The Petraeus Coup

Bruce Ackerman was fretting the other day about the deployment of General Petraeus and other high-ranking military officers as political weapons by the White House. This, he felt, imperiled the idea of civilian control of the military. The New York Sun, by contrast, want to see Petraeus deliver a speech ending with this bold paragraph:

What I cannot countenance is for you today to commend my skill and bravery in Anbar and Baghdad and then tomorrow to hold votes on how futile this struggle is. So let me make this choice easy for you. I believe we have a good chance to drive Al Qaeda and Iran's network from Iraq and stand up in due time a functioning democracy in Baghdad. I am prepared, even eager, to command our forces in this battle-- but only on one condition: That you signal that you share my goal of victory. If you think I am mistaken and wish to continue your efforts to undermine me, then I cannot command. Absent that signal, I will resign, effective immediately, and take my case to the voters in a run for the presidency on a campaign to finish the work of winning the war and redeeming the sacrifice of so many Iraqis, allies, and our own GIs

Dave Weigel tries to point out that there's no actual indication that Petraeus is a popular figure -- his favorable/unfavorable split is 24/34 -- but Dave's missing the real point here which is that Petraeus is extremely popular among journalists and among think tankers who appear frequently on cable television.

UPDATE: Ooops! When I wrote the title to this post, my intention was to append a brief short story about David Petraeus appearing before congress to denounce the war, denounce Bush, and declare his intention to stage a coup. Then I decided it wasn't nearly as witty as I'd thought it was and just left the post you read above. But I forgot to change the title, which is now hyperbolic and not really appropriate to the post I wrote.

Comments

Is Petraeus a "troop"?

How much "support" do we owe to "the troops" if this war, or any war, is _their_ idea?

-- TP

Posted by Tony P. | September 6, 2007 10:12 AM

Would the Iraqi exiles get a chance to vote in the Petraeus election?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 6, 2007 10:19 AM

Well, let's not go crazy here. THE SUN is a crazed, marginal rag with almost no readership beyond Martin Peretz and perhaps Stephen F. Hayes --- the true last outpost of neoconservatism. I still am mystified why Eli Lake is viewed with any sort of credibility.

Posted by tequila | September 6, 2007 10:20 AM

Maybe he can run on the Unity08 ticket. After all, they're all about pundit-acceptability. Claiming to promote unity while backing an unpopular war would be at most a minor flaw.

Posted by KCinDC | September 6, 2007 10:22 AM

Um. What the hell would constitute victory in Iraq? The goal posts have been moved so many times I don't even know anymore. Last January it was the benchmarks. Now it is some kind of micro-tribal initiative. What will "victory" for next April be? Stopping the spread of a regional war and containing it only in Iraq?

I'm serious. If victory is to have any meaning it all, it needs to be clearly elucidated and consistently applied. Absent that, the best description of this whole enterprise is an excercise in how to waste America's resources while undermining long-standing policy goals.

Posted by szr | September 6, 2007 10:23 AM

The New York Sun. That's the paper they deliver for free to every address in Manhattan, right?

Okay, then. But what did the New York Press have to say? How about the City Paper? OpenUniversity?

Posted by brooksfoe | September 6, 2007 10:23 AM

Christ, have they been reading de bellum civile? What a bunch of nutbags.

Posted by Guy in Jersey | September 6, 2007 10:23 AM

In what rarified world do these people live, where the idea of running on a pro-surge Presidential platform has appeal? The American people indicated their displeasure loudly during the 2006 elections, and I see no indication that they've come to like this war more now that we've extended tours and dumped 60,000 more of their friends and neighbors into the thick of it.

I honestly hope that Petraeus does drop out and run for President. Nothing would give me more pleasure than to watch that kind of hard-core self-destruction.

Posted by MattNotYglesias | September 6, 2007 10:23 AM

BTW, Matthew, I see you've posted like four times this morning and McArdle is still getting out of bed. Are you trying to disprove economic rational-actor theories or something?

Posted by brooksfoe | September 6, 2007 10:25 AM

...on one condition: That you signal that you share my goal of victory. If you think I am mistaken and wish to continue your efforts to undermine me, then I cannot command.

What a cowardly dodge that would be.

Petraeus needs to be even more honest and direct and just ask the assembled politicians if they will support him and his plan...

...or will they announce publicly, here and now, in front of his face...

...that they are in league with Al Qa'ida, and therefore an enemy of the United States, and he needs to capture or shoot them right there and right then.

Now THAT would be forceful and manly.

