The Cult of Petraeus
Jeff Huber | August 07, 2007

Secretary of State Robert Gates seemed sober and subdued on Meet the Press last Sunday. He was candid about the negative effect of Iraq's Parliament taking August off while American troops continue to fight in support of it, and of the Sunni ministers who resigned from Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's cabinet.

Gates kept things matter-of-fact as he admitted that a troop drawdown might take place by the end of this year, and he even managed to deftly deflect the issue of one of his subordinates accusing Hillary Clinton of assisting enemy propaganda efforts by allowing as how a lot of people are "on edge."

Gates did, however, say a thing or two that set off my warning system. He's starting to echo a memo that wraps the future of our Iraq adventure firmly around the personality of General David H. Petraeus, United States Army.

Supporters of Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, hail him as our best and brightest military officer and one who knows how to conduct counter-insurgency warfare. His detractors seem of the opinion that the thing Petraeus knows how to do best is make himself look good.

While some praise Petraeus for his administration of Mosul and Ninevah after major hostilities ceased, others blame him for allowing the insurgency to establish itself in those areas. His tenure as the officer in charge of training Iraqi troops and police clearly did not go well, despite his praise in a 2004 Washington Post article titled "Battling for Iraq" of the progress being made by the fledgling Iraqi security forces under his tutelage. Of the article, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote "General Petraeus, without saying anything falsifiable, conveyed the totally misleading impression, highly convenient for his political masters, that victory was just around the corner." It also appears that Petraeus is at least partly responsible for arming of Iraq's insurgent groups. According to a recently released Government Accountability Office report, the Pentagon has lost track of roughly 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols that were issued to Iraqi forces while Petraeus was in charge of their training. More than 200,000 pieces of body armor and helmets distributed to Iraqis during that period are also unaccounted for.

As the U.S. four-star in charge of Iraq, Petraeus has shown a definite penchant for public relations, having staged a record setting Fourth of July reenlistment ceremony and a congressional shopping spree through an outdoor market in Baghdad, and treating journalists to an aerial tour of the city's soccer games. Pentagon correspondent Thomas E. Ricks, a Petraeus fan, refers to the general as a "force of nature," and often cites Petraeus's fondness for challenging soldiers half his age to one-arm pushup contests. Like Ricks, I'm impressed that a general in his mid-fifties can outdo fit men half his age in tests of physical fitness, but all the one-arm pushups in the world won't fix what's broken in Iraq.

It's not my purpose to run Petraeus down for the fun of it. Let's face it, nobody makes it to level he has reached in the military without making a few enemies or mistakes, or without a certain flair for flash and self promotion. My point is that General Petraeus may be able to walk on his hands, but he can't walk on water--as Mr. Bush seems to want us to think.

As Ricks noted in July, "Almost every time President Bush has defended his new strategy in Iraq this year, he has invoked the name of the top commander, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus." Mr. Bush calls Petraeus his "main man," and managed to fend off a revolt of congressional Republicans over the war by telling them "to wait to see what David has to say. I trust David Petraeus, his judgment."

That Mr. Bush trusts Petraeus's judgment should give us pause. Mr. Bush has an established track record of trusting the judgment of people who tell him what he wants to hear. This is not to imply that Petraeus is a spineless yes man. He probably does believe in the escalation strategy and in his own ability to pull it off. But beliefs and reality aren't always the same things. Believing to the depths of one's soul that the moon is made of green cheese doesn't make it so.

And so it is with our situation in Iraq. We've listened to four and a half years of "last throes" and "dead enders" and of criticism of the war described as "Henny Penny sky is falling" talk from the likes of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld (who could both be described as "forces of nature" themselves).

Nobody in their right mind or otherwise expects that come mid-September, General Petraeus will tell Congress, "Sorry folks, I gave this surge thing my best shot, but it's time to yank the rug out from under it." No, Petraeus will walk in loaded with a full magazine of talking points about "signs of success" and the need for the legislature to give him more time to "get the job done."

The administration and its liegemen will point to Petraeus's testimony as "proof" that Congress needs to continue funding and supporting Mr. Bush's "Son of Stay the Course" strategy. They'll harangue the Democrats with the argument that says, "Hey, you confirmed him, now you have to do whatever he tells you to," and given what we've seen since January, the Democrats are likely to cave in.

