"I Don't Know"

Brian Beutler ponders the spectacle of General David Petraeus admitting he doesn't know if the war in Iraq makes Americans safer:

I almost sympathize with him. But in the end this only brings to light the giant expanse between how George Bush casts Petraeus and what Petraeus can accomplish (or even claim his role to be) without showing his hand. Bush says "winning" in Iraq is critical to American safety. He also says he's handed over responsibility for success there to General Petraeus, who we all must trust because he's just so honorable. Tall order. But that setup leaves Petraeus in an uncomfortable position, especially when faced with members of the Senate: He can't claim to be everything the president says he is, but neither can he suggest that his mission is anything but completely essential for American security. He must either sacrifice his mission-minded reputation as a soldier and toe the Bush line, or call into question the value of the mission itself. On Tuesday, I think we saw a man desperately trying to have it both ways and failing badly.

It's worth saying that Petraeus' answer was, in many ways, the only appropriate one to give. A soldier's job is to execute a policy. If you call him on the floor, you can expect him to defend his execution of the policy. Bush, however, wants Petraeus to defend the policy. This, however, isn't Petraeus' job. He's the top general in Iraq. He's not, however, in command of our civilian presence there. Nor is he in charge of diplomacy with Iraq's neighbors or with major allies (Israel, Egypt, etc.) elsewhere in the region. He's not in overall command of American military forces in the Middle East. He's in the Pentagon taking a big picture look at the American military. Nor is he fighting al-Qaeda around the world.

None of those things are his job. But they are all incredibly important pieces to put together when you want to ask whether or not our policy in Iraq is, all things considered, serving the national interest. That question, however, is a question for George W. Bush; a political question for politicians to debate without hiding behind generals or claiming their opponents are slandering the troops.

Comments

Petraeus is nothing more than a Bush stooge.

http://political-buzz.com/

Posted by chrisfl | September 13, 2007 10:14 AM

At first I was very angry at Patreaus for doing George Bush's Iraq Kabuki dance. Now I feel more sympathy. How shameful and cowardly is it for Bush the irresponsible to hide his policy failures behind men of valor who are duty bound to obey.

Bush is America's shame.

Posted by Northern Observer | September 13, 2007 10:25 AM

Which once again brings to mind how little the State Department and Condi Rice seem to have to do with Iraq (isn't she Crocker's boss?). Or Admiral Fallon, Petraeus' boss. Or Sec. Gates. The entire Iraq operation appears to involve only the Decider and the Golden Boy.

Posted by Mudge | September 13, 2007 10:28 AM

The Petraeus and Crocker testimony does show the way forward for congress to inform the American people of the bankruptcy of our Iraq/Middle East strategy. Bush will not be called to testify but Rice can. Ask her about arming Sunnis, ethnic cleansing and refugees, Iraqi Shia government officials' ties to Iran, the coming vote in Kirkuk and the Kurds signing unilateral oil deals, etc. It is her job to pull all these things together into a coherent policy. Let's see if she can tell us what it is.

Posted by Th | September 13, 2007 10:29 AM

Heads up to Matthew re an error in the above post.

Where Matthew said "He's [Petraeus] in the Pentagon taking a big picture look at the American military."

I think Matthew actually meant to say

"He's NOT in the Pentagon taking a big picture look at the American military."

Theater commanders fight wars -- it's up to the Departments (of Army, Navy, Air Force,etc ) back in the US to handle the job of SUPPORTING and SUSTAINING that effort (via recruiting, training, procurement, transport,etc.)

Posted by Don Williams | September 13, 2007 10:32 AM

I'm not sure whether Gen Petraeus doesn't deserve more censure. A Colonel might be able to justifiably say that he hadn't thought about how his mission fitted into the ultimate mission of protecting US security. However I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that a 4-star general is expected to understand and operate beyond the purely kinetic part of military operations. In fact I'd always thought that the point of 4-star generals was to sit, as Eisenhower and McArthur did most notably, at the junction of military missions and broader national policy. You can't blame Gen Petraeus for not having a good answer to Warner's question, but 'I haven't thought about it' is a kind of disturbing one. He should be thinking about little else, surely?

Posted by JohnTh | September 13, 2007 10:41 AM

I agree that "none of these things are his job", but I still think its a good question to ask him. He's obviously very involved in Iraq and knowledgeable about the region. So, why not ask him something that is technically outside of his purview?

