Bacevich on Petraeus

Via Ilan Goldenberg, I see Andrew Bacevich's assessment of General Petraeus' testimony. I think the word is "trenchant":

Petraeus has now given this charade a further lease on life. In effect, he is allowing the president and the Congress to continue dodging the main issue, which comes down to this: if the civilian leadership wants to wage a global war on terror and if that war entails pacifying Iraq, then let’s get serious about providing what’s needed to complete the mission—starting with lots more soldiers. Rather than curtailing the ostensibly successful surge, Petraeus should broaden and deepen it. That means sending more troops to Iraq, not bringing them home. And that probably implies doubling or tripling the size of the United States Army on a crash basis.

If the civilian leadership is unwilling to provide what’s needed, then all of the talk about waging a global war on terror—talk heard not only from the president but from most of those jockeying to replace him—amounts to so much hot air. Critics who think the concept of the global war on terror is fundamentally flawed will see this as a positive development. Once we recognize the global war on terror for the fraudulent enterprise that it has become, then we can get serious about designing a strategy to address the threat that we actually face, which is not terrorism but violent Islamic radicalism. The antidote to Islamic radicalism, if there is one, won’t involve invading and occupying places like Iraq.

Bacevich's point is that if succeeding in Iraq is really very important, and if Petraeus really thinks the US has found effective tactics that are helping to build toward success, then why isn't he demanding more troops so that we could actually surge up to the sort of force levels that history suggests are necessary for this sort of thing. The answer is that "if he had done otherwise—if he had asked, say, to expand the surge by adding yet another 50,000 troops—he would have distressed just about everyone back in Washington." Petraeus' job, however, was to do precisely the reverse -- to shore up congressional Republican support for George W. Bush's efforts to ensure that a large US military presence in Iraq is there when his successor takes office.

Comments

That's Jacksonian America talking, and it's saying "Shit or get off the pot." The Bush people have no intention of doing the one, so someone needs to make them do the other.

Posted by Doug | October 9, 2007 9:15 AM

With about 10 million occupation troops we may be able to help seriously stabilize the situation. Maybe we should consider renting the entire Chinese military.

Posted by El Cid | October 9, 2007 9:21 AM

In effect, he is allowing the president and the Congress to continue dodging the main issue, which comes down to this: if the civilian leadership wants to wage a global war on terror and if that war entails pacifying Iraq, then let’s get serious

Now you begin to realize what was so bad about the MoveOn ad. Petraus' function was to provide the Washington DC political and pundit class with a fig leaf to continue ducking responsibility. Any questioning of Petraus, therefore, would remove that vital fig leaf.

Petraeus' job, however, was to do precisely the reverse -- to shore up congressional Republican support for George W. Bush's efforts to ensure that a large US military presence in Iraq is there when his successor takes office.

Oh please. The Democrats have repeatedly demonstrated that they are as pro-War as any Republican - from the recent refusal to commit to pulling out before 2013 to their reported supporting of FISA once again. So let's cut out the lie - and it is a LIE - that the Democrats actually in any material serious way oppose Bush on Iraq. They are another part of the Washington DC figleaf seeking class.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | October 9, 2007 9:57 AM

Can't add more troops without really really straining the military. No way public will support a draft, which wouldn't get troops on the ground for at least a year anyway. Plus, now the Iraqis are saying what everyone knew alread: they don't want reconcilliation. The Sunnis maybe, because they are geting the shortest end of the stick. But why would the Shiites and the Kurds want to reconcile with the Sunnis, who oppressed them all thse years, noe that they are in the drivers seat.

This whole thing is somekind of wierd political exercise, just a going through of the motions. Unfortunately, there are many thousands more people who will be killed before Bush leaves office and the exercise is ended. It really is one of the most immoral, shameful things I have ever seen. All the unnecessary deaths Bush is responsible for. He's either going to have to ridgedly maintain a state of total denial about his motives for the rest of his life or he is never going to sleep again.

It also goes to show what happens when you elect the unqualified (emotionally, intellectually, and experientially) to the position of most powerful man on earth.

Posted by cw | October 9, 2007 10:01 AM

Can't add more troops without really really straining the military. No way public will support a draft, which wouldn't get troops on the ground for at least a year anyway. Plus, now the Iraqis are saying what everyone knew alread: they don't want reconcilliation. The Sunnis maybe, because they are geting the shortest end of the stick. But why would the Shiites and the Kurds want to reconcile with the Sunnis, who oppressed them all thse years, noe that they are in the drivers seat.

This whole thing is somekind of wierd political exercise, just a going through of the motions. Unfortunately, there are many thousands more people who will be killed before Bush leaves office and the exercise is ended. It really is one of the most immoral, shameful things I have ever seen. All the unnecessary deaths Bush is responsible for. He's either going to have to ridgedly maintain a state of total denial about his motives for the rest of his life or he is never going to sleep again.

It also goes to show what happens when you elect the unqualified (emotionally, intellectually, and experientially) to the position of most powerful man on earth.

Posted by cw | October 9, 2007 10:02 AM

Sorry for the double post.