The shame is that the Democrats will likely go wobbly because they can't understand or explain that decisions of whether or not to persist in conducting a war are not matters of strategy, they're matters of foreign policy, and in the United States, generals are not supposed to dictate policy, foreign, domestic or otherwise. And despite what Bush supporters would have you believe, the Constitution does not make foreign policy the exclusive privilege of the executive branch. It does quite the opposite.

Article II makes the president commander in chief of the military and allows him to receive foreign ambassadors and ministers. He appoints U.S. ambassadors to other nations, but they must be consented to by the Senate, as do "other officers of the United States" like David Petraeus. A president can make treaties, but those treaties must be approved by two-thirds supermajority of the Senate.

Article I gives the legislature authority, among other things, to punish "offenses against the law of nations," to declare war, to issue letters of marque and reprisal, to provide and regulate the military, and to call out the militia to repel invasions.

Nowhere does the Constitution dictate or allow Congress to cede its authority in matters of war and peace to the president's "main man." I hope the Democrats keep that in mind come September.
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,145137,00.html

The Democrats have already become so complicit in Bushes war that it doesn't matter
what the super-general says or how he says it. If the Democrats don't make a decision to defund the war now, they are not likely to do so then.

It must truly terrify the democrats that Petraeus is turning the war in Iraq around.

http://goodnewsiraq.com/index2.htm

"Supporters of Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, hail him as our best and brightest military officer and one who knows how to conduct counter-insurgency warfare."

I believe he is, but he ain't no Col. David Hackworth

http://www.military.com/Opinions/0,,Hackworth_050505,00.html

(Hackworth) At 14, as World War II was sputtering out, he lied about his age to join the Merchant Marine, and at 15 he enlisted in the U.S. Army. Over the next 26 years he spent fully seven in combat. He was put in for the Medal of Honor three times; the last application is currently under review at the Pentagon. He was twice awarded the Army's second highest honor for valor, the Distinguished Service Cross, along with 10 Silver Stars and eight Bronze Stars. When asked about his many awards, he always said he was proudest of his eight Purple Hearts and his Combat Infantryman's Badge.

A reputation won on the battlefield made it impossible to dismiss him when he went on the attack later as a critic of careerism and incompetence in the military high command. In 1971, he appeared in the field on ABC's "Issue and Answers" to say Vietnam "is a bad war ... it can't be won. We need to get out." He also predicted that Saigon would fall to the North Vietnamese within four years, a prediction that turned out to be far more accurate than anything the Joint Chiefs of Staff were telling President Nixon or that the President was telling the American people.

With almost five years in-country, Col. Hackworth was the only senior officer to sound off about the Vietnam War. After the interview, he retired from the Army and moved to Australia.

They don't make 'em like Hack any more. I am proud that I served in the same country, the same war as one the Colonel did, and I wept at his funeral, as did Gen. Hal Moore, another old-school hero. I don't know or care what polticical party Hackworth or Moore claim(ed) - it don't mean nothin' to me.

But, those days are over. Most generals now are what Hack called "Perfumed Princes", who never held a company-level combat command, and are more interested in politics and promotions. That said, Petreaus is probably the best we have active now. I support his command. I'll decide about his report in September.

What if he says we need to stay another 10 years IH? Ultimately should he decide or should we (all) decide?

The majority decided in 2006. The question is how will we force Cheny and Bush II into
compliance?

The democrats are not terrified, around here they are are speaking to the fact that ignorance is becoming dominant and fashionable in our American culture in this new millennium, which is wholly demonstrated by the mass of people who happily ignore many facts, scientific and otherwise and those who believe there are masses of left thinking Americans who want to see harm come to their fellow citizens.

We should decide...but from what I've seen of him, and heard about him...it looks like his report is
going to be so straightforward The White House want's it delivered in a closed-door session of Congress,
and for the White House to edit it for release to the public.

I think Gen. Dave is less of the problem then many expect and the White House is much more.

