Ambition and General Petraeus

The senators should address General Petraeus from a stance of respectful equality and distance. He is good at his work, but his profession differs fundamentally from theirs. He is a military officer. They are lawmakers. They have a civic obligation to compare all the available sources of evidence before imposing an additional tour of duty on a single American soldier.

There will be no surprise in the picture this president's general brings from the field. He will issue a mixed, but somewhat promising, report. He will offer the brightest prognosis he can summon while acknowledging the dismal facts. He will relate anecdotes of partial success that cries out for completion, and will speak of his determination to persist in a task made graver by the suffering he has witnessed.

David Petraeus has come far and fast from a combination of efficiency, intelligence, and charm. Essentially he is a general of the MacArthur not the Eisenhower type. Keen on publicity, and well-versed in its arts, he won the admiration of war reporters during the first years of the Iraq war, and emerged as one of the heroes of Thomas Ricks's mostly excellent and undeceived Fiasco. He owes his present job, in some part, to an op-ed he published before the 2004 election, in support of the president's conduct of the war.

He is using publicity cunningly now again to shade the advance coverage of his testimony--a "face to face interview" on August 31 in The Australian, and an e-mail interview today in the Boston Globe. General Petraeus is a careful talker whose judgments all forget one fact about the nature of military intervention in a faraway land. You are intruding on the people who live there. One can look with respect at the American soldiers in Iraq, and still ask with bewilderment: what are they doing there? The president's tactical supporters in the mainstream press and politics speak every day with growing assurance of the disastrous cost to Iraq of the American army leaving soon. And yet, every poll starting in 2005 shows that a majority of Iraqis want us to leave. Are Americans more reliably equipped than Iraqis to judge the consequences of our departure?

Given the decorum that tends to subdue all military criticism of the military, it is astounding how many officers have recorded some disagreement with the Bush-Petraeus escalation. The dissenters include generals Casey and Pace, and more recently Admiral Fallon and Retired General James Jones. Evidently, these officers, when they hear General Petraeus venture a wishful analogy between Iraq and Northern Ireland, have no trouble detecting the grossness of the fallacy. The worst day in Belfast might look toward some eventual improvement; after all, by 1970, Drogheda, Wexford, and Limerick were 300 years in the past. Whereas the tortures of Abu Ghraib and the demolition of Falluja are part of the living memory of every Iraqi over the age of seven. The British Army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, it may also be remembered, spoke the language of the country they were in.

Ambition is a peculiar thing. When you see the footage of General Petraeus striding with his army guard in Baghdad, sharing with reporters his familiar knowledge of the facts on the ground, ordering walls to be built and protection given for the right part of the populace and calling in air strikes to wipe out the wrong part--you are seeing a man in his element. He loves this command. It suits his life-preparation as nothing else could do; it rounds out, with practice, the theory he codified in his manual on guerrilla wars. But he is living a contradiction. His manual made it clear that a mission of this scope could never succeed without far more troops than the U.S. can hope to supply.

None of the contradictions matter to Petraeus. He cannot afford to let them matter. But a different sense of reality should prevail among the senators, even as they listen to him politely. And let them not for a moment forget who he is (since he himself will hardly forget). He is the man the president chose for the public to believe in, now that they have done believing in George W. Bush.

Comments

[Taan]

Tactically, the leading mistake the U.S. military has made in Iraq stems from its status of a liberating force becoming an army of occupation. All emphasis is now placed on what the U.S. wants and what it expects without acknowledging that any solutions must encompass what the Iraqis want and expect. Otherwise, you have the irresistible force meeting the immovable object. The same percentage of Americans who want to end this conflict now equals the number of Iraqis who want the U.S. to go now. Bush's democracy at gun point cannot work in this situation, especially in a theocratic politic which is incompatible with the American version of democracy. Bush is not intellectually capable with his myopic vision of grasping the many-sided aspects of this imbroglio. Not with the attitude of do it because I want it.

[Doofus]

In effect, the absence of a report says it all.

It was always understood, wasn't it, that the
point of *having* such a report was that it was
going to be 'totally positive' about progress
in the war effort, justifying all that GWB &
the gang have done on behalf of Iraq, etc.

Now there's no report at all. I guess we can
all 'read between the lines', so to speak.
NO REPORT mean NO PROGRESS.

