iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Greg Mitchell

Greg Mitchell

Posted: April 8, 2008 03:53 PM

Petraeus in 2003: "Tell Me How This Ends" -- and He Still Doesn't Know


What will end up being the most famous quote of the Iraq war? Remember, Bush did not actually say "Mission Accomplished." Perhaps Cheney's "final throes" will win the prize. . But increasingly, as the significance of Gen. David Petraeus grows (seemingly by the minute), I have come to believe that it might up being his once-obscure 2003 remark: "Tell me how this ends." It was cited again today by Andrew Bacevich in his New York Times op-ed contribution.

Petraeus said that when he was a Major General directing the 101st Airborne during the U.S. invasion but it's clear that today he has no more of a clue to the answer than he did five years ago.

Who did he say the five words to? The lucky recipient was Rick Atkinson, the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for The Washington Post and military historian. It shows up in in Atkinson's book about the attack on Iraq, In the Company of Soldiers, which featured Maj. Gen. Petraeus as a key character. I recommend the book for its portrait of Petraeus as a media-friendly, but somewhat scary (in his focus and drive) character.

When I interviewed Atkinson about it (there's a chapter about it in my new book on Iraq and the media), he said he considered the Petraeus quote a "private joke" at the time, but it soon became the general's "mantra."

In the post-invasion epilogue for his book, Atkinson speaks frankly. Petraeus and his soldiers had performed well, taking relatively few casualties, and showing both restraint and courage in battle. But they "were better than the cause they served." It was "vital not to conflate the warriors with the war." The casus belli f or the war, that Iraq posed an imminent threat to America, "was inflated and perhaps fraudulent." And if "the war's predicate was phony, it cheapened the sacrifices of the dead and living alike."

So I asked Atkinson in 2004 whether he felt the book was somewhat hollow, documenting the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. Did he have mixed feelings about his own effort? "There's nothing mixed about it at all," he fired back. "I was against the war before, during, and after it. I have no mixed feelings about the hundreds of dead soldiers--it was a poor use of their lives. I was certain last March that we as a nation had not done all we could to make sure lives were not lost, but I'm dogmatic about it now."

As a scholar of World War II, with popular books on that to his credit, the lesson he draws is "that if you're going to fight a global war, whether it's against the Axis in the 1940s or against terrorism today, nothing is more vital than nurturing a powerful, righteous coalition." Failing to do this has placed a tragically unfair burden on our military. "They took down a country the size of California in three weeks," he pointed out, "but there was not much thought devoted to the question of what happens next. It's astonishing how little thought was given."

But what about the argument that leaving Iraq now would dishonor the soldiers who have died so far? "It's not George Bush's military," he replied, "but the country's as a whole, and the collective proprietorship means we collectively decide if it is used properly and the cause is worth their sacrifice--and whether that cause should be truncated or we stay there forever."

Greg Mitchell's new book is So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq.It includes a preface by Bruce Springsteen and a foreword by Joe Galloway, and has been hailed by our own Arianna, Bill Moyers, Glenn Greenwald and others.

 
 
  • Comments
  • 31
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
02:47 PM on 04/09/2008
There are two things America must learn from its recent history. First, it is too easy to start a war. Second, it is very difficult to end it. i would add that every protracted military engagement we have had since 1945 has endangered and weakened the country far more than any foreign threat or enemy might be able to do on its own. This is the true measure of our leadership and the despotism of ignorance that we seem to willingly tolerate at the risk of our own freedom. But the problem is not just our leaders. Having become immune to logic, empty of knowledge, and numb to catastrophe, the public is not only unable to stop mindless wars or end tragic mistakes, it is not inclined to try. The only options left are bumper sticker patriotism or wishful indifference. This is how it (America) ends.
11:56 AM on 04/09/2008
There are known knowns.
These are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns.
That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns.
There are things we don't know we don't know.

~~~

just can't top that one.

~~~

Rank / Country / Military budget
1. United States (2008) - $623bn
2. China (2004) - $65bn
3. Russia - $50bn
4. France (2005) - $45bn
5. United Kingdom - $42.8bn

http://mondediplo.com/2008/02/05military
photo
llozano
Live and let live...
11:30 AM on 04/09/2008
The war will end when George Bush tells him it will end. His only job right now is to keep the war and occupation going indefinitely until Bush can find it politically expedient to end it. This is a fabricated war made on lies and deceit. There was no end game planned because the end is a totally subjective decision to be made at a later date. What is certain from listening to these hearings is that Iran is the next target and the justification for going to war there is being laid without too much questioning by our members of congress. If this is left unchecked we will certainly be over there for the next 100 years as McCain put it.
12:02 PM on 04/09/2008
The occupation will end when the Iraqis sign on the dotted line giving away 80% of their oil revenue to US Big Oil.

In the mean time we'll continue slaughtering them until they see our way; we have killed more than Saddam already.

This invasion and occupation is akin to the Third Reich invading and occupying Poland to get access to the Polish iron ore. When are we, US citizens, going to see the light?

The analogy to WWII is valid only if it is used to describe us the aggresive country with no casus belli.
07:53 AM on 04/09/2008
Of all the disgusting, repulsive slogans this invasion has generated - and they are legion - by far the most hideous is "We fight them over there so we won't have to fight them here." Newsflash: IT'S OUR WAR! Over here is precisely where we should be fighting "them." If innocent children have to be maimed and butchered for no earthly reason - it should be our children, not Iraqi children. Because IT'S OUR WAR. All we did was force it on the Iraqis, so we could keep on shopping till we drop. In truth, no people on earth should ever be allowed to have a war unless it's fought on their own soil, in their own back yards, with their own families being blown to bits. I suspect that might reduce the glamour and romance of war.
03:03 AM on 04/09/2008
GOPERS are like that last guy at a party who just wont leave
Mission accomplished was five years ago-Saddams dead
WHY THE F ARE WE STILL IN IRAQ
02:32 AM on 04/09/2008
This is how it ends.