Posted by cw | October 9, 2007 10:04 AM

Bacevich wins the Capt. Renault Disingenuity Award for his "realization" that Petraeus is fronting for the White House. Why, until the general gave his report dear Andrew had no idea the war had been politicized!

Posted by James Gary | October 9, 2007 11:19 AM

Terrific essay by Bacevich, thanks. I like the jujitsu of taking Patraeus' dubious data at face value and then pointing out that his policy recommendations still don't make any sense.

Posted by Steve | October 9, 2007 11:26 AM

As a military matter, the war was lost with Franks's idiotic plan, if it was, in fact, his plan. Patraeus knows this and is trying to front for Bush but he really wants to save the Army, which is physically broken. He is desperate to avoid seeing morale fall as it did 30 years ago when we went from a draft to a volunteer Army. The reverse seems impossible to pull off now. Patraeus needs a way to keep recruitment levels high enough to repair a failing institution. He can't advocate putting more troops in Iraq because that would hurt the recruiting effort. He wants to pull the troops out, but can't advise it until there is a democrat in the White House. His problem is that he can't tell the truth and behave like Bush's sock puppet at the same time. Soon he will have to choose between Bush an the Army and at that point we will find out whether he is a soldier or a sycophant.

The key political assessment that Bush has made is that the American people aren't gainst war, they are against losing, and if he can get Patraeus to stick it out until 2009, the dems will hve lost the war, even though they are for it. The great thing about this strategy is that Bush never admits that the war was lost. He will simply blame it on his successor. Another mess that someone else will clean up for this miserable excuse for a human. And Patraeus is his partner until he tells the truth.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | October 9, 2007 11:56 AM

Bacevich describes Petraeus as a "political general", noting that this isn't a bad thing -- he also considers Eisenhower and Washington, among others, to be "political generals". And then he chastises Petraeus for not making unrealistic personnel demands of Congress after accepting the job, and being unanimously confirmed for it, with full knowledge of the resources available. Isn't politics "the art of the possible"? Then how is it fair to slam Petraeus for not demanding of Congress the politically impossible?

I suspect that after losing his son in the Iraq War, Professor Bacevich may not be entirely objective in his appraisal of Petraeus.

Posted by Fred | October 9, 2007 1:19 PM

Not willing to say 'treasonous c*nt', eh, Fred?

Peter: "His problem is that he can't tell the truth and behave like Bush's sock puppet at the same time. Soon he will have to choose between Bush an the Army and at that point we will find out whether he is a soldier or a sycophant."

That was clear a few months ago, when he set up a potemkin marketplace for VIP's to take well-photgraphed tours through.

Actually, it was clear when he got the job. This administration has had a few honest people in the upper ranks, but that was back in 2001-02. They were purged, and the administration learned; there have been remarkably few (if any) since then.

Petraeus isn't a major somewhere down in the middle of the officer corps being promoted; he was a three-star general being promoted to four stars, and being put in command of a war. The administration would have checked him out very, very closely. An honest man in that position would be far to dangerous.

Posted by Barry | October 9, 2007 3:02 PM

Thanks Fred, for injecting a little sanity into the discussion.

I don't understand why people are willing to believe a 'political' general like Petraeus who has proven his competence would have any motive to kow tow to Bush like some lap dog? There is no upside to following a lame duck, wildly unpopular president -- unless you believe he is right.

Posted by Keith | October 9, 2007 5:26 PM

"George W. Bush's efforts to ensure that a large US military presence in Iraq is there when his successor takes office."

No, they're there to ensure that the war on Iran gets started before his successor takes office.

And Petraeus has in no sense proven any "competence", at least as far as Iraq is concerned. Most of his earlier operations in Iraq were dismal failures, including losing tons of US military hardware to the insurgents.

And it's irrelevant whether Petraeus "believes" - in some sense - that Bush is "right". That would simply make Petraeus another nitwit Pentagon general who doesn't understand when a war is lost.

Petraeus has plenty of critics both inside and outside the current military who regard as an "ass-kissing chickenshit", as Admiral Fallon reputedly referred to him. These military experts understand that the war is LOST. Period.

The real problem is that Petraeus DOES NOT CARE. He is EXACTLY the kind of person Bush would select for the job - somebody who DOES NOT CARE about anything but his career and his future political aspirations. Such a person will lie for Bush readily, and not give a damn how much damage his lies do to the men under his command or the country, and least of all, to Iraq and the region.

Petraeus is exactly what MoveOn called him - a traitor and a liar.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 9, 2007 6:20 PM

The new American way-- just get famous.

General Petraeus is just like Britney Spears. Get famous no matter how, and then use the stature to cash in. For Petraeus, it will be a book, a job at AEI and the speaker circuit. Same for Britney except AAA instead of AEI.

Truth and a clear focus on realistic American interests has never been relevant with Bush Co. The whole debate is so bullshit and far from reality.

Go ask Alice.

Posted by erict | October 9, 2007 8:13 PM

Oh, man, erict --

You mean the next time I get a flat tire and call AAA, I'm gonna get Brittney SPEARS??

Posted by DuBaun | October 9, 2007 10:58 PM