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

[mamacat]

Regarding a general's comment that he cannot answer a question larger than what his mission is: Of Course Not.
As a military man, Petraeus should be concentrating on doing the mission he accepted, implementing a troop increase in Bush's War.
Larger issues, such as whether we should be there or not, are not by rights his to make. We the people, through our elected leaders, should be deciding whether to be in Iraq or not. Since the President decided to ignore the will of the people as expressed in the results of the last election, what are our options?
If we had an honorable president, we would not be in Iraq.
If we had a parliamentary democracy, Bush would not be President, as the Republicans would not be able to survive a vote of no-confidence.
If the Democrats and Independents, united, had a larger majority, they could literally force the troops out of Iraq.
If, If, IF.....

[jimmyaj]

This over-rated, over-educated officer and gentleman admits he doesn't "Know" what everybody else does? He's either lying or he's just one more overpaid Bush incompetent. So much for honor in the military.

[Spookcatcher]

It is not the concern of or the job of General Petreaus to know whether America is safer or not. It is not his mission. He is just an over rated, overdecorated, overseer of the American Police State called Iraq. Just a high ranking MP. You could blindfold him and take hm back to the L A Riots, or the 1960's in the South, or Chicago Democratic Convention of 1968 and he wouldn't know any difference except the different style of clothing. He is in effect a Police Chief just doing his job for the Mayor's (Bush Administration) office and its that simple. We are not going to remove any substantial troops, ever. We are building and will maintain, forever, a "presence" in Iraq. We WILL get the oil and gas reserves and all the other benfits of jobs and construction contracts that go with it! It is Western Expansionism. Ask the American Indians Tribes, and the Forts built along the way in the overtaking of Our? Country. It is Hawaii, forcing our way to build a Naval Base (Pearl Harbor) Only its oil for profiteering, not sugar cane. Its Arab tribes, not Islanders. Its Middle-East hear we come. Its also a Gitmo (Cuba) in the Desert next door to Iran, and probably many more examples to come, in Africa , to stop the Chinese from getting its resources...

[epmahc]

You have to take into account that he was a general before the current administration, and my guess is he hopes he will still be a general after this administration is gone .
All the while the president and v.p. are sitting somewhere saying we got another fallguy. We can say it was all his fault.
Sorry general , I guess you will join the rest of your peers in retirement.

[Dap]

Dear Mr. Soltz,

That's why I support ya, your reasoning prowess is outstanding. Your essay/post is on target, an arrow splitter, if ya will. Doesn't get any better than that, a perfect mark.
Agape.

[Herrington]

Patraeus in offering a river, no a flood of calculated statements crafted to dismiss criticism of the Surge, tossed one nugget of truth up on the bank. “I don’t know”. He does know of course, but this caveat drew the line in the complicity of the professional military with the Bush administration. We’ll see if anyone is dumb or craven enough to cross it.

[RACaplan]

Patreus was being honest when he said he doesn't know if the Iraq war is making America safer. I didn't appreciate Sen. Graham trying to put words in his mouth later (after a couple of breaks) to get him to clarify (aka switch) his testimony on this point.

Patreus also testified that Bin Laden said Iraq was the central front on the war on terrorism. Query: If you are Bin Laden holed up in Pakistan where would you want the central front to be? In Iraq or just outside of your cave?

Bin Laden has played Bush like a fiddle.

[LizM]

...just a quick heads up for everyone...in case you may have missed it...

For an enlightening and compelling analysis of the General's admission today about whether or not America is safer, please check out the Hardball website and watch the Chris Matthews interview with Senator Biden on the Petraeus testimony.

[nbdave]

Personally, I thought the look on Patraeus' face when Warner asked whether his work in Iraq was keeping America safe was telling. Patraeus knows full well that his mission has nothing to do with keeping America safe, rather it is about keeping enough of a lid on the ground in Iraq that Bush can pass the problem along to the next president.

Although I knew that he would never betray his commander in chief, for a moment I thought that Patraeus might actually explain to the committee that the two issues are exclusive of each other.

[josieb]

I heard someone say today that Bush expects that the next president will be a Democrat so he wants to make the situation that he or she will inherit as nasty as possible. Warner's not running again so now he can just let 'er rip!

