Petraeus Admits "I Don't Know" If White House Plan on Iraq Makes America Safer

General Petraeus today made a stunning admission, conceding "I don't know" if the course of action recommended in Iraq makes America safer:

WARNER: I hope in the recesses of your heart that you know that strategy will continue the casualties, stress on our forces, stress on military families, stress on all Americans. Are you able to say at this time, if we continue what you have laid before the Congress, this strategy, that if you continue, you are making America safer?

PETRAEUS: Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objections in Iraq.

WARNER: Does that make America safer?

PETRAEUS: Sir, I don't know actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind. What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multinational Force in Iraq.

This exchange verifies the argument VoteVets.org has been making, that General Petraeus' job is not to take those things into account, and therefore the President is hiding behind General Petraeus.

Let me explain.

General Petraeus was given an order -- find a military solution for Iraq where there is none, and without concern for troop overextension or the larger war on terror. General Petraeus followed his orders, giving the president what he wanted to hear, and now the president will hide behind that to justify his failure as a commander in chief.

General Petraeus has a very limited area of concern -- the US military in Iraq -- and his testimony today reflected that.

When one looks at the grander scale, past just the military in Iraq, the picture is dismal, and becoming a critical danger. From the Government Accountability Office report to Congressional Research Service report to the report by General Jones, it is clear that there has been no political reconciliation overall in Iraq or increased security, despite our military's strongest efforts.

From Admiral Fallon to Admiral Mullen, those above General Petraeus in the chain of command are telling the president that this war is hurting our military and our global security. The president has chosen to ignore all of this, in favor of a report based on a false premise with faulty findings, signed by a General with a very limited scope of concern. Call it denial, or call it stubbornness, or whatever you want; it all boils down to the same thing -- this president still refuses to listen to those he needs to listen to, in favor of those who tell him what he wants to hear.

Unwittingly, General Petraeus just confirmed all of that in the exchange above, today.

Update: Today VoteVets.org launches this new internet ad capturing that moment and making the argument above.

Follow Jon Soltz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jonsoltz

Comments

[twocrows]

Being a student of history definitely has its downside:

Sparta built up a huge military presence. So long as it concentrated on sabre rattling it was perceived as unbeatable-- and it thrived. It was finally seduced into actually fighting a major war. It lost and Athens took over Attica.

Athens overreached in the Syracuse wars and Rome filled the void it left behind.

Rome never met a war it didn't like, eventually overstretched its troops, and the Franks, the Vandals and the Gauls et al. took over.

Who will fill the void we leave in our wake?

[OtayPanky]

I'm wondering if Gen. David Petraeus' "I DON'T KNOW" response to Sen. John Warner will be the kind of transformational moment here that Joseph Welch's moment was in the Army-McCarthy hearings.

Will this be the moment when many of the fence sitters in Congress - on both sides of the aisle - decide they can finally climb down off the fence and get on the right side of this debacle?

I hope so.

[KittyHegemann]

So some of you think the General told the truth. Then why did the Senate not swear in either the General or Crocker?

[glitz]

Gen. Petraeus is really good at his job. His job is to secure Iraq...not to make America secure. The logic of the press, the Congress, and the Senate is flawed if they think that the General will give his analysis of the future. His strategy is designed to complete his assignment no matter what it takes or for how long.

I get so frustrated watching all of this!! Why don't our representatives ever ask the right questions...instead of giving speeches. Now the administration is bored with Iraq and our whole future depends on controlling the bad guys in Iran. How is a soldier trained to tell the difference between an Iraqi, al Qaeda, an Iranian? Are "the insurgents" classified by how they shoot, who they are shooting, or what they are shooting with?? Having a weapon from Iran is a little like my husband having Russian weapons from Viet Nam...because he has a Russian weapon is he Russian? If an Iraqi wants to buy a weapon to protect his home..who does he buy it from?? It's not like there are "gun shows" going on. Or is Iraq not so "Democratic" that civilians do not have weapons to protect themselves from all of the factions waiting to kick down their doors??

The American public would love to think that everything America does is wonderful. We (the collective public) choose to forget that our soldiers are loosing their lives in order to accomplish in Iraq what we are gradually loosing in America..our freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, our natural ability to live life without fear, confidence in our Government, a secure infrastructure, belief that our children's lives will be better than our own, and on and on and on.

In order to create a little America in the Middle East this administration is willing to permanently build bases, build the largest Embassy in the world to the tune of billions, and keep our troops there forever...the question that needs to be asked the American public is do we really want to own Iraq at all costs??

