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

[Jonahson]

General Petraeus is a soldier and like all good soldiers they are trained to take orders. Now Bush has given an order to him to turn things around in Iraq. Like a well trained soldier in the technicality of warfare he does what he knows best and that is the use of force or (more force) to win. If he has his way I am sure he will request for another 200,000 troops or so to complete his mission. Unfortunately the manpower is not available to him as the US forces have been stretched to the limits.
Like all soldiers they are short sighted when it comes to running the country he is fighting in or the political process to bring lasting peace without using might. The most important job for Iraq to remain as Iraq and ensure lasting peace, falls to the Guy who send him there. Bush.
If after five years of occupation there is no clue as to what need to be done then isn't it time to consider other options? Such as orderly withdrawal? Get an interim coalition force of Islamic countries to take over as peacekeepers. US must not get involved otherwise things will never workout. Forget about forcing democracy on to them. Let the Iraq people decide on what they want whether it is an Islamic Republic or otherwise. Perhaps
we may have to wait for the next president to do that or maybe not.

[FirstShirt]

Good points. Soldiers are taught to accomplish the mission with the resources they are given.

An old Army saying: I have been doing so much for so long with so little that now I can do anything with nothing.

[JackMonroe]

Well, I suspect that from General Petraeus' point of view, making America safer from Iraq hasn't exactly been foremost on his mind. The general's a smart guy, got himself a PHd from Princeton. His job has been to accomplish the impossible with what everyone knows is a half-assed strategy known as "The Surge." Maybe the only person in the world who actually believes in it is the president. And, well, he's that kind of guy. (The Surge is a strategy I've been applying at home on my kids for years. A crowd control sort of thing. You wrestle some kids to the ground and hold them there and you don't have any problems for a while, at least until the other kids turn on you and you have to Surge on them. It works so long as you've got a chair and a whip and the kids in the corner. But, let me tell you, if you've got somehweres to go, like the place down the street for a cold one, then all hell breaks loose. And that's the surge for you.

How someone like Warner wondering if the Surge is going to keep America safer or not, well, he might as well resign. Because - I don't know if President Bush knows this or not - Osama bin Laden is still making videos. And he's getting more attention than Brittney Spears. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't bin Laden the guy we should be worrying about?

[MAGLATINA]

GREAT POST!

[kristin]

This comparison of facial features is VERY convincing
that the current tape is not Osama Bin Laden.

Osama bin Laden - The Latest Fake
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osama_newfake.html

[nippersdad]

Loved the kids/circus metaphor!

[FirstShirt]

Excellent post.

[Dansden]

The Commander-In-Chief's Chief Apologist, Petraeus, doesn't even know what Americans are dying for in Iraq!
Welcome to the Democratic Party and most Americans who are polled about why we are in Iraq!

The 'Shadow knows'! The 'Shadowy Dearth Cheney, et al knows', just ask Halliburton CEO's...oops, their in Dubai and can't be compelled to tell the truth of why our soldiers are dying...

Ask The 'Shadowy Alberto Gonzo'...oops, he's bragging about havin better days than his daddy did in Lil Bush's private war....

Perhaps the 'Shadowy John McBushClanmister' knows because he is so dead set on seeing more dead American soldiers that he just loves this war...(wonder what Lil georgie has promised him to be 'a good soldier'....

[kellygrrrl]

I cannot imagine how the parents and spouses of military personnel must feel when they hear this.
If we're not making America safer, why the f^ck are we there?
And exactly what "mission" was it we "accomplished"?
I wonder if the men and women serving in Iraq will get to hear their General say they might be giving their lives and limbs for no apparent reason ...
... oh, that's right, it's all about the oil.

[Amhet]

The duty of military members are to fulfill and complete the orders given them by their superiors.

I would seriously doubt that his orders include would analysis of the cause and effect of military efforts in Iraq as they would apply to the safety and security of America.

The General is not an Analyst. It is NOT his job to decide if we are safer here. His job, and he knows its working, is that our military members are safer THERE and they are accomplishing the mission. Do you need proof? Anbar Province this time last year was having 700+ bombings per month. Last month there were less than 80.

"I wonder if the men and women serving in Iraq will get to hear their General say they might be giving their lives and limbs for no apparent reason ..."

-- Kelly, I have been to Iraq. I have fought in 3 different conflicts and worked for 4 different presidents. I have listened to commentators from the right and the left. I have done my duty without question. I saw the writing on the wall when Clinton downsized the military with the "Peace Dividend" and knew we would be stretched because of it. Todays military knows full-well what is being said from the MSM, Capitol Hill, Blogs, and the Defeat-at-any-price crowd. The military does NOT want this to be another Viet Nam. The military does NOT want to be pulled out on the eve of victory.

You dont care where the troops are or what they're doing. You dont care that we are still in Japan, Korea, Germany, and Kuwait. You dont care whether they are dying in combat or training accidents. All you care about is how Bush can be blamed. This report is from the man on the ground commanding operations and you call this Bushs report. You call Petraeus the Chief Apologist, You're people call him Betray Us!

