"In an atrocious piece of reporting fueled by a rigged poll question, the New York Times..."

[ProSense]

On Petraeus: The Manufacturing Of A Storyline

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 07:46:46 AM EST

In an atrocious piece of reporting fueled by a rigged poll question, the New York Times "reports:"

Americans trust military commanders far more than the Bush administration or Congress to bring the war in Iraq to a successful end, and while most favor a withdrawal of American troops beginning next year, they suggested they were open to doing so at a measured pace, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll. . . . Asked to choose among the administration, Congress and military commanders, 21 percent said they would most trust Congress and 68 percent expressed most trust in military commanders.

There are many problems with this storyline. First and foremost, Americans do not get to choose who gets to "end the war." Perhaps the New York Times does not know this, but we are a country that has civilian control of the military. The military follows the orders of the civilian Commander in Chief, the President of the United States. Bruce Ackerman has written on this alarming view of military control apparently endorsed by the news pages of the New York Times.

More.

As polling methodology, the phrasing of the question begins "(i)f you had to choose," a dead giveway of a setup question that simply is unsound. The results were not surprising. The trustworthiness of politicians versus the military has always been and always will be a mismatch. Indeed, the fact that the military only got a 68% finding, to 21% for a failed Congress, and 5% for the worst, most mendacious President in history, is actually quite a bad finding for General Petraeus specifically, and the military generally. The politicization of the military that such figures as Dick Meyers, Peter Pace and Petraeus have engaged in has greatly damaged their credibility. Consider previous trustworthiness findings. On general trustworthiness, in 2006, 72% of Americans said they would trust military officers while just 35% would trust members of Congress. But in a head to head now, the military does worse now against one of the least trusted groups of people in the country.

The lack of trust in General Petraeus in particular was underscored by, via Drum, a Washington Post poll that found that a majority of Americans do not believe that General Petraues will be completely forthright in his testimony and instead will try and defend his policy by fudging the facts.

In short, this is a shoddy piece of journalism that can not be explained innocently. I do not want to ascribe motives to the New York Times news pages, but either there is complete incompetence or some other explanation for this atrocious work.

From Ackerman's piece:

The following commentary was published in the Financial Times on September 5, 2007.

The risks of playing politics with the military

By Bruce Ackerman ’67

President George W. Bush's campaign to stay the course in Iraq is taking a new and constitutionally dangerous turn. When Senator John Warner recently called for a troop withdrawal by Christmas, the White House did not mount its usual counterattack. It allowed a surprising champion to take its place. Major General Rick Lynch, a field commander in Iraq, summoned reporters to condemn Mr Warner's proposal as "a giant step backwards".

It was Maj Gen Lynch who was making the giant step into forbidden territory. He had no business engaging in a public debate with a US senator. His remarks represent an assault on the principle of civilian control - the most blatant so far during the Iraq war.

<...>

Wars are tough on constitutions, but losing wars is particularly tough on the American separation of powers. Especially when Congress and the presidency are in different hands, the constitutional dynamics invite both sides to politicise the military. With the war going badly, it is tempting to push the generals on to centre stage and escape responsibility for the tragic outcomes that lie ahead. But as Iraq follows on from Vietnam, this dynamic may generate a politicised military that is embittered by its repeated defeats in the field.

From this perspective, the US owes a great debt to Harry Truman. It would have been politically convenient for the president to defer to General Douglas Mac-Arthur's advice and invade China in the Korean war. But Truman fired MacArthur instead, opening the way for General Dwight Eisenhower to win the next election. While the Democratic party was a big loser, the principle of civilian control remained intact.

Mr Bush is no Truman. He has used Gen Petraeus as a pawn in a game to defer congressional judgment from the spring to the autumn. Now he is transforming him into a mythic figure, scheduling his report to Congress for September 11. As the nation pauses to remember that terrible day in 2001, the president wants his general to appear on television as the steely-eyed hero of the hour, leading the country to ultimate victory in "the war on terror".

more

[acmavm]

1. You can't trust ANYONE in our government.

[babylonsister]

2. Or most of the media. nt

[acmavm]

4. The only media I even think about believing is foreign. Or

non-mainstream.