Is it primarilly that group of people who ignore facts, scientific and otherwise (experiential), who
believe there are masses (hundreds of thousands) of left thinking Americans who want to see harm come to their fellow citizens? Which set of style setters in the social system, see common, ordinary Persons with
liberal and progressive preferences, as threats to the social order and attack them with, "Prone to Blame America First" or soft on "Communism/Terriorism" or of being cowards? They are primarilly
persons with neocon, neolib and true believer psycho-socio-political philosophies of Life. Though they make up a small minority of the population they exert a majority influence by contolling the
tyrannical middle of both parties. The Human Social System on Earth has taken on an excessively
authoritarian and dogmatic response style which over-emphasizes Defense and Security which
works against our more natural democratic and humanitarian style of growing enough possibilities
for everyone. We must increase our mutual confirmation of each other in order to increase the
frequency and intensity of our Connectivity. Exploration, Understanding and Personalizing Action.
Just like the Ant colony, there has to be enough of us there, allow ourselves to bump into each
other to exchange enough information to individually contribute to building and maintaining a
community. Control is organic, bottoms-up, leaving decision making as close to the job as possible.
This kind of thinking scares the sh** out of Persons who are overly invested in controll. Liberals
and progressives need to go back to kinder garten and learn the show and tell methodology. Too much verbal explanation without experiential participation can be deadening.

"well stated"

Not like her or him, eh?

Indianhead, my friend, the report is not being authored by Petraeus but instead the WH insisted on taking over so we can expect the same propaganda spinning as has dominated the administration.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/15/petrae...e-house-report/

Also heard today they are going to push the emotional buttons, delivering it on 9/11..........Rove may be gone but his political warfare tactics are still the M.O.


lenal

Petraeus.

Rhymes with Betray us.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200708210008?f=i_latest




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MSNBC, NY Post, Drudge falsely claimed Clinton said "surge" is "working"



Summary: In articles on Sen. Hillary Clinton's speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, several media outlets reported that Clinton said the Bush administration's so-called "surge" policy is "working." Clinton actually said: "We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas -- particularly in Al Anbar Province -- it's working. We're just years too late changing our tactics."


During an August 20 speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) said, according to The New York Times in an August 21 article, "We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar Province, it's working. ... We're just years too late changing our tactics. We can't ever let that happen again." The Times also reported that "[a]ides to Mrs. Clinton said her remarks that military tactics in Iraq are 'working' referred specifically to reports of increased cooperation from Sunnis leading to greater success against insurgents in Al Anbar Province." Several other media outlets, however, have claimed that Clinton said the Bush administration's so-called "surge" policy is "working":

During an August 21 report on Democrats' positions on Iraq, an MSNBC Live on-air graphic read: "Hillary Clinton: Surge is Working, But Years Too Late For Change" -- even though the video clip of Clinton MSNBC aired during the segment itself showed her saying: "We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some places -- particularly in Al Anbar Province -- it's working."
In an August 21 article -- headlined, "Iraq Surge Working, But Too Late: Hillary Clinton" -- the New York Post reported: " 'It's working. We're just years too late in our tactics,' [Clinton] said, referring to the beefed-up U.S. troop presence battling insurgents in Iraq, including war-torn Anbar province." The Post further asserted that "Clinton's positive assessment of the troop surge puts her in agreement with some high-ranking military officials and scholars, but in direct opposition to many fellow Democrats." But Clinton did not give a "positive assessment of the troop surge," and her statement was not in reference to "Iraq, including the war-torn Anbar province"; rather, she cited Al Anbar as one place where the "change [of] tactics" has brought positive results.
On August 21, a banner headline on the Drudge Report read: "Hillary on Surge? 'It's Working' ..."
A headline on the website JustHillary.com read: "At veterans' convention, HRC says surge working but bring troops home..."
The Associated Press paraphrased Clinton's statement in an August 21 report on her speech, reporting: "New military tactics in Iraq are working but the best way to honor U.S. soldiers is 'by beginning to bring them home,' Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told war veterans Monday." Clinton, however, did not refer specifically to the "surge" policy, and the AP story cropped Clinton's quote to suggest that she was speaking more broadly.
On August 21, The Washington Times reported: " 'It's working,' Mrs. Clinton said of the troop surge yesterday in a speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention in Kansas City, Mo., a group at odds with her votes for a pullout and against emergency troop funding."
As Tim Grieve noted on Salon's War Room blog, even The New York Times, which, as Grieve wrote, "quotes Clinton more fairly than the Washington Times does" reported that Clinton's remarks were "notable because Mrs. Clinton has been a consistent critic of the Bush administration's troop escalation in Iraq, and Republican presidential candidates have been seizing on signs of progress in Al Anbar Province in arguing against a troop withdrawal."
From the 11 a.m. ET hour of the August 21 edition of MSNBC Live:

CONTESSA BREWER (anchor): You know, I know that Hillary Clinton echoed some of Senator Levin's comments in her speech to veterans. Let me play part of what she said.