Kelly, If you want to do anything for the troops in Iraq, pray they come home safely.

[marinemomof3]

I watched all of the hearing today (missed the first half hour this morning....gee it was 7am here....)

I think Senator Warner's question was the best of the whole day....

The answer speaks volumns to those chickenhawks that are for being involved in a CIVIL WAR!

WE ARE NOT SAFER

See you in DC on Saturday Jon!!

[akoop]

How can you expect General Petraeus to know whether terrorists are advancing on a global scale. How do expect the guy who's in charge of combat operations in Iraq to know whether U.S. military forces around the world are prepared for an engagement from some other entity.

Focusing on General Petraeus to answer American foreign policy questions or global military operations is absurd.

And asking HIM if HIS plan in Iraq is effective is like asking an artist to critique his own work. What answer would you expect?

[nippersdad]

Artists throw out a lot more canvases than they keep and an artist is always his own worst critic.

Petraeus does not work in a vacuum and should be fully aware that his operation cannot not be allowed to deal a death blow to the larger organism.

[MissFortunate]

But isn't the whole point of this mission to make us safer here? And if you don't know, General Petraeus, if this is the case, doesn't it make you question the motives of your Commander-in-Chief?

I expect an "I don't know" from my four year old, but not from General Petraeus, the man Bush has put so much stock in for his report.

[kilnwmn]

Military is trained to say only 3 things: Yes, Sir! No, Sir! No excuse, Sir!....where do any of those imply a criticial thinking process????

[CaseyBabes]

Obviously, that's three things more than you know. So the military lacks a critical thinking process.......like piloting a fighter, or any plane......commanding a tank, or driving it.........leading men and women.....managing a billion dollar base, camp, naval facility......
I could go on, but judging you by your words you were disadvantagedly behind at "obviously."

[kellygrrrl]

MissFortune, something tells me your 4 y/o would be more forthcoming, honest and informative than this.

[AFCOL]

Let's be honest. You wanted to hear the General say "no". Any other answer was unacceptable to you because it didn't support your belief. I predict you'd be even more outraged if he had said yes. There are no open minds on this issue, Republican or Democrat.

[MissFortunate]

No, the point is, we've been sold a phony product here. Fight over there so they don't get us here. They can't say that it's helped, there is no way to tell. We've been lied to.

[kellygrrrl]

AFCOL - there is something almost heartbreaking about the fact that they can't even come up with some form of spin so as to give an intelligent answer, whether it aligns with my beliefs or not. The answer "I don't know" felt like "F^ck you" at least to me, and I imagine to many who have loved ones over there.

[Giglawyer]

But that's not the point of Petraeus' mission. He is there, in Iraq, to do what he has been ordered to do. It may be imposible, but he is trying.

They often have suicide missions in war. Dolittle's flight, for example. Petraues is a soldier who has answered the call of his Commander-in-Cheif and the COngress that approved him. His job is to acheive some sort of stability over there so we can pull out. God help him, becuase he is going to need it to get that accomplished.

[LoriAnn]

This is sort of off point but did anyone else see his testimony when someone asked him about being pulled into another theatre (Iran)and Petraeus said something about contacting his attorney if that happened. Maybe I misunderstood but I didnt understand his reply....

[Mike O.]

And you have all answers for all things at all times?

Perhaps we should elect you as POTUS. NOT.

[nippersdad]

Deflection and obfuscation. Miss Fortune is not running for President. She is asking why Georges' hand picked General does not know whether his plan will work or not.

I, personally, think that Admiral Fallon's views would be more illustrative of this point and eagerly await his report.

[eljay]

...Ah yes, the old "I'm only following orders" chestnut. Well..it worked for the Nazis at Nuremberg.

[FirstShirt]

To compare our military to Nazis is not only simple minded but disgusting.

[WolfLarsen]

Would you suggest that soldiers not follow orders?

[fetchezlavache]

An excellent post! Yes, that coward Bush is hiding behind his general, which is a pretty lousy position for a "Commander-in-Chief".

[WolfLarsen]

Give Petraeus credit for one thing he is no partisan and when he was given his Westmoreland opportunity to jump on the political bandwagon he declined. He is defending the indefensible and soldering on. Not a choice assignment, but and assignment none the less. He knows the military is broken but it is not his call to withdraw troops. His only job is to follow orders and to try and achieve his objectives. Blame the leader not the messenger.

[dshwa]

Except that the administration is using the messenger to justify the message.

[Binx101]

Precisely. Just because he's not stupid and could figure out what we did about Westmoreland - doens't mean he's not partisan. In fact - his elite messenger status and his willingness to do this practical book tour to validate his manual is not very altruistic.

Blindly following orders is not what they mean in chain of command rhetoric - and in this case he created the orders !!

With all due respect ... I think if you do a modicum of research you'll learn that Patraeus is in fact a Republican / Heritage / Enterprise partisan; although, your willingness to support him on merit is very admirable and unselfish.