Posted by El Cid | September 6, 2007 10:27 AM

"I'm serious. If victory is to have any meaning it all, it needs to be clearly elucidated and consistently applied. Absent that, the best description of this whole enterprise is an excercise in how to waste America's resources while undermining long-standing policy goals."

I'm guessing at this point it's all about ego. If there was a consistent metric, we could measure progress with regard to that metric and hold them accountable. Lacking this metric, progress can mean whatever pomo thoughts Kristol et al want it to mean. This is like a freshman philosophy seminar gone stupid.

Posted by Reality Man | September 6, 2007 10:34 AM

Someone should tell The New York Sun that only successful generals run for President (or become dictators, as Lincoln said about MacClellan). U.S Grant and Dwight Eisenhower won victories that everyone could see. They did not have to produce a PowerPoint display of bogus statistics to convince people that they had been successful generals.

And Grant won the Civil War and Ike WWII in Europe in less time than we've been in Iraq. Of course, there is some Petreas precedent. After presiding over the disastrous Franco-Prussian War of 1870, in which he was actually captured by the Germans, Gen. Patrice de Mac-Mahon became President of France. Somehow, I doubt The Sun or any else on the Right will cite that inspiring example.

Posted by Edward Furey | September 6, 2007 10:36 AM

Yeah, and how did that work out for Douglas McArthur?

Posted by AJ | September 6, 2007 10:43 AM

Why don't they just say what they mean: Petraeus should surround the Capitol with troops, lock the House doors, and mow down both houses of Congress with machine guns and hand grenades?

Posted by brooksfoe | September 6, 2007 10:46 AM

The perpetual motion machine has now been invented and proved to be real.

...finish the work of winning the war and redeeming the sacrifice of so many Iraqis, allies, and our own GIs...

Posted by gregor | September 6, 2007 11:21 AM

THE SUN is a crazed, marginal rag with almost no readership beyond Martin Peretz and perhaps Stephen F. Hayes --- the true last outpost of neoconservatism.

Actually, my next-door neighbor seems to get home delivery of the Sun, which scares me quite a bit.

Posted by Steve | September 6, 2007 11:28 AM

I would like Jesu ... er ... Gen. Petraeus to unfold his diaphanous wings and soar above the assembled crowd of legislators, shooting rainbow beams of wisdom from his eyes.

Posted by Aaron | September 6, 2007 12:07 PM

Do we even know that Petraeus is a Republican? There are certainly still Iraq hawks among Democrats. Has anyone seen anything about his party affiliation?

Posted by EricW | September 6, 2007 12:13 PM

After presiding over the disastrous Franco-Prussian War of 1870, in which he was actually captured by the Germans, Gen. Patrice de Mac-Mahon became President of France.

MacMahon didn't preside over the war--he was a subordinate commander, although his performance was less than brilliant. The prime culprits in the French defeat, however, were Napoleon III (who "presided" over the war) and Marshal Bazaine, who outranked MacMahon.

Posted by rea | September 6, 2007 12:44 PM

Petraeus is extremely popular among journalists and among think tankers who appear frequently on cable television.

He smells like English Leather and victory.

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | September 6, 2007 12:52 PM

Do we even know that Petraeus is a Republican? There are certainly still Iraq hawks among Democrats. Has anyone seen anything about his party affiliation?

Posted by EricW | September 6, 2007 12:13 PM

Although it does seem that Gen. Petraeus has placed himself in the public eye to promote certain political policies in politically sensitive contexts, if it matters, I think most people are taking shots at the way 'his' (via the White House) perspective and his report have been talked about as though it is the most important Tru Fact moment ever to come out about Iraq, we need to just all sit back quietly and obey Bush Jr. until that day When General Petraeus Gives His Report.

Posted by El Cid | September 6, 2007 1:36 PM

"Petraeus is extremely popular among journalists and among think tankers who appear frequently on cable television.

He smells like English Leather and victory.

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | September 6, 2007 12:52 PM "

Don't forget the napalm and Aqua Velva.

Posted by Reality Man | September 6, 2007 1:49 PM

This, he felt, imperiled the idea of civilian control of the military.

What imperils civilian control of the military is the explicit argument made by the President, the majority of the Republicans in Congress and a significant number of Democrats that Congress has no role in making decisions about the war.

"And I believe Congress ought to wait for General Petraeus to come back and give his assessment of the strategy that he's putting in place before they make any decisions. That's what the American people expect."

This is completely backwards. Generals in the U.S. follow the commands of the president and the elected leaders. They don't decide when, where or often how to go to war. And they don't decide when to stop.

