The Petraeus Dodge, Part II

Thomas Ricks takes a look at the new habit -- attributed in Ricks' piece to Bush, but reflecting a wider swathe of the right -- of "wielding [Genera David] Petraeus as a shield against a growing number of congressional doubters." Ricks floats the theory "that the general is being set up by the Bush administration as a scapegoat if conditions in Iraq fail to improve." That seems doubtful to me. The administration expended no effort whatsoever on setting Generals Casey, Abizaid, and Franks up as scapegoats (Franks even got a medal of honor) before turning on a dime and deciding to make them scapegoats.

Which isn't to say that Petraeus won't become a scapegoat -- Bush'll do it the minute he thinks it serves his interests -- but just that that's unlikely to be the specific motive of the current parade of Petraeus-adulation. Most likely, it just is what it appears to be -- an effort to cover for the bankruptness of the strategy by hiding behind a man with a glowing reputation among reporters.

Comments

There are mixed incentives here. If the war party wants to go with the Dolchstoss theme, then they will need to keep worshipping generals even if they lose. It will be difficult to run Petraeus-as-scapegoat and stab-in-the-back both at one.

Posted by otto | July 16, 2007 12:52 PM

The problem is not the lame tactics of Bush and his supporters -- it's the usual tongue-tied mutes in the Democratic leadership.

Why can't someone point out that Bush is cherry-picking generals in the same way that he cherry-picked intelligence?

That we didn't hear shit about "listen to the generals" back in 2002 when Shinseki was telling us that an additional 100,000+ troops would be needed to secure Iraq.

Nor do the Republicans show any sign of listening to the retired Army generals who are highly critical of Rumsfeld and of how this war is conducted.

I was infuriated yesterday by Lindsay Graham's appearance on the Meet the Press, with his usual cornpone Southern bullshit about supporting the troops. And Jim Webb --normally one of the best and most aggressive Democrats in confronting the Republicans --just let Lindsay run on and on.

WHY doesn't anyone point out that Republicans who have wasted 3500+ soldiers lives in an unnecessary war , who have let thousands more crippled for life languish near black mold in Walter Reed, and who are now willing to let a 1000 more perish in Iraq rather than admit their blunder have NO right to talk about "supporting the troops".

THIS is why Bush and Cheney are so extreme in their actions -- they know that the Democrats don't have a spine.

Posted by Don Williams | July 16, 2007 12:59 PM

I hope someone might be interested in pointing out that Petraeus was in charge of training the Iraqi army in '04-'05. Not quite the raging success story everyone wants to imagine.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | July 16, 2007 1:29 PM

"Give Petraeus a chance" is just a variation on the BushCo "support the troops" b.s.

The democrats have totally dropped the ball. They supported the war when it was popular. Now that it's a failure they make antiwar noises but continue to enable BushCo with funding bills.

The worst of it is the "residual force" crap that comes from HRC and others. For crying out loud, how the hell would a small post-withdrawal force control the situation when the current force level has already failed?

Posted by kafka | July 16, 2007 1:55 PM

My point would be: a military officer gets a mission, and resources for the mission, so he makes the best plan he can. Tellingly, he tells no promises about success anytime soon.

It is not the place of a military officer on active duty to tell that he cannot do something, short of terrible debacle looming. And indeed, a debacle happened already and now we can keep it like that with only minor extra losses (to our strategic positions etc.)

The mission is not impossible militarily, but politically, and it takes a political realization, not a military one. Impossibility is in finding sufficient political backing among Iraqi Arabs for whatever lasting solution that would suit us. We cannot even recruit sufficient military --- not for the lack of recruits, but for the lack of officers whom we could trust.

All "solutions", be it Bush's or Biden's are based on a fantasy that we can have some genuine political influence. it was possible in El Salvador or Philipines but not in an oil-rich Muslim country (even poor Afghanistan seems politically intractable, why the Afghan military is not in charge after 5+ years?) We are perceived as greedy interlopers from another continent who understand nothing and nobody. From there, it goes downhill.

Posted by piotr | July 16, 2007 2:06 PM

(Franks even got a medal of honor) [...] Patraeus adulation

Ummm ... your comparison to the case of Franks supports the "Patraeus is being set up" hypothesis rather than providing evidence against it. Wouldn't you say Franks getting the medal of honor isn't too unlike what they are doing to Patraeus now? It's a fairly standard Bush & CO, m.o., ain't it?

Posted by DAS | July 16, 2007 2:50 PM

Bush uses people with high credibility like Petreus and Powell as fronts. Petreus is going to end up like Powell if he doesn't uncloak in September and say the war is lost.

Posted by grytpype | July 16, 2007 3:26 PM

General Petraeus will not say the war "is lost" in September, or even that the surge failed. He will emphasized the positive and deemphasize the negative. I don't know how to explain this those who have not been in the military, but military, one maintains a "can do," the mission will be accomplished attitude. As long as Petraeus's superior, the President,says he wants to carry on the fight, Petraeus will do his best to execute that order.

That is why ending a war, like starting a war, is ultimately a political decision short of total victory (and most wars don't end in total victory, WWII being an extreme aberration.) This President will do anything possible to continue fighting his war right up to January 20, 2009, and if Petraeus does not want to carry on like that, he will find another General who will.

Posted by Rick Kane | July 16, 2007 7:07 PM

Ending a war, or at least this war, will be far more difficult than anyone calling for the end to the war imagines. Why? Because amateurs talk strategy, and professionals talk logistics. And the logistics folks have started to look at what it would take to get out of Iraq, every soldier, every tank, every vehicle, every piece of gear we took over. The early verdict? 20 months--minimum.

And that's not even considering the possibility of increased casualties as forces are leaving (they are far more vulnerable when their weapons are stowed and they are heading out).

Read the excellant article in the Baltimore Sun that has been ignored by most:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-te.withdraw15jul15,0,4914397.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

Posted by Andrew | July 16, 2007 7:12 PM

This could prove to be one of the pivotal miscalculations of the Bush/Neocons. What if Petraeus is truly a man of character and duty, and calls bullshit on the Neocon strategy and/or resigns? Every now and then, men of integrity stand up, do the right think and change the course of history.

Posted by erict | July 16, 2007 8:25 PM

We all await September's report
From that sage Petraeus.
Trusting that he'll tell the truth
And not, bowing to Bush, betray us.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | July 17, 2007 11:38 AM

Ending a war, or at least this war, will be far more difficult than anyone calling for the end to the war imagines.

That may be true, but that difficulty is not a good reason for not getting out.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | July 17, 2007 3:16 PM