[WolfLarsen]

He follows orders. He does not make policy. I would love to see him give the unvarnished truth but that will not happen in front of Congress and the American people. Those comments will be delivered through channels and behind closed doors. The chain of command is the burden these men live under. The military thrives on secrecy and propaganda. You have a gutless policy maker hiding behind a man who will sacrifice himself for the objective. If you are looking for the truth you will not get it from the military and you will seldom get it from the government. Thank God for a free press. Without it we would be not much different than a totalitarian police state.

Bush has shifted the blame to Petraeus for a policy the general is not responsible for. He takes orders. Bush makes policy. One is following orders the other is hold the sword for him to fall on.

[HalDonahue]

Jon great point. Now we need to stress that this is exactly what the General is saying. He refused to address the overall picture because it is not his charge. Congress should now ask for reports all the way up the chain with hard questions

[PADDYWHACK]

I was shocked by this exchange,and I think it shows that Petraeus has enough brains to be honest.His remit is Iraq and he has made no attempt to link our safety to this disaster.I hope this is seen as the earthquake that it is and not buried and diminished by the MSM as usual.Bush will never consider diplomacy.We should never elect another POTUS from Texas,they're just small time horse traders,lost on the world stage LBJ DID THE SAME THING ,LIED TO GET US INTO AN ILLEGAL WAR.The nation is put at risk by these strutting fools.

[jcc173]

LBJ and GWB must be something in that Texas water...

[Binx101]

Ah ... hey wait sec ... GWB started in Connecticut didn't he ?? Oh now I see the whole Lieberman connection more clearly - it's the water. Sorry - couldn't resist a chuckle.

[WmC]

You mean we might end up fighting them over here, even after fighting them over there, and even after "successfully" surging against them over there?

Damn!

[aleco]

We should get our troops out of the way and let the Iraqis fight each other. To use a slight variation of Bush's moronic logic: If they're fighting each other, they won't be fighting us.

[Henry]

Little Geo talks about getting the job done and the Surgin General talks about meeting the objectives. Is this the same as winning the war? Does this mean that we will defeat the enemy? Cover references to obfuscate, tolerated by the press and the senate.

[Binx101]

Isn’t it amazing after 2 days of constitutionally required accountability and oversight, General Petraeus actually told the truth??

The fact is this is a military man, not a diplomat. No wars – no work. It’s about accomplishing objectives. He’s not the State department. He’s doesn’t have world leadership collateral. He’s trained in combat tactics and practical and theoretical war strategies. He’s also quite bright and accomplished academically. However, that doesn’t mean he didn’t drink the Cool-Aid. That also doesn’t t mean he wasn’t completely wrong in gambling American lives with our President. Moreover, that doesn’t mean we have to accept or like of them. In fact, I’m very much in favor of firing them.

The traditional press and the TV clowns will also get this wrong– but Warner’s question could only be answered in the positive by a Bush administration paid liar. Petraeus is clearly not that. What he has volunteered for though is no less troubling. He’s now volunteered, or so far, to be a Bush administration appeaser. I’m sure it will get him a great position post retirement, so he can make the real dough – but for now – he’s not going to be revered because of his politics, which places him in support of Bush’s policies. He will remain suspect in everything he says – because of what he’s said before as well as what he’s said now.

Despite all the drooling military experts in little windows all over our TV screen, confirming Bush’s claim of Petraeus’ unprecedented genius; in the real world, he’s being viewed as little more than a Bush pawn – and there was no way for him to win hearts and minds – because his plan is not working. There are no long-term plans, that aren’t centered on decades-old oil cartel plans – and our civilian leadership has been as dysfunctional as the military leadership.

General Petraeus wanted to fight. Well he has two now – and one is with the bulk of the American people of whom he is employed.

[CaseyBabes]

You start by accurately describing the general's present circumstances as a soldier, then you diminish your overall argument by attacking his future prospects.....shoulda stuck with the present. And a KoolAid drinker? This (?)describes a man's man who begins with "this is MY testimony"......(Excuse me while I wipe the drool off my chin.)
You obviously have not watched the general's report which clearly reflects a positive work in progress, but then again, no progress will be accepted by any with an agenda. An example (of many), the three-word "I don't know" honest response to an unnecessary, innocuous question has been deflected to attack the president by those with the agenda. Another? The president has cited General Patraeous for his experience, not genius, as is his normal way for others.
Perhaps the most outrageous canard foisted the president's way is this "war for oil" claim. We are supposed to believe that men with oil backgrounds would send our youth to die to gain oil riches is beyond comprehension. It reveals the extent of this nation's left's lust for power, pervasive, indicative of the rot within the democrat party.
Binx, you are a gifted person of words. Unfortunate there's nothing I can say for you to recognize this nation, and those nations similar to ours in freedom, face the worst danger ever encountered in the world......a very powerful, mad ideaology divining in death.