There are plenty of lies and game playing on both
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tequila
The President's speech, IMO, was pretty much the same pile of horse hockey that has come out his mouth since 2003.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
Flat out lies here. No oil law or even agreement. No de-Baathification law. What local "reconciliation"? Reconciliation has to involve Iraqis reconciling with Iraqis, not Iraqis agreeing to stop killing Americans in exchange for duffel bags full of cash.
Skiguy - Your post is quite reasoned compared to what was running through my head watching my CINC sit and lie to my face on national TV. Again.
sides of the aisle; both Parties are being pretty irresponsible about Iraq in all aspects IMO. I'd also suggest that US (Bipartisan) attempts to impose things like de-Baathification and an oil law are going to be resisted by some due to sheer xenophobia.
The 'not invented here' syndrome is not at all a US peculiarity and our overweening egos trying to tell the Iraqis what to do was always going to be, er, um, problematic...
Politicians lie and obfuscate, it's in the job description. I've lived through 12 US Presidents -- every single one of them has "lied to the American people" on national security issues. I'm pretty sure the next few will do the same regardless of Party.
A Clarification, Perhaps?
Thanks all for the responses (and reassurances I wasn't completely out of line), and especially to Jedburgh for covering my
I want to make clear I don't take issue with any of the testimony given to Congress. That was well done by both GEN Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, performing the necessary duty of reporting to Congress (and, by extension, the American people) even if the clowns in Congress - and frankly the population at large - has already made up their mind.
My issues stem from what I perceived to be an abdication of normal constitutional responsibility on the part of the President. I know in the military community it is considered important that a President listen to his military commanders, but the President is the ultimate policy-maker, not the military officer, no matter how impeccably qualified as he (in the case of Petraeus) may be.
As unfit as the comparison may seem, GEN MacArthur was fired by Truman because he was essentially taking CinC responsibilities and making policy himself. Obviously Petraeus is not in the same vein, but perhaps in reverse - Bush has made his policy entirely dependent upon what Petraeus says. As such, Petraeus has to hit Fox News and Katie Couric to, in effect, sell the war. That's what the 2004 op-ed (linked in my first post) did as well - and I think that op-ed was fairly inaccurate, with full hindsight.
Maybe I'm seeing a difference that doesn't actually exist between reporting the state of the war and selling a policy, because I don't think I'm making it clear in my posts. . . in that case thanks for bearing with me. . .
Matt
Clarification can save the Nation...
Generals can be called by Congress to testify. So can Staff Sergeants, Privates, Admirals and any other citizen -- and they have been for years, there's nothing new in Petraeus testifying.
I fail to see any abdication of constitutional responsibility by the President. He has no obligation to testify in front of Congress and if the Congroids want more knowledge of an executive branch program, then the appropriate person from the correct Executive agency is sent to testify -- as long as the President agrees that executive privilege is not being violated (and obviously in the case of Petraeus, he did not so believe). Petraeus testifying is Constitutionally no different than the Chief of the US Forest Service or the Deputy Commissioner of the IRS testifying. That's the way the system is supposed to work.
The President is indeed the policy maker. He has the ultimate responsibility for all the executive agencies do or fail to do. There are several thousand programs operation every day in the executive branch of the US government. No one person can ever hope to have detailed knowledge of many, much less most -- and certainly never all -- of those programs; thus the government is a heirarchial organization and the President has to delegate authority. He has done that, the policy and the responsibility remain with the president.
The President is a fomer figher jock, short term type; he has no knowledge of ground warfare. That's the Army's job. They recommend a course of action, the President nods and that becomes his policy. The Army is the executive agent and has been delegated the authority -- not the responibility, that cannot be delegated -- to execute the action. The system generally works and it did in this case.
MacArthur was not fired for making policy himself -- he was fired for vocally, constantly and publicly advocating a policy that was not that of the US government. A quite different thing and well within the President's authority.
Petraeus did not have to go on TV (and should not have, nor should Bush have made his speech last Thursday, both IMO). That he did so is an indicator that he realizes this Administration is the worst in recent history in getting their message out and he tried to help 'em out a bit. That's above and beyond -- even if he did make the tactical error of going on Fox before a more 'neutral' source. No big thing. :cool:
General Petraeus recalled...
not necessarily a one trick pony
You can be more than one thing. You can be an expert in conventional and unconventional war. Officers and senior enlisted of high caliber and flexible mindset are what is needed. In the Marine Corps we have legendary leaders who started out in irregular conflicts and rose to great success in conventional wars. Smedley Butler, Chesty Puller, Dan Daily, to name but a few. Warfighting can be complicated but it is not so difficult that it cannot be understood on its many levels. My opinion on the choice of Petraus is that he is intelligent, talented and he has an eye for spotting talent. He is the flexible officer capable of adapting to his environment. If the Iranians stormed across the Iraqi border in waves of armor and infantry I expect he would deal well with that just as he is dealing well with COIN. Placing a top notch GO in charge of a board is the right thing to do.