I still hate the NYT for their lying, weaseling and waffling during the 2000 and 2004 elections.

[babylonsister]

3. Thanks, ProSense. I've just heard Scarborough babble on incessantly

about this NYT poll, but failed to mention all the many contradictory stories I've also read.
The NYT is great when it suits them, isn't it.

[TwilightGardener]

5. Such an odd poll question--

I guess people don't understand that the military does not set policy--I have no idea why the NYT would ask such a question--it's meaningless. Terrible journalism.

[Wednesdays]

6. After * got rid of all but the most subservient "yes men,"

the military leaders are just puppets to the misadministration, anyway.

[ProSense]

7. Kick! n/t

[Peace Patriot]

8. 70% of the American people oppose the Iraq War and want it ended.

56% opposed it from the beginning (Feb. '03). 56% is a significant majority. It would be a landslide in a presidential election (and believe me, it was). And while most of us--the people and voters of the USA--believed the deliberately-created delusion that the majority supported this insane and illegal war, our political establishment had taken the correct measure of it, and, when they passed the Iraq War Resolution (IWR), in October 2002, also passed the "Help America Vote Act" (HAVA), which transformed our election system from one in which the vote counting was visible to one in which it is not visible. HAVA provided $3.9 billion to fast-track electronic voting all over the country, during the 2002 to 2004 period, with e-voting machines and central tabulators run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls.

It was to defeat the great, peace-minded, justice-minded, progressive American majority--which bucked relentless, 24/7 warmongering and fascist propaganda, at the beginning of the war, for a 56% antiwar majority, now grown to a staggering, epochal 70% antiwar majority--that "trade secret" vote counting was devised, and was spread like a plague to almost every state.

We, the majority, have been DEFEATED. And the "trade secret" vote counting system is still in place, and still at work, having helped to shape a so-called 'Democratic' Congress that holds the opposite views on the war from the American people. 70% of the American people opposed to the war; 30% still nuts. 60% to 70% of Congress either nuts, frightened or bloody-minded war profiteers; with 30% to 40% of the Congress--the antiwar votes--trying to represent 70% of the people.

You do the math. How do democratic elections produce such an imbalance? Answer: By means of a Stalinist vote counting system. "Those who vote decide nothing; those who COUNT the votes decide everything." (--attributed to Josef Stalin, the ultimate 'Big Brother'). Those who voted in the '06 elections (and in '04) decided nothing; those who COUNTED the votes--or, rather, DIDN'T COUNT them--that is, Diebold and ES&S (two rightwing Bushite corporations, which together tabulated 80% of the nation's votes, using "trade secret" programming code) decided everything.

So, the crap you see in the NYT, and on TV, and in Congress, is a sort of dumbshow. It has nothing to do with you and me and democracy. It is a shadow play, a fantasy, an imitation of the real thing. It is the pre-written, feasible-sounding, delusionary cover story or NARRATIVE that is being presented, for pre-determined events: the continued occupation of Iraq, and killing and torture in Iraq, forever. The U.S. is not going to "withdraw" from Iraq. The war profiteers and world dominators have built an embassy the size the Vatican in Baghdad! And some 15 permanent military bases! They have hijacked our military, our National Guard, our treasury and our future for PERMANENT U.S. occupation of the Middle East. They will never give up the foothold they have gained in Iraq, no matter how many Iraqis "we" have to kill, torture, unjustly imprison or lockdown in militarized neighborhoods, and no matter how great the objection of the American people becomes, even if it grows to 100% opposed to this illegal, unjust war and occupation. They don't have to worry about us any more--because they have also hijacked our election system, and now have DIRECT control of election outcomes. And that foothold in Iraq WILL be expanded. And the huge erosion of our rights under the Constitution WILL continue until the fascist boot comes down on our heads as well. Our political establishment has sold us out. They have turned traitor. We have lost control of our country.