[AFCOL]

Reasonable post, Gliz. I agree...Patraeus is doing a good job. Earlier today, I heard all the good words that both Democrats and Republicans had for him during his confirmation just a few short months ago. Hard to believe it is the same guy and that so many were such poor judges of character. But in politics, when one party doesn't hear what they want to hear, those good words turn to venom. Republicans do it and Democrats do it. Both rely on their respective constituency to do the sheeply thing and follow the party line. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happens in both parties. There is little real independent thought, just us and them, black and white. Baaaa........

[gardengoddess]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if someone in theis administration told the American taxpayers - the ones footing the bill for this fiasco - just what the U.S. objectives are in Iraq?

Wouldn't it be refreshing if someone in this administration told the American taxpayers - the ones footing the bill for this fiasco - just what "winning" in Iraq is?

Wouldn't it be courageous if someone in this administration admitted to the American taxpayers - the ones footing the bill for this fiasco - they made a huge mistake?

[ajax2]

General Petraeus, I can help you there. From day one till the present qualified mid east experts have stated over and over that the attack on Iraq will make us less safe. General pick up a book.

[TexasDem0]

If he doesn’t know, he’s not qualified for the job. I suspect he does know, but chose to lie about it. He’s a poor excuse for a general. By betraying our military to provide cover for BushCo, he has shown he isn’t worthy to wear the uniform.

[hawkeye58]

PETRAEUS: Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our "objections" in Iraq.

Was this a typo, or a Fruedian slip??

[RabbiOmar]

Meanwhile, nuclear Pakistan is in a crisis and the heavy-handed Bush regime's actions (see U.N. Ambassador Negroponte's comments of today) are making it increasingly likely of having a hostile government take over nuclear Pakistan. I don't know what is worse--the Bush regime's arrogance, corruption or incompetence

[pk1919]

Petraeus is an active general and the Idiot in Chief; the general is NOT going to say anything that might displease his boss. If he does, every idiot out there knows that the general will no longer be needed by IiC. No active officer will say a negative word; their careers and retirement depend on it. Whatever they say has to please their boss, or they will be put out to pasture like the many W has already cast aside. No matter what anyone says, Iraq was a stable nation with NO help from us; W wanted Saddam gone and he always gets his way. Saddam did NOT attack us and if it were the reverse, I might understand the logic, but given the invasion because we did not like his politics, bad as we might think them to be, we did NOT have the right to attack them. W has killed many young people in His war, not our country's. Sometimes we just need to mind our own business. The mindset of the citizens of all the Middle East is not the same as ours. Bu$h should be held accountable, as well as Cheney, in the World Court. I guarantee they would not embrace the total idiocy of preemptively striking Iraq. I pray for the soldies; they just have to do the job the Chief Idiot sends them to. I am embarrassed to ask God to bless our country; we let power and money rule everything we do. All the rich Christians better remember that "It is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven, than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle." Our country is dead wrong in this war, we need to admit it, get out, and take care of our country, especially considering the lunatics in DC.

[Taan]

The world's mightiest military force has spent five years fighting in a country smaller than Texas with approximately the same population. What is amiss in this picture? What in God's name will we do if and when we have to fight a real battle, says, China, for example? Take oil out of the equation and the current Iraq fiasco would come to an end for U.S. military participation.

[lexdee]

Look at that quote again. Did the general say "objections" or "objectives"? A typo or a slip of the lip?

[didereaux]

As for Petraeus, there is an explanation for his Iraq Plan. It is adopted from a former Generals plan. To findout who the general was, what his plan was, and who tipped Petraeus to it. just go to this link:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1428/1357450161_724f18dfed_o.jpg

All seems perfectly clear now, doesn't it? heh

more can be found at this link as well:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/12461951@N03/
(use the whole line with the @ and all following)

enjoy ;)

[JHD]

It was a rather revealing moment into the thought process of a general. Winning is everything in a war from a generals viewpoint. He never even thought about whether he is fighting a cause in the interests of the American people much less if the cause is morally correct! It was by far the most important statement made by General Patraeus in the hearings. Everything he suggests under his plan should be considered under that light.

[Kendo Nagasaki]

General Petraeus takes his orders from the Commander in Chief. He can either obey the orders or resign, but then another general would take his place. Interestingly when lower ranks try to resign they are subjected to stop loss.

I congratulate Petraeus on his forthright answer
" I don't know"

Bush must be really pissed off.