And, its not as if we can expect an interesting or enlightening answer if we ask Bush. He'll just respond with the same old dopey slogans, which I'm sure he'll subject us to again tonight.

Posted by Jim W | September 13, 2007 10:42 AM

What ever happened to the "Iraq War Czar", appointed to such great fanfare only a Friedman Unit or so ago? Has he vanished off the face of the earth?

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | September 13, 2007 11:03 AM

The question is also a question for Admiral Fallon, who is actually in charge of all our forces in the region. Congress needs to call him up to Capitol Hill and ask him how this is impacting our overall interests in the region. All the reporting seems to indicate that he doesn't agree with Petraeus.

Posted by Ilan Goldenberg | September 13, 2007 11:14 AM

Petraeus admitting he doesn't know if the war in Iraq makes Americans safer

Of course, Matthew and Beutler are just flat out lying here. Petraeus most certainly DID say that, yes, Iraq is making us safer. Not that I'd expect the Reality Based Community to acknowledge, well, reality.

SEN. EVAN BAYH (D-IN): "I thought you had an excellent, very candid response to Senator Warner's question and that was - he asked you - going forward the recommendations that you're making, will that make America safer? And you said that you could not answer that question because that was beyond the purview of your — beyond the scope of your responsibilities."

PETRAEUS: "Well, I thank you actually, Senator, for an opportunity to address that, frankly. Candidly, I have been so focused on Iraq that drawing all the way out was something that for a moment there was a bit of a surprise.

"But I think that we have very, very clear and very serious national interests in Iraq. Trying to achieve those interests — achieving those interests has very serious implications for our safety and for our security. So I think the answer really, to come back to it is yes. But again, frankly, having focused down and down and down, that was something that really on first glance is something that I would let others - "

BAYH: "I judge by your response to Senator Graham, that you have given that a little additional thought."

PETRAEUS: "Immediately afterwards actually."

BAYH: "That happens to all of us, including those of us on this side of the table."

Posted by Al | September 13, 2007 11:16 AM

oh al, poor al: petraeus answered that he "didn't know." then he "immediately" gave it some thought and came back with this answer.

which is to say, he does not walk around thinking that this misguided adventure is making us safer, but when confronted with tv lights and an obvious faux pax, he is sufficiently polished at PR to rally.

it is, of course, not a "lie" on matthew's part to focus on his initial answer; it is, of course, not reality that this misguided piece of adventurism (and its misguided enablers) aren't doing a thing to make america "safer." that is a real lie....

Posted by howard | September 13, 2007 11:24 AM

But Petraeus' mission IS political--the only success that can be achieved is political.

Petraeus is well aware that benchmarks exist in terms of passing new laws. He referred to the political pressure to pass the "oil distribution" law and I'm quite sure he's well aware of the proposed law privatizing the oilfields (that is, giving them over to international capital in the form of PSAs). That's the real "mission". It's a political and economic one. And it certainly does not make America safer.

Did anyone one of the Senators actually ask questions about the political impact of pressuring Iraqis to sign over their resources? Until people start asking the obvious questions, all wer're going to be fed is confusion.

Posted by ludwig | September 13, 2007 11:25 AM

What ever happened to the "Iraq War Czar", appointed to such great fanfare only a Friedman Unit or so ago? Has he vanished off the face of the earth?

Wow, I'd totally forgotten about that. I guess it went down the memory hole, like that week in 2003 when Condi was in charge of Iraq.

Posted by Royko | September 13, 2007 11:28 AM

This time Al is correct, though. Petraeus said yes. That's a clear answer and the end of the story on this one. Matt's trying to blow something up that is not there.

Of course he had to think about it, what do you expect?

Posted by mq | September 13, 2007 11:39 AM

Royko: Don't forget when Rove was in chaarge of the post-Katrina reconstruction.

Funny, the media (and the Democrats) magically let Bush off the hook for tossing failed decisions down the memory hole.

Whether it was the pre-9/11 focus on missile defense, the pre 9/11 appointment of Cheney to head a counter-terrorism task force that never met, or even the mission to mars, Bush's Presidential screw-ups are cleansed as thoroughly as his Texas ANG service was.

