of the Iraq war are not strictly military.

Consider:

1) There is a military cost in not having troops either deployed or deploying to Iraq available to respond to other situation;

2) Someone will have to figure out how to repay the Chinese for the war - 600 billion minimum, estimates run as high as 3 trillion;

3) Many other US diplomatic goals become harder to achieve, as potential allies decide that helping us elsewhere merely frees us to fight on in Iraq, so we will be able to squeeze them later as a result of controlling Iraq's oil.

4) 4,000 killed and 14,000 seriously wounded are a loss to the US, which the military must assume are necessary losses to achieve the mission; but which may cost more than the mission is worth to civilians.

None of this is the General's job to worry about. But these costs mean that a slight improvement as a result of the surge is really a failure. Iraq is a political, not military, issue and we overemphasize the military component by focusing on the general..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:38 PM on 04/10/2008

Great perspectives.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:34 PM on 04/10/2008

Wow, you sure saw a different scene than I did. I saw Petraeus as a stooge. Evasive, untruthful, trying to put lipstick on the Bush pig, and a pure political general. I would not want to have a beer or anything else with him, I have no respect for him.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:27 PM on 04/10/2008

Outmatched, you say? I didn't realize it was going to be a match. I thought we - the American taxpayers and General Patraeus's bosses were supposed to get some answers and some truth as to what the hell is going on in that clusterfuck of an occupation, and when the hell somebody's gonna figure out a "goal" for us to reach so we can start reaching it and coming home - instead of spinning our bloody wheels in the hot desert sun half a world away. Silly me.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:13 PM on 04/10/2008

Petraeus says nothing and he means it, too. Boy, he sure showed us rubes, didn't he?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:57 PM on 04/10/2008

Don"t be duped by General Petraeus and "Senator, we fight for the right of people to have other opinions." General Patreus is a BushCo stooge and no administration in the history of this nation has suppressed dissent more vigorously. They immediately attack the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with them. Someone should ask General Patreaus if he would still be as enthusiastic about continuing the war if he were a rifleman in an infantry platoon, walking point in an area known to be infested with IEDs. Don"t expect an honest answer from someone who, at best, misrepresents the truth for political expediency

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:11 PM on 04/10/2008

We'll see how he fares at his war crimes trial.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:55 PM on 04/10/2008

I find it fascinating that -- having gone through this dog and pony show before -- Congress would even WANT to repeat the experience.

The person on the hot seat should be the government's point person for the Iraq Policy.

By definition, that OUGHT not be a general. Not Petraeus. Not Admiral Fallon's replacement. Not even the Secretary of Defense. And not even the Iraq War "Czar." (Yes, there is one. Or at least there once was.)

The military is doing its job. And that job does NOT include setting policy.

And not even Condi Rice.

The person on the hot seat before Congress and the American People, IMHO, should be none other than President George W. Bush. It's been his baby all along. Let him answer as to why it's been so poorly reared.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:44 PM on 04/10/2008

This has been the Special Olympics Presidency. The neo-con puppeteers stroke his ego, and Dubya proclaims that God speaks to him and through him. Carefully screened audiences prevent any contact with reality. The Congressional GOP loyalists provide protection by blocking any and every attempt to expose the truth. Could it be that they"re blocking investigations and hearings because they"re all as guilty as Randy Cunningham?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:16 PM on 04/10/2008

Re America's silly fickleness with respect to the HONESTY we demand from our leaders, this pearl, from wiki:

"According to the America's Future Foundation:

"In the wake of the Clinton scandals, independents warmed to Bush's promise to 'restore honor and dignity to the White House.' According to Voter News Service, the personal quality that mattered most to voters was 'honesty.' Voters who chose 'honesty' preferred Bush over Gore by over a margin of 5 to 1. Forty Four percent of Americans said the Clinton scandals were important to their vote. Of these, Bush reeled in three out of every four."[15] "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton#Impeachment_by_the_House_of_Representatives


Sigh.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:24 PM on 04/10/2008
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in

 
 

Related Tags
 

 Site  Web ask.com