Not so odd that the exception always proves the rule:
George Bush I & Dick Cheney 'Version 1.0' decide
that conquering Iraq & taking out Saddam Hussein,
even given a great opportunity to do so, SHOULD
NOT BE DONE. At the time, this was something of
a mystery, especially it seems, to George Bush the
Second & Dick Cheney 'Version 2.0'. Now we know
why, but at much cost to all concerned.

[KeysDan]

Any progress report, as required by Congressional action, should be a "Presidential" report that incorporates the facts and thinking of military, political and economic experts. General Petraeus and Iraqi Ambassador Crocker should not be preparing a my Pet-Crock report, but rather, this should be the "Kick-Ass" report from the decider, himself.

[Purcy]

Petraeus won't say anything that Bush doesn't tell him to say. He is only a mouthpiece and content to be one. Not his children he's sacrificing for the lies. I would have SO much respect for him if he stood up, told the truth, ripped off his medals and walked away...I wonder how they sleep at night???

[radlib1]

GENERAL "BETRAYUS"

General "Betrayus" not only lost track of 190,000 guns under his watch, he lost track of his ethical compass when he wrote that profoundly mistaken, pro-war, partisan op-ed in the Post in 2004 during an election year. He is indeed a "four star toadie" for the Bush Administration and he should be treated as such when he appears before Congress. He may be smart, but he's also a total "military puppet" who will do the bidding and mouth the mealy words of his political masters.

I spit upon his shoes. He can shine them to his heart's content.

Sincerely,
David Wyles

Never Cry Wolf: Krugman Calls Out Petraeus On 2004 Pre-Election Editorial Pumping Up Iraq

General David Petraeus is big news right now, the guy responsible for reporting on the progress of the surge " or, as some cynics might say, the guy responsible for selling the surge to Congress when he delivers his report next week. After greeting Bush in Iraq on Monday (and offering plenty of face time to the nets, including walkabouts with Katie Couric and Martha Raddatz), Petraeus is now back in D.C., readying to face Congress " and the critics. And "face" is a good word here " Petraeus has become the face of the surge, the man whose credibility has been built up as a patriot and non-partisan, who will deliver the straight, unvarnished truth. He's a four-star general, dammit, and if he says the surge is working, well, it's working.

General Petraeus's history also suggests that he is much more of a political, and indeed partisan, animal than his press would have you believe. In particular, six weeks before the 2004 presidential election, General Petraeus published an op-ed article in The Washington Post in which he claimed -- wrongly, of course -- that there had been "tangible progress" in Iraq, and that "momentum has gathered in recent months."

[glesslib]

A very important question is asked in this piece. Are we, whose country Iraq is not, better equipped to judge what is best for Iraq than its own citizens, who wish us to leave?

I believe that would be one succinct definition of a colonial mentality. Those brown-skinned, undereducated, unwashed silly people over there with that strange culture couldn't possibly know what their country needs more than the brilliant government of the United States that merely wants to extend the benefits of DEMOCRACY to them.

You don't think they really could, do you?

[OzDanJoaquin]

The keenly awaited, completely sold-out Crocker-Petraeus 'Urge to Surge' tour will kick off in D.C. on 9/11/07! While unlikely to contain ANY surprises, audiences are guaranteed to hear all of their favourites:
THIS CLOSE to Winning,
Only One Friedman Away,
We're Turning the Corner,
A Tragedy to Retreat Now,
Starting to Turn the Tide,
Victory is Within Our Grasp &
Light at the End of the Tunnel!

Support act O'Hanlon & Pollack say:
"The deja vu approach is a real crowd pleaser! Critics want to hear new material but, even with our set, we've always found it's the old favourites that work every time!"

[DCMike]

The Petraeus Report... a little juggling and a little soft shoe for the Democratic Congress to evaluate like the panel of American Idol. Some will applaud and some will give the thumbs down. Lots of tears and laughter and another really great show. Then he will get the 50 billion prize from the taxpayers. Need healthcare? Need your city rebuilt? Need an education? Stand in line and maybe you can be the next big winner. I personally thought that the November 2006 Election Report from We The People was a pretty convincing act for this Congress to consider. I guess the game really isn't called Democracy anymore.

[thorsty]

Mr.Bromwich,

In the interview of July 9, when Petraeus made the comparison with North Ireland, he also said that the struggle against the insurgency was a long-term endeavor, which COULD TAKE DECADES. You can read it here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6285156.stm . The BBC reported the money quote, but it seems to have been deliberately omitted by the American media.

