Sycophant Savior-Petraeus betrayed us: conservatives give the general an "F"

[kpete]

October 8, 2007 Issue
Copyright © 2007 The American Conservative

Sycophant Savior

General Petraeus wins a battle in Washington—if not in Baghdad.

by Andrew J. Bacevich

..................

David Petraeus is a political general. Yet in presenting his recent assessment of the Iraq War and in describing the “way forward,” Petraeus demonstrated that he is a political general of the worst kind—one who indulges in the politics of accommodation that is Washington’s bread and butter but has thereby deferred a far more urgent political imperative, namely, bringing our military policies into harmony with our political purposes.

.............

Above all, a modest drawdown pleases President Bush. It gives him breathing room to continue the conflict in which he has so much invested. It all but guarantees that Iraq will be the principal gift that Bush bestows upon his successor when he leaves office in January 2009. Bush’s war will outlive Bush: for reasons difficult to fathom, this has become an important goal for the president and his dwindling band of loyalists.

................

....A great political general doesn’t tell his masters what they want to hear. He tells them what they need to hear, thereby nudging them to make decisions that must be made if the nation’s interests are to be served. In this instance, Petraeus provided cover for them to evade their responsibilities.

Politically, it qualifies as a brilliant maneuver. The general’s relationships with official Washington remain intact. Yet he has broken faith with the soldiers he commands and the Army to which he has devoted his life. He has failed his country. History will not judge him kindly.



more at:

http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_09_24/article2.html

[KharmaTrain]

1. Political General = Military Intelligence

Weren't we supposed to have a military that was to avoid politics? Isn't that what the MoveOn "censure" was about? Also, wasn't that why the framers of the Constitution separated the civilian politicians and the military types...and then gave the war making powers to the Congress?

Yes, history will not judge any of the enablers in this invasion kindly, but I'm not gonna wait for more deaths for that to happen.

Now where was this article two weeks ago?

[eShirl]

2. I'm sure the Senate will condemn American Conservative loudly for this smear

:rofl:

[rodeodance]

3. Yeah--send it to your Senators--esp. Cornyn, Mitch McConnell

[rodeodance]

5. I am serious---ask them if they will condemm this!

[annabanana]

4. And the "sense of the Senate" for THIS outrage?

[rodeodance]

6. REC

[rodeodance]

7. "He has failed his country."------That is a huge slam for a Active Gen!

[Solly Mack]

8. Wonder who Petraeus will go to work for in about a year....

K/R

[SalmonChantedEvening]

9. Excellent article, thank you kpete

"Granted, no one is completely happy. Yet neither does anyone go away empty-handed. The Petraeus plan offers a little something for everyone"

This is no plan at all.

[ljm2002]

10. An excellent article...

...thanks for posting this.

From the article:

There is only one plausible explanation for Petraeus’s terminating a surge that has (he says) enabled coalition forces, however tentatively, to gain the upper hand. That explanation is politics—of the wrong kind.

Given the current situation as Petraeus describes it, an incremental reduction in U.S. troop strength makes sense only in one regard: it serves to placate each of the various Washington constituencies that Petraeus has a political interest in pleasing.

(I would argue that there is another plausible explanation for Petraeus's terminating the surge, namely, that he doesn't believe the blather about its success in the first place. But this is a quibble.)

Politically, it qualifies as a brilliant maneuver. The general’s relationships with official Washington remain intact. Yet he has broken faith with the soldiers he commands and the Army to which he has devoted his life. He has failed his country. History will not judge him kindly.

(emphasis mine) So there you have it folks: Petraeus has "broken faith with" (i.e., betrayed) the soldiers he commands. I await the outcry from the Beltway pundits, and the resulting censure from Congress, with bated breath.

[Didereaux]

11. Petraeus is true to one thing and that is...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/12461951@N03/1355142923/







...it is doubtful this country can surve another Texan as President LBJ/Westmoreland-GWB/Petraeus