"General David Petraeus's uniform does not earn him immunity from criticism."

babylonsister

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Sep-16-07 02:35 PM
Original message

"General David Petraeus's uniform does not earn him immunity from criticism."

Found at military.com

A Petraeus By Any Other Name
Jeff Huber | September 12, 2007

"How the troops are configured, what the deployment looks like will depend upon the recommendations of David Petraeus."

-- George W. Bush, August 9, 2007

Despite what Duncan Hunter and most of the other Republicans on the House Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees would like 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 Monday's New York Times was a bit more incendiary than it needed to be, 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 congressional Democrats have regarding Petraeus was aptly summarized by Senator Dianne Feinstein when she said, "I don't think he's an independent evaluator." That statement was more than fair, more than balanced, because Petraeus is not an independent evaluator. He's not even close.

American Caesar or Gunga Din?

Petraeus drew skepticism about his motives the old fashioned way--he earned it. Mr. Bush's "main man" is, in fact, carrying water for the administration and it is ridiculous to pretend otherwise.

To begin with, Petraeus has a personal stake in the success of the so-called "surge" strategy. He did not "invent" it, as some would have you think. Fred Kagan and other think tank neoconservatives can take the blame for that. Petraeus did, however, step up and embrace the surge when virtually all the rest of the four-star community, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was opposed to it. What's more, he adopted the surge even though it did not provide sufficient troops to conduct the tactics outlined in the "book on counterinsurgency" he supposedly wrote. (Generals don't write field manuals. A bunch of light colonels and majors and sergeants revised the old counterinsurgency manual, and Petraeus signed off on the revision. Whether he read it or not we may never know.)

More important to note, though, is that Petraeus's testimony before the House 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 gains are merely organized but meaningless violence. Petraeus knows that darn good and well, and for him to pretend otherwise in front of a congressional committee is nothing short of world-class mendacity.

more...

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,148997,00.html