Posted by space | September 13, 2007 11:47 AM

Watching those hearings was like seeing two tied up man get beaten with sticks by toddlers for ten hours. As Matt's Atlantic colleague Robert D. Kaplan pointed out ("Bottom-up Progress") yesterday:

"The idea that General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker are front men for the administration is ludicrous. Until he took the job as overall ground commander in Iraq, Petraeus was a favorite of liberal journalists: the Princeton man who enjoyed the company of the media and intellectuals, so much so that he was vaguely distrusted by other general officers who envied the good ink he received. As for Crocker, he is a hard-core Arabist, a professional species that I once wrote a book about: He is the least likely creature on earth to buy into neoconservative ideas about the Middle East. Neither of these men are identified with the decision to go to war. If I had to bet, I’d say that Crocker especially would have been against it, like his other Arabist colleagues. Thus, these men have no personal stake in proving the president right. They and their staffs are much more likely to provide a balanced analysis of the reality in Iraq than senators and congressmen looking over their shoulders at opinion polls and future elections. As Petraeus said, “I wrote this testimony myself,” meaning, the White House had nothing to do with it. Watching them brief Congress Monday, I came away convinced that they made a better impression on the public than anyone else in the room."

You lefties who have bought into Matt's "Petraeus is a hack" meme should ask yourselves what effect these unprecedented and unwarranted political attacks on an active duty military officer will have on the role of the military in the future. You will reap what you have sown here, by politicizing the officer corps, and you will live to regret it.

We invaded Iraq -- and remain there -- because of decisions made by the President and Congress, not because of decisions made by Petraeus or Crocker; their jobs are to implement the elected government's policy. Senators should have asked themselves questions about the relative merits of the policy before they voted to authorize it and voted to continue to fund it several times; it's inappropriate to ask these inherently political questions of the senior diplomat and soldier hired to carry out the policy.

Posted by Fred | September 13, 2007 12:00 PM

"This time Al is correct, though. Petraeus said yes. That's a clear answer and the end of the story on this one. Matt's trying to blow something up that is not there.

Of course he had to think about it, what do you expect?

Posted by mq | September 13, 2007 11:39 AM"

I somehow doubt that if we asked Eisenhower whether or actions in Europe during WWII were making us safer, he wouldn't initially answer "I don't know," then realize he screwed up because his real job had become a Prez propagandist and only then say, "of course." People tend to either lead with the real answer or say something like "you can't prove that / what did somebody tell you" when they get caught off guard and then come up with a good fake answer.

Think of this scenario:

Girlfriend: "Are you cheating on me?"
Boyfriend: "I don't know. What we would consider cheating? I'm not really sure. What have you heard? Of course I'm not cheating on you. I love you."

Posted by Reality Man | September 13, 2007 12:02 PM

"You lefties who have bought into Matt's "Petraeus is a hack" meme should ask yourselves what effect these unprecedented and unwarranted political attacks on an active duty military officer will have on the role of the military in the future. You will reap what you have sown here, by politicizing the officer corps, and you will live to regret it.

We invaded Iraq -- and remain there -- because of decisions made by the President and Congress, not because of decisions made by Petraeus or Crocker; their jobs are to implement the elected government's policy. Senators should have asked themselves questions about the relative merits of the policy before they voted to authorize it and voted to continue to fund it several times; it's inappropriate to ask these inherently political questions of the senior diplomat and soldier hired to carry out the policy."

Are going on the Hugh Hewitt show and writing WSJ op-eds right before the 2004 election carrying out the policy? These are inherently political actions. Petraeus has allowed this to be done to him. We live in a democracy that is partly based on civilian control of the military. That means we can question or criticize the military and its commanders as we see fit as part of democratic discourse. You apparently don't like democratic discourse. Individual's actions have consequences, even if you're a general.

Posted by Reality Man | September 13, 2007 12:08 PM

mq, if he really thought this piece of adventurism was making us safer, he would have had a ready response. the fact that he didn't is the "tell."

as for fred, what is so inherently "political" about asking petraeus about his claims of progress? what is so inherently "political" about wondering why he has his very own special violence metrics? what is so inherently "political" about wondering why his 2004 op-ed was so spectacularly wrong (and about noting that his answer was 100% crap)?

we won't even delve into what kind of mindset says "you can't criticize petraeus because you didn't vote against the war in 2002;" some remarks are just too silly to deal with in our sadly short lifespans.

