General Petraeus: collection

[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.