If Sadr wins the election in October he will ask us to leave.

We will leave and the Iraqis will work it out with help from Iran.

Can you imagine Bush and McCain explaining Prim Minister Al Sadr before the Nov. elections.

Get your popcorn ready.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
LeftLeanWing
Ah.. I said..Ah Said I said... Proceed Guv'nah
03:05 AM on 04/09/2008
The CheneyBush will do everything in its power to prevent Sadr from becoming the PM. Where do you think they are taking all of those rejected Diebold machines ?
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
GnitenGoodLk
01:18 AM on 04/09/2008
Our goals were never to free Iraqis, our goals were to incite the mullahs in the Middle East so we could bomb them into oblivion, particularly Iran, which is progressing as planned. The fragile situation will be allowed (incited?) to blow when the rest of the world stops blocking us from leveling Iran.

The surge is working lovely, it bought time for the "political reconciliation" we need to get permission from the worlds governments to let us proceed without return fire coming our way, and Congress did just fine in playing their parts as "concerned overseers of the public interest" Complete farce.

Bring the troops home, forget the theater. If we can't stop this, at least get our men and women home before it happens.

BRING THEM HOME NOW
01:11 AM on 04/09/2008
"Tell me how this ends."

It ends with "regime change" in America, followed by a massive effort to green and diversify our energy consumption.
01:09 AM on 04/09/2008
My dad was a career Army officer and I am glad he did not live to see this: a military man given the job of enabling an OCCUPATION (please, not a WAR). Read some history: occupations always end. Patreaus agreed today to enable a 'kick the can' strategy, all stall. Each senator should have asked just one question: "How many dead TODAY, sir?" I wonder how many more dead (Iraqis too, sir) before we are forced to leave (which all of those senators know we will be forced to do). In Vietnam it was 20,000 (u.s.), and we will never have a count of dead Vietnamese.
12:17 PM on 04/09/2008
Indeed.

When will the msm stop calling this a "war" and starts calling it what it is: an OCCUPATION ?

How many more Iraqis do we have to slaughter? How many American GIs will have to die before this occupation is over?
12:50 AM on 04/09/2008
Typical surrender monkey discourse. The idea that the people decide is exactly right. The question is why won't the surrender monkeys accept the verdict? President Bush was re-elected. Why doesn't congress support the will of the people? And if they think the will of the people is to stop the war, why do they continue to fund it? Now in 2008, the people will again vote and their choice is clear. Support those who would cut and run or those who stays the course. That's how a Democracy works.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:59 AM on 04/09/2008
Good points.

The people elected the Republicans, and the Republicans are destroying the best military ever created.

Maybe that will change in November. Its obvious that Congress has abdicated its war-making powers and has ignored its responsibility to the military.

Pathetic.
01:42 AM on 04/09/2008
How soon we forget. Reporter to DIck Cheney, "Over 70 percent of the American public is against the war now."

Dick Cheney to reporter, "So?"

81 percent of Americans think the country is heading in the wrong direction.

Your answer? "So?"

The people don't decide. That is fantasy. The people didn't reelect (or elect for that matter) Bush. Congress doesn't support the will of the people, but not in the way you mean. The people want out, but Congress doesn't support cutting off funding. They and the executive branch get too much money from the war to stop it.

If Hillary is the Democratic nominee there will be no choice between getting out or staying. She and McCain are the same on the war. Obama, not so much but he's now saying we'll have to stay just a wee bit longer -- you know the "extra six months" that Petraeus and Bush are always asking for.

And please, lose the "cut and run". Nobody's talking about that. Except Fox news.
12:01 AM on 04/09/2008
Call me paranoid but this guy struck me more as the Pentagon's Ambassador than somebody who reports to Constitutional government.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Steamboater
Forget hope. Agitate.
11:37 PM on 04/08/2008
Petreaus responded the same way today when asked about if the war was planned well etc and he fudged it. Someone should have asked him why he didn't know or give a direct answer because this war has been going on for yeras. Doesn't he have a clue? Not.The questions were much harder the last time, which scares me because it says that the Iraq war is here to stay. We've lost the war and Bush has won.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RogerHWerner
11:27 PM on 04/08/2008
In a sense, David Petraeus is something of a tragic figure in the same way that Maxwell Taylor was tragic. I'm not defending either man since they are/were capable and intelligent men. Both men however permitted themselves to be guided by a philosophy of leadership that can perhaps be summed up by Taylors creed that a military leaders should not just support the President's decisions but also be a true believer in them (h eas referring to the Chirman of the JCS). Both men used statistics (and a degree of deception) to support their ideas and both men claimed victory was possible in an impossible situation. Taylor essentially cut the JCS out of the decision making equation and Bush has cut out anyone but Petraeus. Taylor was proven wrong and ended his life defending his Vietnam war thinking. I suspect Petraeus will end up much the same way as Taylor and will write a memoir that seeks to preserve a prior legacy of bravery and excellent service. The big difference is that Petraeus may get a call to serve on various corporate boards, right wing think tanks, or a lobbying firm while Taylor had to make due with his military retirement since those weren't common options in the 1970s.
12:13 PM on 04/09/2008
This is not a war... it is an OCCUPATION.

You don't win an occupation, what is there to win???
10:28 PM on 04/08/2008
Excellent post. The best way to 'support the troups' is to stop wasting
their lives and limbs on a tragic mistake.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
glorysong
Talk a good talk.
10:22 PM on 04/08/2008
I have a Grandson over there in Iraq and I pray he make it back home and every other Man and Woman that is over there. It is time to end this War. Bring everybody back home.