Posted by howard | September 13, 2007 12:16 PM

Look, obviously you can interpret that as being a tell and obviously Petraeus may have internal hesitancies and doubts that he doesn't express, but who cares? That's way too subtle and subjective. My point is there is no effective message to be taken out of this and no story that has any value for the anti-war side. I.e. there is no marketable "gaffe" here, in the sense of someone inadvertantly telling the truth.

Also, the whole propaganda effort here is meant to contrast the staged "realism" and "thoughtfulness" and "non-partisanship" of Petraeus and Crocker against the "political motivations" of the Dems. So Petreaus doing a lot of chin-stroking and backing and filling before an answer is just fine too.

Posted by mq | September 13, 2007 12:25 PM

Look, obviously you can interpret that as being a tell and obviously Petraeus may have internal hesitancies and doubts that he doesn't express, but who cares? That's way too subtle and subjective. My point is there is no effective message to be taken out of this and no story that has any value for the anti-war side. I.e. there is no marketable "gaffe" here, in the sense of someone inadvertantly telling the truth.

"Who cares?" Aside from most of the world?

"No marketable 'gaffe'" -- In a world after Abu Ghraib where Republican candidates jostled each other to become bigger advocates of torture, this isn't particularly surprising. (Can anyone convincingly argue against the notion that we've all died and are now in Hell? Anyone? Ferris?)

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 13, 2007 12:38 PM

"Are going on the Hugh Hewitt show and writing WSJ op-eds right before the 2004 election carrying out the policy?"

I don't think active duty military officers (or NCOs, as the case was recently in the NY Times) should write op/eds. Senate Democrats don't share my opinion though; if they did, they wouldn't have unanimously confirmed Gen. Petraeus for his current command, three years after he wrote that editorial. I have no problem with military officers being interviewed by journalists though.

"We live in a democracy that is partly based on civilian control of the military. That means we can question or criticize the military and its commanders as we see fit as part of democratic discourse."

It's legitimate to question or criticize military officers about their implementation of policies determined by the elected government, but the decision and responsibility for embarking on those policies rests lies with the civilian leadership in the elected government, not with the military. It's inappropriate to criticize or question military officers about policy decisions made by the civilian leadership.

"You apparently don't like democratic discourse."

This from the man who resorts to puerile ad hominem remarks whenever Steve Sailer cites a fact he disagrees with.

Posted by Fred | September 13, 2007 12:45 PM

Are going on the Hugh Hewitt show ... carrying out the policy? These are inherently political actions.

I'm sorry, but going on the Hugh Hewitt show is an "inherently political action"? It's a media request, no different than a media request for an interview by CNN, or NBC, or The Atlantic for that matter.

And, I'll add, it is no different than going on the Alan Combes radio show, which Petraeus did a couple of weeks after Hewitt.

Answering media requests as an "inherently political action" - what a lame charge.

Posted by Al | September 13, 2007 12:53 PM

Oh come on Al. Look at the transcript of what he said on Hewitt's show. Read the op-ed. Why would he publish an op-ed saying that the current policy is good right before an election when the incumbent who chose that policy is up for re-election? Alan Combes, remember, is on FoxNews and is too much of a wimp to ever challenge anyone when they pull out right-wing talking points. He hasn't exactly appeared on the Daily Show.

"It's legitimate to question or criticize military officers about their implementation of policies determined by the elected government, but the decision and responsibility for embarking on those policies rests lies with the civilian leadership in the elected government, not with the military. It's inappropriate to criticize or question military officers about policy decisions made by the civilian leadership."

Petraeus was chosen to carry out this policy. He wasn't just sitting around the Pentagon and just happened to have this fall in his lap. He was confirmed because the Dems knew that Bush wouldn't send anyone better. Do you think the Democrats support John Roberts's Supreme Court decisions?

"You apparently don't like democratic discourse."

This from the man who resorts to puerile ad hominem remarks whenever Steve Sailer cites a fact he disagrees with. "

Steve Sailer is a racial essentialist who has dedicated his life trying to prove that black people are genetically inferior. The fact that you defend him says more about your racism than about me. Pseudo-scientists whose ideas would have been rather comfortable in Munich circa 1942 aren't there to be engaged. The fact that you don't find him inherently disgusting like all racists and bigots are means you're beyond contempt and belong to an age that is dying and will soon be forgotten.

