Tuesday, September 11, 2007

A Petraeus by Any Other Name

Despite what Duncan Hunter and most of the other Republican members of the House Armed Services Committee would have you believe, General David Petraeus's uniform does not earn him immunity from criticism.

I thought MoveOn.org's full page "Petraeus or Betray Us" ad in yesterday's New York Times was a bit more incendiary than needed to make the desired point, but it was pabulum compared to the propaganda shenanigans the Bush administration and its echo chamberlains have pulled over the years to promote their woebegone war in Iraq. And the concern Democratic members of Congress have regarding Petraeus was well summarized by Senator Dianne Feinstein when she said, "I don't think he's an independent evaluator." That statement is more than fair, more than balanced; because the fact of the matter is that Petraeus is not an independent evaluator.

American Caesar or Gunga Din?

Petraeus drew criticism about his motivations the old fashioned way--he earned it. He is, in fact, carrying water for the Bush administration in its pursuit of continued military commitment to Iraq and it is ridiculous to pretend otherwise.

For starters, Petraeus has a personal stake in the success of the so-called "surge" strategy. He did not "invent" it, as some would have you believe. Fred Kagan and other think tank neoconservatives can take the blame for that. But Petraeus did step up and embrace the surge when virtually all of the rest of the four-star community, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were opposed to it, and he adopted it despite the fact that the surge did not provide sufficient troops to conduct the tactics outlined in the "book on counterinsurgency" that he supposedly wrote. (He didn't write the revised Army/Marine Corps Field Manual on counterinsurgency. A bunch of light colonels and majors and sergeants wrote it. Petraeus signed off on it. Whether he read it or not we may never know.)

Of more important note, though, is that the very nature of Petraeus's testimony before the House Committee on Monday was in lockstep with standard administration rhetoric.

-- He deliberately overstated the role of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia in the civil and sectarian violence taking place in Iraq, and perpetuated the ubiquitous inference that al Qaeda in Iraq is the same al Qaeda that executed the 9/11 attacks. When challenged on that line of argument by Congressman Gary Ackerman (D-New York), Petraeus shifted into the full evasion mode.


-- He conspicuously highlighted what he considers to be military "victories" while steadfastly avoiding any mention of the fact that none of these tactical "successes" have led to one iota of progress in Iraq's political structure. In war--especially at this particular point in this particular war--tactical victories that do not lead to political progress are meaningless. Put another way, tactical success that doesn't achieve political goals is organized but meaningless violence. Petraeus knows this darn good and well, and for him to pretend otherwise in front of a congressional committee is nothing short of world-class mendacity.

-- Petraeus's most outrageous piece of hocus-pocus was his talk of troop pullbacks. The front page of Tuesday morning's Virginian-Pilot read "TIME TO BRING SOME HOME, TOP GENERAL IN IRAQ SAYS." Newspapers and TV talking heads throughout the country are saying much the same, and it's bunch of bunk. The pullbacks Petraeus was talking about aren't something he can agree to because of the success of the surge so far. They're a fait accompli. Back in January 2007, when the surge began, high-level military officials, including Petraeus's number two man in Iraq Lieutenant General Ray Odierno, agreed that it could only be sustained through April 2008. Petraeus is not only talking about sticking with the surge as planned, he's talking about extending it another three months (half a Standard Friedman Unit or STFU) into next summer. But he knew just how to frame his intentions so that in they would play in Peoria like he's pushing to bring the troops home early. Petraeus is nothing if not a master of public relations and media manipulation.

Service Dress Body Armor

The four stars on his epaulets and the rows of ribbons that extend from the top of his breast pocket to his left eyebrow do not grant Petraeus exemption from deconstruction of his parochial agenda and insidious methods. Rovewellians like Duncan Hunter would like to shield Petraeus behind their "support the troops" mantra, but that's yet another false Bush administration stratagem.

David Petraeus is not a "troop." He's a four-star general in operational command of the best-trained, best-equipped armed force in the history of humanity that just happens to be losing a war against an enemy that doesn't have a navy or an air force or a military industrial complex or anything else that his force was trained or equipped to defeat. Petraeus has life and death control over more human beings than did Pericles, Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar combined. You can support the troops and still protest the war, but you can't separate Petraeus from the war. Petraeus is the war. He's not a private soldier; he's a public figure. And he's not a public servant; he's a politician, one who at present is promoting the agenda of America's politician in chief.

