General Petraeus: collection

[skiguy]

Matt, you're not out of line, but I may be because I'm going to attack and indict..so I'll apologize in advance if I offend anyone. (or even get banned) And, yeah, I'm going to draw partisan lines in the sand here, because I'm that disgusted by what I've seen and heard.
By the way, I'm not in the military and I'm not one who blindly thinks the Bush administration has handled the war in Iraq well.

Petraeus and Crocker were attacked by EVERY f-ing democrat with every question they were asked. Yes, it's Bush's policy, but it's the General's and Ambassador's plan that is in effect, so it's perfectly understandable that they will both get a little defensive and try to "sell" it. I thnk it's disgusting how they're being treated. But that may just be me...because I think they are geniuses and nothing less. If anything is "bad" from this, it's the fact that the president handed them a mess. But I can't think of two (actually more, add Nagl, Kilcullen, and many more to the list) better people to fix things.

The democrats called them liars or worse. Those 2 demand respect and it's not given to them..not by the jackasses in Congress, Chris Matthews, Anderson Copper, the NY Times, et al. I'll watch Bush, but I'm not stayin up to watch my Senator Reed's rebuttal. I know it will just be a bunch of garbage because his thick head is already made up and no facts (like those he was given Monday and Tuesday) will change his mind.

What's wrong with this country is there is a certain, and unfortunately, large group that wish nothing more than failure because they hate their own president that much. And it's not just the war. They blame America for terrorists. They say the economy's bad when it's clearly not. I could go on, but I'll stop now before I get myself into more trouble than I probably already have.

[Watcher In The Middle]

Anyway, is anyone else uneasy about GEN Petraeus and what he is doing in the United States? I personally feel that the administration has ceded it's Constitutional responsibilities as top policy-makers/policy strategists and has, in effect, "hid" behind GEN Petraeus and made the COIN/surge "strategy" (really a tactical reorientation in my mind) Petraeus' strategy rather than what it is, Bush's policy.

Uneasy about General Petraeus / AMB Crocker and their actions/testimony?

Not in the least. Look, these guys are the "on the scene" experts. Who Better? Actually, this type of thing happens all the time, just not on such a contentious issue.

Just as a single example, we (the federal government) has an upcoming auction of the 700 Mhz. spectrum (think extreme high speed wireless internet access). There's been tons (and I do means TONS) of testimony over the last few years, and probably more to come. And I can guarantee you that all of that "testimony" provided by all the different experts has all been carefully crafted around different sales pitches. In fact, that's one topic where the issue really should be more contentious, but isn't because the political leadership in both parties doesn't want it to be a contentious issue. That's not the case with Iraq - the leadership on both sides need it to be a contentious issue.

What they are really doing (and actually it's smart politically), is that they want both GEN Petraeus / AMB Crocker out there on the record FIRST, not later. Because if the Congress Critters went first and then the real experts came later, well you'd have a whole lot of evidence laid out there for God & Everyone to see exactly how bright/dumb their elected pol's really are. And we're talking a "Whole Lot of Ugly" here......

Think of it as an avoidance of a congressional replay of "RatherGate". Only this time, it would be all about Iraq if you didn't have both GEN Petraeus / AMB Crocker out there on the record FIRST. Can you imagine the havoc (and the fun) the blogs and the new media would have with a target as big as Congress showing their collective ignorance?

If the WH didn't have both of them report first, Congress (if they were thinking) would have insisted upon it.

So no, it's really unlikely there's a problem here.

[Rob Thornton]

Matt,

Click here for the text of the President's Speech

I think the President did a good job of distinguishing the lanes, taking responsibility, articulating the rationale at the different levels.

His speech was more informed I believe as a result of the AMB Crocker/GEN Petraeus report, and the report issued by Gen (R) Jones' commission. This is a responsibility of those who serve to inform policy with their best advice. I think this week's events show how things can work (and work well) when the pieces are linked.

Best regards, Rob

[tequila]

The President's speech, IMO, was pretty much the same pile of horse hockey that has come out his mouth since 2003.

Particularly pathetic portions highlighted:

Anbar province is a good example of how our strategy is working. Last year, an intelligence report concluded that Anbar had been lost to al-Qaida. Some cited this report as evidence that we had failed in Iraq and should cut our losses and pull out. Instead, we kept the pressure on the terrorists. The local people were suffering under the Taliban-like rule of al-Qaida, and they were sick of it. So they asked us for help.

To take advantage of this opportunity, I sent an additional 4,000 Marines to Anbar as part of the surge.

A sad attempt take credit where he is due absolutely none at all. As our very own Cavguy has noted, the surge had little to nothing to do with the Anbar sheikhs.