The alternative is a system like that in Turkey - where the military has openly threatened to overthrow the government, or in Pakistan where they've repeatedly done just that.

Posted by Jinchi | September 6, 2007 1:53 PM

There's the quote I was looking for:

In both the House and the Senate, majorities have passed bills that substitute the judgment of politicians in Washington for the judgment of our commanders on the ground.

- G.W.Bush

Posted by Jinchi | September 6, 2007 2:10 PM

Well, let's not go crazy here. THE SUN is a crazed, marginal rag with almost no readership beyond Martin Peretz and perhaps Stephen F. Hayes --- the true last outpost of neoconservatism. I still am mystified why Eli Lake is viewed with any sort of credibility. Posted by tequila

Uh, no. That would be the Sun that, along with the Post and a Spanish newspaper have rising NYC circulation while the NY Times continues to bleed subscribers and advertisers..

Jinchi - This is completely backwards. Generals in the U.S. follow the commands of the president and the elected leaders. They don't decide when, where or often how to go to war. And they don't decide when to stop.

Generals and other distinguished officers and some enlisted have gone on to elected office. As civilians, but with their main resume` accomplishments in the military arena - George Washington, Harrison, Tyler, Andrew Jackson, US Grant, TDR, Ike...and well as many a Governor like Joshua Chamberlain, hero of Little Round Hill...
Generals in the US follow the commands of the Commander in Chief and His Designees. They do not follow the commands of any other elected leader - VP or Congress - because the Constitution says none of them are in the military Chain of Command.
Generals do have major input in decisions about when, where to go to war, or not to. They certainly have a place in deciding when a war stops - with the fact of their own surrender or accepting the enemy's defeat and surrender.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 6, 2007 3:07 PM

Here is the only General I'm voting for in 2008!

This guy has got it together!

http://www.zod2008.com/

How can you go wrong with this sort of political campaign? Take that, Fred Thompson!

Zod demands tribute as primaries draw closer
RAPID CITY (AP) -- General Zod issued a demand Thursday for $142 million in tribute for August 2007 to fund his bid for the 2008 Presidential race.
Said Zod at a campaign breakfast, "Now is the time to show your allegiance. With an election drawing near, I must rise before you and do these things that are necessary, this campaigning, as it were, to take my rightful place in the White House.
"Today dawns a new era of prosperity! All citizens shall joyously offer half their wages this month. You shall use your phone and dial one of the three agencies allowed to collect these funds. The numbers are 1-800-525-6285, 1-888-397-3742, or 1-800-680-7289. You must give them a credit card or bank account number. If tribute is not forthcoming, rest assured these agencies have all powers to appropriate what is yours! They shall enslave you, and one day, your heirs!"
The General's campaign office could not be reached for comment.

Here is his eternal program!

Vote for your ruler

"When I first came to your planet and demanded your homes, property and very lives, I didn't know you were already doing so, willingly, with your own government. I can win no tribute from a bankrupted nation populated by feeble flag-waving plebians. In 2008 I shall restore your dignity and make you servants worthy of my rule. This new government shall become a tool of my oppression. Instead of hidden agendas and waffling policies, I offer you direct candor and brutal certainty. I only ask for your tribute, your lives, and your vote.
-- General Zod
Your Future President and Eternal Ruler"

Now - KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 6, 2007 8:36 PM

Read Paul Krugman earlier this week about Petraeus' pro-war all-is-well WaPo piece a month before the election in 2004.

Bit inappropriate, no? Not exactly non-partisan, eh?

Posted by bob | September 6, 2007 10:46 PM

Yup - just saw an article about that over on HuffPo.

So Petraeus is already known for being wrong AND partisan!

Any further questions from the right wing nuts?

It's a done deal - Petraeus and Bush will bullshit everybody, the Dems have ALREADY ANNOUNCED that they will cave in - really, not just cave in, but ANNOUNCE that they will cave in! - and the war will go on.

Is there actually any point to discussing the Iraq war any more?

It's going to go on. Just accept it - and prepare for the war on Iran.

Which is also guaranteed.

Yesterday Israel tested Syria's air defense systems in preparation for the coming war between Israel and Syria/Hizballah.

That was a CLEAR signal that war is coming. And not very long from now either is my guess.

We could be within days or weeks of a new major Middle East war involving Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Israel and the US - six countries at war with each other at once. THREE TIMES the problems of the Iraq/Iran war, the US/Iraq war, or the Israel/Lebanon war.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 6, 2007 11:06 PM