In August, Representative Jan Schadowsky visited Iraq and Petraeus told that we will still be in Iraq nine or ten years from now. A progress report is meaningless without a time frame and when the general reports to Congress someone (Schakowsky?) needs to ask how much longer will the occupation go on. If so, will the general stick to his guns? And if he does, will the American media report it?

[radlib1]

REMEMBER KRUGMAN WHEN QUOTING PETRAEUS --

Krugman:

Gen. Petraeus has a history of making wildly overoptimistic assessments of progress that happen to be convenient for his political masters.

I"ve written before about the op-ed article Gen. Petraeus published six weeks before the 2004 election, claiming "tangible progress" in Iraq. Specifically, he declared that "Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt," that "Iraqi leaders are stepping forward" and that "there has been progress in the effort to enable Iraqis to shoulder more of the load for their own security." A year later, he declared that "there has been enormous progress with the Iraqi security forces."

But now two more years have passed, and the independent commission of retired military officers appointed by Congress to assess Iraqi security forces has recommended that the national police force, which is riddled with corruption and sectarian influence, be disbanded, while Iraqi military forces "will be unable to fulfill their essential security responsibilities independently over the next 12-18 months."

-Atrios

http://atrios.blogspot.com/

Can Petraeus be trusted to tell the truth to Congress and the American people now?

Ask yourself this. Can George W. Bush be trusted to tell the truth about anything? After over four years of war, this bozo is still talking about "kicking butt" in Iraq? After over 3,000 American lives and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilian lives are lost, this AWOL refugee from the Champagne Unit of the Texas Air National Guard is actually talking about "kicking butt?!" Give me a large f*cking break. This sad excuse for a wannabe cowboy is mouthing off like a real warrior and not the costumed codpiece that he is?!

(Remember too that Bush can offer his "new boy," this advanced model general-puppet, Petraeus, a fifth star and a Medal of Freedom. After all, it worked for George Tenet and Jerry Bremer, didn't it?)

Even Colin Powell has shut his mouth and his mind to the truth about Iraq.

You still have a choice. What's it going to be? Honor or political fellatio?

[radlib1]

What's going on with the moderators? I posted something about an hour ago and it was no more hate-spewn than others that have been printed? I admit that I do hate Giuiliani and Bush, et al, but I don't believe that I engaged in overly ad hominem attacks on them - Why are some of my comments getting through and published and others are not?

[radlib1]

Can Petraeus be trusted to tell the truth to Congress and the American people now?

Ask yourself this. Can George W. Bush be trusted to tell the truth about anything? After over four years of war, this bozo is still talking about "kicking butt" in Iraq? After over 3,000 American lives and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilian lives are lost, this AWOL refugee from the Champagne Unit of the Texas Air National Guard is actually talking about "kicking butt?!" Give me a large f*cking break. This sad excuse for a wannabe cowboy is mouthing off like a real warrior and not the costumed codpiece that he is?!

(Remember too that Bush can offer his "new boy," this advanced model general-puppet, Petraeus, a fifth star and a Medal of Freedom. After all, it worked for George Tenet and Jerry Bremer, didn't it?)

Even Colin Powell has shut his mouth and his mind to the truth about Iraq. Ask yourself. Good soldier or bureaucratic traitor to our country's honor?

You still have a choice. What's it going to be? Honor or political fellatio?

All I ask is that you don't swallow.

Thank you.

[mgloraine]

The comparison to MacArthur is apt, since Petraeus also has presidential ambitions (and a total disdain for civilians in general and Congress in particular).

The White House stopped Petraeus from submitting a written report in an attempt to prevent any revealing facts from appearing in writing. But they are too late, since the long awaited yet strangely absent Petraeus Report was not the only fact finding and analysis taking place in or about Iraq during the last six months.

Congress would be well advised to ignore whatever distraction and disinformation Petraeus brings along to the Dog'n'Pony, since it will be pure BS provided by White House staffers.

They should, instead, use one or more of the several recent analyses (like the GAO report) as the source for the relevant data. Make him answer questions about the real statistics and thoughtful analysis which will be absent from the material prepared for this publicity stunt.

[researcher]

they prefer to bend over it just feels better bent over.

remember the dems are the alphs dog bush's you know what.

please nancy go home and be a grandmother and quit trying to play speaker of the house.

put someone in there that has the guts to stand up to the warmongers.

[Steve Petrisky]

Democrats in Congress will just kiss the general's ass instead of making him own the war and signing his legacy onto this failed Crusade. Just once I wish the Dums would push back instead of bending over.