One year ago, much of Baghdad was under siege. Schools were closed, markets were shuttered, and sectarian violence was spiraling out of control. Today, most of Baghdad"s neighborhoods are being patrolled by coalition and Iraqi forces who live among the people they protect. Many schools and markets are reopening. Citizens are coming forward with vital intelligence. Sectarian killings are down. And ordinary life is beginning to return.

Ordinary life if you count life with no power, no jobs, and few schools reopened. He forgot to mention that much of Baghdad's Sunni population has been killed or has fled the city.

One year ago, Shia extremists and Iranian-backed militants were gaining strength and targeting Sunnis for assassination. Today, these groups are being broken up and many of their leaders are being captured or killed.

Or continuing their careers in the Iraqi security forces or the Iraqi government. If we captured or killed these groups true leaders, we'd end up killing much of the democratically elected Iraqi leadership.

Yet Iraq"s national leaders are getting some things done. For example, they have passed a budget. They are sharing oil revenues with the provinces. They are allowing former Baathists to rejoin Iraq"s military or receive government pensions. And local reconciliation is taking place. The key now is to link this progress in the provinces to progress in Baghdad. As local politics change, so will national politics.

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.

[skiguy]

I feel for you, Tequila. I do wish Bush just said "Listen to what Petraeus and Crocker said. They know more than I do and will take care of my and Rumsfeld's screw ups."

But since we're talking about lying, let's look at Senator Reed's (Democrat RI) rebuttal. (From this point on, Reed will be referred to as CAN'T-and never-will-Reed-FM 3-24)

When the President launched the surge in January, he told us that its purpose was to provide Iraqi leaders with the time to make that political progress.

But now, nine months into the surge, the President's own advisers tell us that Iraq’s leaders have not, and are not likely to do so.

Yes, 9 months is such a long, long time. (well, apparently it is for a certain U.S. political party). Things are not all fine (and no one is saying that) but there is noted and undeniable progress in ONLY 9 months.

That is why our plan focuses on counter-terrorism and training the Iraqi army.

Our plan??? If this wasn't so laughable I would be sick to my stomach. Their only plan is a complete withdrawal of all troops NOW. Only this, and this alone, will make them happy.

It engages in diplomacy to bring warring factions to the table and addresses regional issues that inflame the situation.

Did he (they) even LISTEN to or HEAR any of Petraeus's and Crocker's testimony?? With this statement, I think the answer is clearly no.

[goesh]

I am not in the least bit uneasy or bothered with General P. talking to Congressional leaders and the rest of the nation in the manner he did. The 'old man' , the Commander of OUR troops, not Bush's troops, not the troops of Congress but the troops of We The People should come home and speak directly to us as he did. There was a time in our history that the people and press didn't expect this but no longer. He stood tall and informed the nation of what the situation is over there. We need alot more straight talk like General P. gave us and considerably less innuendo, perception, pereceived perception, political correctness,opinion polls, punditry, insinuation and general bull s***. I am puzzled why anyone would feel uneasy about a commanding General of any outfit under any circumstances addressing We The People.

[marct]

I've got to agree with Goesh on this one, although for different reasons. First, I thought that their testimony was reasoned, well resented and an attempt to give their best analysis of what was going on. Second, as a Canadian I felt that their reports were a window into their perceptions and, hopefully, an indicator of what would happen. In many ways, I felt that their testimony was a good example of all that is best in your system of government. The same, I fear, cannot be said of some of the other "commentary" that came out surrounding their reports.

Matt, I'm glad you brought this up. I think that discussing the issue is a really good way of examining how your system of government works and what it truly means. I, for one, would far rather hear General Petraeus on the effects than have to rely on media reports or the "expert" opinions of politicians.

Marc

[RTK]

Yes, 9 months is such a long, long time. (well, apparently it is for a certain U.S. political party). .

Hell yes it is! That's 12.5% of a Senator's term!

[Ken White]

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.

[Merv Benson]

The Bush administrations policy in Iraq has too often been conflated with the strategies for implementing it by many of the critics of the policy. Thus the Abizaid-Casey small foot print strategy for implementing the policy was criticized as Bush's strategy. When he became dissatisfied with the results of that strategy and adopted the Petraeus, counterinsurgency strategy as a way to implement that policy, critics immediately started attacking the new "Bush strategy."

This is why some of the questioning of Gen. Petraeus was so off the wall. People who oppose the policy were challenging the result of the strategy as way to discredit the policy. I think the result was that opponents of the policy lost the plot in an attempt to discredit results that advances the policy. As someone who has seen a few cross examinations, I would have to say that the General was an outstanding witness and advocate for his strategy. Those who attempted to challenge his integrity were the real losers.

[Jimbo]

GEN P told Congress duirng his confirmation that he would brief them in September, and he did that. If he had not, there would be all kinds of shenannigans going on. I think that the commander on the ground and the COM briefing Congress was great. Some of the aftermath hasn't been good, but they told like it is.