Bob's Second Point

Bob's second point provides a lead-in to what I was planning to write today, which is to note that General Petraeus is not going to give a report that differs measurably from the one desired by his commander in chief. Time has a cover story on it this morning with a related Joe Klein column.

The whole build-up to the general's report reminds me of an NPR debate I did during the 2004 election when someone from a conservative foreign policy research institute argued that because Tommy Franks denied the fact that moving troops and intelligence agents out of Afghanistan and into Iraq had nothing to do with the failure of our efforts to capture bin Laden and defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Now, Tommy Franks was officially on the Bush campaign team at the time. And yet this fellow thought that because a military man made this case, that was all there was to it.

Of course, we've now had it confirmed by any number of intelligence agencies that Bush completely screwed up the real war in Afghanistan in order to fight his fantasy in Iraq, with catastrophic results for everyone concerned. Franks was simply doing his job, the truth be damned. Why all of a sudden everyone thinks Petraeus is going to play Diogenes no matter what the cost to himself, his future, and the institution he represents is understandable. Much of our media coverage of the president and his war is mere kabuki exercise. But what we've learned to our chagrin in this war is that generals do not speak the truth in public until they're ex-generals, and even then, they tend to do so softly.

Read the whole Altercation here.

Comments

[Boomerwoman]

I'm curious about how talking "truth to power" is handled at West Point. Anybody know?