Posted by Reality Man | September 13, 2007 1:14 PM

It's legitimate to question or criticize military officers about their implementation of policies determined by the elected government, but the decision and responsibility for embarking on those policies rests lies with the civilian leadership in the elected government, not with the military.
That's exactly right. The same can be said for ambassadors and the foreign service corps. However, there was no an actual policymaker testifying, so should they just have forgotten about those questions?

it is no different than going on the Alan Combes radio show, which Petraeus did a couple of weeks after Hewitt.
After he was criticized for appearing on Hewitt. Hewitt is not a standard media interview. He has been Mitt Romney's personal cheerleader. Who has CNN endorsed for president?

Posted by Lynn | September 13, 2007 1:21 PM

"Do you think the Democrats support John Roberts's Supreme Court decisions?"

Do you think comparing the Chief Justice of the United States -- the head of one of the three co-equal branches of the federal government -- to a military officer whose job is to implement policies decided by the other two branches of government is a useful analogy?

"Steve Sailer is a racial essentialist who has dedicated his life trying to prove that black people are genetically inferior."

He has? So Sailer thinks black dominance of basketball and football and other fields is an illusion? To the contrary, Sailer has argued, convincingly, that genetic advantages have played a role in these and other black achievements. He has also argued, convincingly, that genes play rolls in other areas of human competition, including some where blacks tend not to be as successful. In any case, your accusation does nothing to refute Sailer's claims about inter-racial dating, which seem eminently plausible -- apparently to you as well. Otherwise, you would have attempted to refute them rather than resort to ad hominem attacks.

"Pseudo-scientists whose ideas would have been rather comfortable in Munich circa 1942 aren't there to be engaged"

I know this Nazi reference is intended to stifle debate, and not encourage it, but I'll take the bait this time. Nazi scientists started with a racist ideology and then worked backwards, discarding facts that didn't fit; for example, as Steve Sailer himself has pointed out, Hitler banned IQ tests in Germany because German Jews outperformed non-German Jews. Similarly, Hitler famously turned his back on Jesse Owens's Olympic dominance. Ask yourself honestly: who is taking the Nazi pseudo-scientific approach of disregarding ideologically uncomfortable facts here -- Sailer or you?

Posted by Fred | September 13, 2007 1:44 PM

Crocker and Petreaus were given 5 pounds of Bush's shit and a three pound bag and ordered to prove to America that Bush's shit don't stink. As soon as one of these dim bulbs in the Senate or on TV asks whether the disappearance of AQI in 15 minutes would make Iraq a safer place, the jig will be up. Even then, Bush is staying.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | September 13, 2007 1:48 PM

According to the chief of CENTCOM, Petraeus is "an ass-kissing little chickenshit."

So, Yglesias erred on the side of moderation in calling him "political". Unless you think Admiral Fallon is lying. Do you think Fallon is lying, Al?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 13, 2007 1:56 PM

I got it now. Petraeus is Bush's lapdog unless he says something that you agree with?

Posted by danceswithgoats | September 13, 2007 2:47 PM

Fred, emphasizing an innate African disposition towards athletic ability has actually been common among those who wish to show that Africans are genetically mentally inferior. Like Nazis, he does work backwards from his assumption of white mental superiority through his pseudo-science to his method. Ask yourself, why do you find the writings of a guy who is a genetic essentialist so convincing? The type of data he uses is so vague that one can use it to prove whatever one wants, yet he chooses to interpret the data in a way to emphasizes black African mental inferiority towards white Europeans.

Posted by Reality Man | September 13, 2007 3:40 PM

According to the chief of CENTCOM, Petraeus is "an ass-kissing little chickenshit."

Link please!

(A link to a credible news source, that is.)

Posted by Al | September 13, 2007 4:46 PM

Reality Man emphasizing an innate African disposition towards athletic ability has actually been common among those who wish to show that Africans are genetically mentally inferior.

Translation of Reality Man:

Talking about areas where minorities have "innate abilities" superior to whites or Asians IS GOOD!

Talking about areas where minorities "innate abilities" are inferior to whites or Asians IS BAD!

Liberals appear to divide into 2 groups:

The ones that swear up and down that there is absolutely no genetically-based "Performance difference" in any group. That Asians and whites dominating Physics PhDs, blacks dominating sprints, whites swimming events - is only due to "lack of opportunity". Blacks are "deprived" by discrimination of the opportunity that Indian villagers have to become Physics PhDs, rampant racial hatred denying blacks swimming pools is why blacks don't excel in swim sports. And, whites and Asians don't exel at sprints because they are too lazy to practice. Besides, the liberals in that group claim - look! look! there are a few black physics PhDs, black swimmers, Asian and white spinters so the "whole stereotype" is wrong! Wrong!

