Reading The Pictures: General Love

I was wondering how long it was going to take before Frank Rich returned from "vanquishing Hillary land." His piece Saturday was spot-on, outlining the invisible disaster formerly known as the Iraq War. In light of his narrative, I find yesterday's NYT Week In Review story previewing General Petraeus's testimony to Congress this week simply mind-blowing.

Having enabled the ethnic cleansing of a country; pacified warring Sunni tribes through flat-out bribery (with no resulting structural change and no end in sight); and then having claimed credit for a (only fractionally successful) so-called surge leveraged on the back of al-Sadr's cease-fire, here was the NYT yesterday effectively promoting the General as a potential vice-presidential or even presidential candidate! (And not only that, but the article actually cites "loathsome buzz" from liberal bloggers as escalating the wave!)

In an admittedly brilliant accompanying slide show, the Times produces a series of photos of military rock-stars through modern U.S. history captured at their telegenic best. (The MacArthur shot is priceless, nailing the incestuous relationship between war biz and show biz.)

But it's this Petraeus shot, paired with the article, which concerns me. Like the other photos, it equates the camera's love with presidential worthiness. But what happened to the irony? On the threshold of a critical appearance before Congress, following the near Shiite meltdown of Babel two weeks ago, it's apparently 2003 all over again.

Setting the table for an accounting, I look at this grand entrance and all I see is fawning.

Tet Happened, and No One Cared (Frank Rich/NYT)
Generally Speaking (NYT Week In Review)
Political Generals (NYT slide show)
The Petraeus Insurgency (BAGnewsNotes)

(Jim Young/Reuters. Washington. September 2007. nytimes.com)

Follow Michael Shaw on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bagnewsnotes

Comments

[HippieChick]

I relate to your confusion, Mr. Shaw, and agree with your comment "I look at this grand entrance and all I see is fawning." The only rationale I can come up with is that, like the argument for sustained participation in Vietnam, the nature of the people in this nation continues to search for that warm-and-fuzzy feeling that "success" in WWII brought them. To experience it again we must have war...and people continue to search for their "heroes" within that context. Never mind that Vietnam was an extreme failure of our foreign policy; never mind that Iraq is an extreme failure of our foreign policy; the nation's ego is hanging on the only thing not bloody from this war...Petraeus. He still has his limbs, he is not obviously suffering from PTSD, he is not badly burned, and wears a uniform well. Petraeus is the "face" of our "adventure" in Iraq, and as long as he can stand upright, those who support this occupation of another nation will cling to him in desperation. Never mind that his true "job" is more marketing and public relations for war profiteers. For many, he is the only official "war hero" manufactured in this fiasco...thus the fascination from the media.

[PierreLeClerke]

This general is a disgrace to his fellow Paratroopers. Show courage Sir, and refuse to promote the propaganda show your decider and chief has ordered you to screen.
AS for the rag that has attempted to preview this man as an honorable actor in this tragedy, spare us the story, the truth beneath all of this is blood for oil, nothing more. and the wrath of GOD will fall on all that have traded so rich a gift as life for so base a treasure as black gold.

[SamThornton]

Not that it's important, but The Times misspelled Gen. Mathew Ridgway's name (The Times has it as "Ridgeway" where the correct spelling is "Ridgway"). I happen to know this because my mother is from the Ridgway family and my middle name is Ridgway.

It's this great attention to detail that makes everyone respect and accept without question the many otherwise suspect "facts" The Times puts out daily.

[Pieface]

Look, America was born in battle. We love our uniforms and our guns; hell, we still are transfixed by the Civil War, the Alamo and all things military.

So sit back and relax, we are only doing what we always do.

[CAPTAIND]

Americans love their war heros and leaders. It was a war that gave us America. Our first president was a general George Washington. However, there seems to be an anti-military current since Viet Nam and a downright jealousy of the men and women who risk their lives to serve their country. Let's take a lesson from George- he was the richest man in America at the time of the revolution he risked his fortune and his neck(he often said if I lose this war I will be hanged) he suffered at valley forge with his freezing troops, he melted down silverware from his home for some of this Country's first coinage. I am not sure if some of our current candidates for Commander in Chief would do anything similar-Obama wouldn'r even serve. As a veteran myself, I find it absolutely offensive that the most anti-military are those who never served

[Absintheforall]

I totally agree, CaptainD.

[PierreLeClerke]

Capt. This is not a Soldier, this is a salesmen.

[mouselion]

The fawning will pass. Petraeus is not presidential material. He is not brilliant, he is the right man for the right time (pun intended). His blandness shows through, even in the bright light of his moment. He'll be remembered in history as a "yes" man to a bumbling president for the war that should never have been.

[JohnFromCensornati]

Americans do love their wars.
It's no surprise that people are talking about this cretin as a presidential candidate.

[SamEllison]

I did appreciate the 'Ridgeway kicking the can down the road so Ike could end the Korean conflict'.
Surge = mission accomplished. Let the next POTUS clean up the mess.