One of the definitions of "betray" in my old Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary is "to deceive; mislead." So was MoveOn.org org unjustified in asking "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" Different people will draw different conclusions, but you know, if you want to convince the world that you're not a politician hawking the Bush administration's agenda, you don't go about it by repeating your pro-surge message to Brit Hume on Fox News like Petraeus did last night.

Petraeus prevaricates. You decide.

Coda

On Tuesday, at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings, John Warner (R-Virginia) asked Petraeus if the war in Iraq was making America safer. Warner had to ask the question twice because Petraeus tried to dodge it the first time. He finally replied, "I don't know, actually."

I don't buy that answer. I think Petraeus actually does know. I think he knows better than anyone else.

#

Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired) writes from Virginia Beach, Virginia. Read his commentaries at Pen and Sword, ePluribus and Military.com. Jeff's novel Bathtub Admirals (Kunati Books, ISBN: 9781601640192) will be available March 1, 2008.

11 comments:

  1. wkmaier2:16 PM

    Jeff,

    Larry Johnson called it Iraq Kabuki. I thought that was as good a metaphor as any.

    This is such a distressing state of affairs. I'm not sure I even feel anger anymore. We all know that nothing could possibly change until January 2009 at the earliest. I am also somewhat concerned about January 2009. Prof. Juan Cole theorizes that should a Democrat be elected President and begins a withdrawal, any "national humiliation" will be, fairly or unfairly, tarred on the Democratic Party. He likened it to what happened to Ford when Carter won in 76 -- though Carter had his own foreign policy disaster.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Insightful. As a Cali resident, it's nice to see Feinstein finally acting like a democrat.

    It's been pointed out-and suggested here-the "surge" is basically an ad campaign by the White House, all p.r. and no plan.

    In that spirit, I really liked this video on Brave New Films today...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqaA4-gz58I

    Adam

    ReplyDelete
  3. WK,

    I thought Larry put it well.

    Adam,

    Great video, thanks for the link!

    Jeff

    ReplyDelete
  4. "On Tuesday, at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings, John Warner (R-Virginia) asked Petraeus if the war in Iraq was making America safer. Warner had to ask the question twice because Petraeus tried to dodge it the first time. He finally replied, "I don't know, actually."

    I don't buy that answer. I think Petraeus actually does know. I think he knows better than anyone else."
    ***********************

    I watched that exact piece and my 1st thought was, yeah, YOU know, and then my next thought was, suppose he doesn't... Damn, that scared me...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Fred,

    The more I watch replays of that scene, the more chilling it is. At long last, Warner made his southern gentleman tact pay off. He eviscerated the general while kissing him on the cheek.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ozebloke2:10 AM

    6 years post 9/11 , Osama's still laughing at Bush - but at least he got that madman Saddam!

    God knows how many dead, injured and displaced lives later, you'll have spent about a trillion on this by the end (veterans etc) for what? Energy security?

    Meantime Communist China is holding more and more of your debt and challenging you for economic hegemony and win they will. Russia is not the basket case of post Cold War triumphalism anymore thanks to massive gas dollars. (Oh how Marx and Engels must be chortling somewhere)

    Europe is united,wealthy and relatively secure.

    Despite the hubris of the PNAC gang (Pnut gang?) the New American Century is over before it started.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous4:19 AM

    I understood that he was given this name (Betrayus) by his troops when he commanded the 101st Airborne.

    ReplyDelete
  8. wkmaier10:15 AM

    Two Of Seven Soldiers Who Wrote New York Times Op-Ed Die In Iraq
    On Aug. 19, seven active duty soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division wrote an op-ed in The New York Times called “The War As We Saw It.” The piece expressed skepticism about “recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable”:

    On Monday, two of these soldiers — Sgt. Omar Mora and Sgt. Yance Gray — died in a vehicle accident in Western Baghdad. The news of their deaths came just before Gen. David Petraeus began testifying to Congress about the Bush administration’s progress in Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Everywhere you turn in the MSM this morning they are playing the scheduled force reduction in the spring as if the White House had a choice in the matter.
    This from the AP this morning:

    WASHINGTON — President Bush will tell the nation Thursday evening that he plans to reduce the American troop presence in Iraq by as many as 30,000 by next summer but will condition those and further cuts on continued progress, The Associated Press has learned.

    Shameful!

    ReplyDelete
  10. wkmaier9:54 PM

    Happy Commodore Barry Day to all!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Really trustworthy blog. Please keep updating with great posts like this one. I have booked marked your site and am about to email it

    to a few friends of mine that I know would enjoy reading..
    seslisohbet
    seslichat
    sesli sohbet
    sesli chat
    sesli

    ReplyDelete