The rightwing fascists have successfully pulled the fraudulent political "debate" way, way over to the fascist end of the spectrum, so that we have to witness tedious arguments about how best to bludgeon the Iraqis into signing over their oil rights, and obscene, mind-boggling discussion of what constitutes "organ failure" in torturing prisoners. The fascist enablers--the 'Democrats'--play their part by taking the slightly less fascist "position" of suggesting a "timetable" for "withdrawal" from Iraq--an event that will never occur, and simply turning a blind eye on stunning crimes like torture and domestic spying, if not outright endorsing them and providing the war criminals with impunity.

This political establishment cannot control all events, and, indeed, has less and less power in the world, the more this fascist coup proceeds, so they may be forced to re-write their scenarios (and their "bread and circus" political entertainments at home). We might see some troop pullouts in Iraq. They will be cosmetic. The U.S. military is in the Middle East to stay. With billions and billions of our tax dollars having been diverted from Iraq "reconstruction," which was supposed to help the civilian population, to U.S. military infrastructure, that infrastructure is NOT going to be abandoned. The diversion of funds has been DELIBERATE.

We can waste our time following these phony "debates"--and expecting something to come of them (what? WHAT?!)--or we can wise up, analyze this situation strategically and practically, as to POWER, and start fighting--or continue fighting--for the restoration of transparent vote counts, concentrating our efforts at the state/local level, where it still might be possible to achieve them. Jefferson, Madison et al invested the states with power over election systems. That is our strength--and just about our only option left for restoring American democracy.

Without transparent vote counting--vote counting that everyone can see and understand--there is no hope of reforming this political system. WITH transparent vote counting, anything is possible. "Trade secret" vote counting is not the only thing wrong with our election system. But it is the democracy-killer. It is why we cannot move Congress. It is why Bush and Cheney are still in office. It is why we are being insulted by this phony "debate" on the war. And it is why the war still goes on, and will continue and be expanded, in the teeth of 70% opposition among the American people.

[ProSense]

9. The "Petraeus" (read Bush) Report and Civilian Control of the Military

Monday, September 10, 2007

The "Petraeus" (read Bush) Report and Civilian Control of the Military

Mark Tushnet

Bruce Ackerman has an interesting piece in the Financial Times, here (subscription apparently required), raising questions about the propriety of the Bush administration's reliance on active-duty military officers to make the case for sustaining the escalation in Iraq. Ackerman questions whether such a use of military officers is consistent with the tradition -- which I think ought to be called "constitutional" -- of civilian control of the military.

On its face, Ackerman's concern is puzzling. One might say that the "Petraeus" report exemplifies civilian control of the military: President Bush has determined that escalation in Iraq is good policy, and he has directed a military officer to say so. {Of course, to the -- apparently rather large -- extent that people understand that General Petraeus is simply saying what his civilian superiors are directing him to say -- or even that he is saying what he has calculated will best advance his career prospects in the military, given who his civilian superiors are --, the credibility boost the administration seems to hope for would seem likely to be small. What would be interesting is this: General Petraeus calculates that his career prospects will be advanced by rejecting the escalation ("I've really done my best, and so have the soldiers under my command, but frankly I don't see any realistic prospect that the escalation has any reasonably chance of long-term success.")} A more generous view is that the Bush administration has sincerely sought the honest opinions of professional military officers on matters within their professional expertise, on the basis of which the administration will make its own decisions. This too would seem to exemplify civilian control of the military.

There's an additional complication to which Ackerman's article alludes: How are we to understand civilian control of the military in a separation-of-powers system? Suppose one set of civilians -- the administration -- prefers one policy and another set -- Congress -- appears to be on a course of preferring another. Is it inconsistent with civilian control of the military for an active-duty officer to take the position that, until there is a definitive resolution of the conflict among the civilians, the officer may -- or must -- follow the path set by the administration, even to the point of (under direction) criticizing advocates of the position rejected by the administration?

Of course there would be a real question if Congress enacted a law (presumably over the President's veto) inconsistent with the President's policy, and the President directed the military to disregard the statute. That, though, isn't really a question about "civilian control of the military," but rather about the relation between the legislative and executive branches more generally.

more