[patriot76]

Here's an excellent photograph of Bushboy practicing tomorrow night's speech to the nation: http://wwwthepartyofthewidestance.blogspot.com/

[LizM]

I think the President must have had "an apoplectic fit" when he heard General Petraeus say that. It was definitely an unscripted moment, to say the least, to hear the General describe his own tunnel vision regarding his mission in Iraq and his apparently complete detachment from the bigger picture...not exactly a confidence builder.

We have heard quite a lot, especially over the last two days, about 'disconnects' between the reality on the ground in Iraq and the picture being painted by the President and many others down the chain of command.

But, when it comes to disconnects, I guess this particular example takes the prize.

Oh, by the way and at the risk of harping, does VoteVets.org have a position on Senator Biden's Iraq strategy? Call me a broken record.

[MAGLATINA]

BECAUSE HE LET THOMAS GFET INTO THE SUPREME COURT, I WOULD NOT VOTE FOR BIDEN; BUT ON HIS ANSWER FOR IRAQ... I SUPPORT THE IDEA 100 %.

[Herrington]

Biden's Iraq strategy will not require the complicity of our government, it is already happening. Those Iraqis who are not following it are as deluded as the people who still support Bush.

[NABNYC]

You don't become a general without becoming very politically astute. Unfortunately it looks like Patreaus, like Powell before him, has interpreted his role as carefully and narrowly as possible in order to keep his own career. But at least Patraeus stopped short of reciting that we have to stop them there or they'll be in Beverly Hills.

It is not the role of the military to answer the question of whether we should have invaded Iraq to begin with, or whether we should leave now. The military is a technical group of people, trained in a specific field. Tell them the goal and they will accomplish it. Tell them to take Baghdad and they will. But they aren't equipped as an institution to make the decision that it is, or is not, a good idea to take Baghdad. That is supposed to be decided by the civilian government.

He answered as truthfully as he probably could. Given the "mission" from Bush, which apparently is to "hold" in Iraq, then keeping the troops there makes sense. Whether that mission makes sense is a different question. There are 300 million people here in the U.S., and it's really their job to speak up if they think that "mission" is stupid.

So don't blame him for answering a question as close to truth as he can be if he wants to keep his job and rank. But I think maybe his failure to recite Bush's mantra might be a small signal from him to Congress that he personally thinks that the U.S. should not be in Iraq, and "holding" will just lead to more deaths. He refused to adopt Warner's question and say yes, we are safer.

He might as well have taken the 5th, if we still had a constitution.

[krocklin]

jon - the fact that you are so frequently in the media is one sign of progress. you and paul and even some of the politicians are starting to erode the ignorance of the public.
still you are being smeared now. the attack machine is in full gear.
its still a battle.
its a good sign that the telling equivocation demonstrated by petreaus and crocker in response to a few questions posed by senators will make headlines.
i even felt sorry for petraeus at those moments because it displayed an unwillingness to be completely disengenuous on hs part.
ultimately hes just a military man. he doesnt make policy. for those who do to hide behind him is the real disgrace of course.
i wish they had asked him about the huge embassy being built in the green zone in bagdad and the megabases in the rest of the country.
this is the only way the public is going to be informed about the true situation. the mainstream media isnt going to do it.

[MrJoyboy]

Why does no one in Congress or the Media or the Administration tell us the real reason we've spent half a trillion dollars and bled our military dry to attack and occupy a desert country of 20 million people? No one wants to say that three-letter word, the "O" word--Oil. Then at least we'd know what we're fighting for.

[brutus948]

Exactly. The sooner we realize that this horse and pony show is all about oil, the sooner we'll wake up and impeach these guys. Its all about oil and who controls it people. Wake up!

[Yukon Jack]

OK, let's go on an impeaching crusade.

Let us not leave out the KKK wizard, Robert c. Byrd.

Let us not leave out the Chappaquidick life-saver, Ted Kennedy.

Let us not leave out the Ghengis Khan of anti-military phoney, John Kerry.

Let us not leave out the hypocrite who made his fortune on the misery of thousands, John Edwards.

Let us not leave out the woman who did not enough pride and self-respect to dump the crud who made her look like an idiot, because of her future ambitions, Hillary Clinton.

Let us not leave out the real estate magnate who made millions in shady deals on desert lands: Harry Reid.

Let us not leave out Barney Franks, who made his fame by being a lover of brown substances that almost everybody else would consider SHIT. Mind you, there is no crime in that.

I could go on, but what for??