[color="#FF0000"]CLINTON [video clip]: We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas -- particularly in Al Anbar Province -- it's working. We're just years too late changing our tactics. We can't ever let that happen again. We can't be fighting the last war; we have to be preparing to fight the new war.BREWER: Is there a sense in Iraq that the surge is successful, but it just -- it comes too late?

ASPELL: Well, I don't think it's any secret that there were mistakes made over the past four years or so, but certainly among the U.S. military here, there is a feeling that the surge -- particularly in Baghdad itself -- is successful in that the number of daily attacks have gone down, the number of dead bodies found around the capital has decreased over the past couple of months.

Ever since those extra 30,000 troops began pouring into the country in January, violence in and around the capital has subsided. But at the same time, there have been more attacks in the provinces and other outlying areas. But many people do agree it is enough, but it may be just a little bit too late, Contessa.

BREWER: Tom, thanks for the update.##############
##############


Methinks debunking may be lagging here, how about some of you other members pitching in?
And the surge as so called, demonstrates the error in not using adequate troop force in the first place, as General Shisenski advised, but the war was done more under the demands of Cheney and Rumsfeld than the esteemed General that got renditioned into retirement and the admin cherry picked until they got Franks to go along.

lenal

Here's how the report in September came about by Congressional action:





http://mediamatters.org/items/200708210009?f=h_latest

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wash. Times falsely claimed Petraeus will give "Sept. 15 progress report to Congress"


Summary: The Washington Times reported that "[t]he White House since July has highlighted gains ahead of a Sept. 15 progress report to Congress from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq." But the assertion that Petraeus will give a "Sept. 15 progress report to Congress" is not consistent with the law, which provides that by September 15, the White House will prepare and submit the report to Congress, after receiving input from senior foreign policy and military officials, including Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker.
An August 21 Washington Times article about a statement issued by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and John W. Warner (R-VA) reported that "[t]he White House since July has highlighted gains ahead of a Sept. 15 progress report to Congress from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq." But the assertion that Petraeus will give a "Sept. 15 progress report to Congress" is false. As Media Matters for America has noted, the 2007 supplemental funding bill for the Iraq war requires that President Bush prepare and submit the report to Congress, after receiving input from senior foreign policy and military officials, including Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker. As an August 15 Los Angeles Times article reported: "Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government."

The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 provides that "[t]he President shall submit" a "report to Congress not later than September 15, 2007," assessing the status of 18 benchmarks for the Iraqi government "and declaring, in his judgment, whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is, or is not, being achieved." The bill also provides that the Unites States ambassador to Iraq and the Commander of Multi-National Forces in Iraq will be available to testify "prior to the submission" of this September report. On August 20, The Hill reported that Petraeus and Crocker "likely will testify before Congress" on September 11 "in open hearings" where "[t]hey will answer lawmakers' questions about the situation in Iraq, the success of the troop surge and the next steps to be taken."

As Media Matters noted, the Times article also falsely claimed that in a speech a day earlier, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) said the Bush administration's so-called "surge" policy is "working."

From the August 21 Washington Times article:

"It's working," Mrs. Clinton said of the troop surge yesterday in a speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention in Kansas City, Mo., a group at odds with her votes for a pullout and against emergency troop funding.

[...]

The White House since July has highlighted gains ahead of a Sept. 15 progress report to Congress from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq. In his weekly radio address Saturday, Mr. Bush predicted political progress at the local level in Iraq will help end the stalemate at the national level.



##########

But what the heck, Bush hasn't got anything right so far.

And let me remind that in case it is not recalled, the Wa Times is the tool of cultist Mr Moon, who has one of the most extensive media conglomerates spouting the right wing propaganda.


lenal

I have edited one post and deleted 2 posts which violate the forum rules. From above

And now methinks other naysayers're changin' their tune too. Much as I hate the Iraq war, it's not enough to get me to deny or disavow what our military folks're gettin' done over there, eh? The article "Democrats Refocus Message on Iraq After Military Gains" methinks indicates maybe to deny or disavow what our military folks're gettin' done over there ain't such a good thing for them to do anymore either. Consequently 'twould seem their rhetoric'll be changin' a bit, leavin' out much of the hyperbole?Since I rarely rely on Drudge for info methinks it makes little difference to me what they claimed. However 'twould seem even some of the references you provided indicates she said pretty much the same's the one I'd previously provided the link for.

Since the US is doing the wrong thing, occupying Iraq, how is doing more of it better a good thing?