The second group of liberals enthusiastically accepts black racial success in "fast-twitch muscle" sports that blacks of the Congoloid subgroup have, the "natural leaping ability of blacks", the "spatial ability" of Asians.....but draw a firewall around mental ability, and lash out on any suggestion that mental abilities vary by groups or that "slight differences" cannot be easily overcome by "nurturing caregivers and teachers."

Realists say that scientific proof exists of bell curves defining ethnic and racial abilities and traits over a wide range of attributes. That our DNA is not 99.99% similar but only 99%, and differences are far from "only skin deep". Who laugh at people that say there is no such thing as race. That the differences between Swedes and Somalis are "meaningless" given nurture. Or Japanese and Samoans.

Given 10,000 Swedes, Samoans, Japanese, and Somalis all given the same "opportunities" we know which groups will produce the most physics PhDs, the most pro football players, the most successful medium and long-distance runners. We also know which groups will have more or less criminality. The most hypertension. The most skin cancers.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 13, 2007 5:31 PM

But the good thing about DNA-based bell curves is that it doesn't make considering any individual more or less - than another individual based on their different group - rational human behavior.

A black is more likely to be dumb, or have a criminal record than an Asian...but you don't know on an individual level where that person you are interacting with fits on their bell curve. You could be dealing with a very bright black guy, smarter than your white self, of high character. You don't know until you spend some time with them. And the Asian you talk with could turn out to be a stupid immoral scuzball.

Or find out that the Asian has a 34" vertical leap ability and that the black is terribly unathletic with a 14" vertical leap..

Or the shock on black track athletes faces in HS meets when they found I was a very rare, very fast white guy that beat most blacks in 100M, 200M races. Though I had no more vertical leap than average whites..

On the other hand, stereotypes are useful in other decisions. I am far less concerned with 3 blonde Swede females approaching me on a sidewalk than 3 black guys in full 'hood regalia even though the blacks may be attending MIT...and dressing down. THEN, a rational person plays the odds. Same with a manufacturer considering siting a facility in the Congo employing black males or in China employing Chinese females. He has a pretty good idea, from bell curves that describe the sort of average worker he would get in terms of IQ, temperment, detail work ability, patience....which facility would produce the higher quality goods with the least workplace managerial headaches..

Posted by Chris Ford | September 13, 2007 5:57 PM

Yeah, Matt, another day, another dozen posts about Iraq. I can only marvel at the sheer inanity of a mind that sustain such an apparent interest. Like you give a shit.

Posted by Klerk | September 13, 2007 6:17 PM

Reality Man,

Where does Sailer assume "white mental superiority"? He looks at the data, of which there are copious amounts, and goes by what the data suggest: that Northeast Asians, not whites, have the highest intelligence, on average.

"Ask yourself, why do you find the writings of a guy who is a genetic essentialist so convincing?"

I don't find everything Sailer writes convincing, but when he writes something that's backed up by reams of data, and is consistent with honest observations, common sense, and Occam's Razor, I tend to find that more convincing than protestations such as yours that are based on ad homimem arguments, politically correct dogma, appeals to emotion, and no facts.

"The type of data he uses is so vague that one can use it to prove whatever one wants"

The primary data source for most American studies of race and IQ is the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, compiled by the United States government. The data aren't vague, and they can't be used to prove whatever one wants. Numerous studies of the data confirm an IQ gap of approximately one standard deviation between whites and blacks (with Asians scoring about half a standard deviation higher than whites). The gap is consistent across all socio-economic levels, suggesting that environmental factors alone are unlikely to be the cause of the gap.

Posted by Fred | September 13, 2007 6:59 PM

Looks like Reality Man couldn't stand the heat and got out of the kitchen.

Posted by Harry | September 13, 2007 11:03 PM

Matt, you say Bush wants Petreaus "to defend the policy."

What policy? This president's policy seems to be to try different tactics, hope something good turns up, and take credit for whatever serendipitously occurs.

That's Candide, not strategy.

Posted by cpl | September 14, 2007 1:05 AM