General Petraeus: collection

[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.

[SWJED]

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.

... short, sweet, on the point and well said. It would have taken many 'talking heads' 2,000 words in an Op-Ed or twenty minutes on a talk show to say what you just posted...

[MattC86]

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

[Ken White]

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.