Here's something Americans looking to end the Iraq war could learn from military strategists: You can lose a battle before it starts, when you decide where and how to engage. Take yesterday's testimony from Gen. Petraeus. Congressional leaders looking for a way out of the quagmire stumbled before they even began. They haven't asked one simple question:
Where is Gen. Petraeus' boss?
Admiral William J. Fallon is the head of CENTCOM, responsible not only for Iraq but for all our current and potential military activity in the region. It's well known in Washington circles that Admiral Fallon has a far more realistic view of the war, considers the "Surge" a failure (as do most security experts), and wants to substantially draw down our troop presence in Iraq.
The administration knows that the press and public want to put a "face" to every effort, however. They knew that media coverage and political attention would become fixed on Gen. Petraeus, whose views on the war are similar to their own. Democratic war opponents haplessly played along, investing Gen. Petraeus with a stature and authority that neither history nor rank suggests he should hold.
As for Gen. Petraeus himself, Paul Rieckhoff is right: Personal attacks by MoveOn.org and others are out of line. What's more, they're tactically foolish. However negative, these attacks play into the administration's strategy of personalizing the war around the identity of Petraeus himself.
While we all agree that "war is too important to be left to the generals," in this case it should be left to the military community itself to render judgment on Gen. Petraeus. (Even MoveOn's "Gen. Betray Us" sobriquet was first used by a retired general - but this kind of name-calling should be beneath an organized group of war critics.)
Col. Jeffrey McMaster wrote a Ph.D. thesis called "Dereliction of Duty" about the unwillingness of military leaders to tell truth to power during the Vietnam War, and how military disaster resulted from the actions of overly ambitious officers. Before it was released in book form it was xeroxed and passed from hand to hand among young officers, in a kind of military samizdat. Once it was published, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Hugh Shelton distributed it to his senior officers and brought McMaster in to address them.
One of the strangest developments to come out of the occupation of Iraq is the alliance between retired generals and liberal opponents of the war. Both want to see an end to our presence there. Both groups know our mission there is ill-defined and futile. Both groups know the ongoing occupation is damaging our military.
And both groups support the troops.
War opponents in and out of Congress shouldn't focus any more attention on Gen. Petraeus. Going forward, they should insist that committee chairs in the House and Senate solicit testimony from experienced officers - leaders who lack political ambition, and who possess the experience and wisdom to offer good advice to Congress and the public.
They should start by calling on Admiral Fallon.
A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
Future-While-U-Wait
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post
Follow RJ Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
Some are now trying to advance the point that there are other, less favorable, evaluations that should get atttention, but this is suffering from the months of build up to the "Petraeus Report". I agree that asking Adm Fallon to testify would help -- even if only by making clear that there are higher-ranking officers than Petraeus.
As for the MoveOn ad, amid all the comments pro and con "Betray Us", I think folks are missing Mr. Eskow's most important point -- that the very existence of the ad helps to reinforce Petraeus as the "face" of Iraq policy, and hence implicity beefs up his credibility as "evaluator". Of course, the purpose of the explicit content of the ad was to REDUCE his credibility (among "undecideds", not those commenting on this thread). Whether the explicit reduction or implicit enhancement will prevail remains to be seen.
Thank you for this article RJ and Huffington. Again, I've learned something.
Petraeus is recommending an immediate drawdown of several thousand troops. Fallon wants 75% of the troops out of Iraq by 2010. Even Sen. Obama, who wants the troops out now, states that it will take at least a year to get them out safely. IOW, everyone wants most of our guys out of there--the main disagreement is on how fast to do this and how many troops to leave to keep an eye on things.
I have a relative who has known Adm Fallon for decades and has served with him. My relative thinks the world of him as a person. He says the Admiral is an outstanding human being. Someday, he may find himself in Moveon's sights. I assume the children who run Moveon are already preparing some silly name for him, like Faggon, or Admiral Doodyhead.
While I understand your point and I knew what you meant before you clarified it futher.
I strongly disagree, the "Betray-us" was a quip, nothing more and I thought it to be fitting, especially under the circumstances.
You my learened friend, bought into the Repug framing, which I believe to-be what the problem is to begin with, it was just a witty quip on the General's name.
Fact is the good General has betrayed (us), that percentage of the U.S. population that expected a more honest assesment from the General. Is is a betral of our Republic? *No* he's being what good soldiers are duty bound, come hell or high water, he has a mission, an impossible mission, yet he soldiers on.
So I enjoyed the witty quip for what it was; *Not* for what the Repugs tell me it is.
That's my take on it, it's sound. Agape.
The principle of simplicity
Now the general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought. The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat, how much more no calculation at all!
Problem is,... our Generals, or at least our political leaders, made very few calcualtions.
No big surprize though. They were near-sigted true believers.
I don't put much hope in an alliance of retired generals and liberals as a basis for an anti-war movement. Does anyone really?
If the war is to be ended, the people of the United States will have to demand it. Not ask, not negotiate for, not discuss, but demand. That may be a long shot, but in my opinion it's the only shot. I think RJ Eskow is sharp, and I generally like his blog, but those who truly want to help bring the war to an end should put aside their savvy political thinking and let their words and deeds be guided by a more intemperate sense of urgency.
Whether or not Gen. Patraeus' motives are pure (my ESP is on the blink this week), MoveOn made a grand blunder with their headline, handing Republicans in Congress a cudgel to use on the "Radical Left" as they eagerly leapt to the defense of a respected military official. If we want to win debates in the public square, as opposed to the union hall and the university cocktail reception, we have to do a better job than this at framing our views. My complaint to MoveOn is in their inbox, for whatever that's worth.
Right on, Move On!