Petraeus and the Press

Spencer Ackerman has a nice column up at TAP Online about the speculation surrounding what's next for David Petraeus. At one point he observes that "Petraeus emerged from his first two assignments in Iraq -- commanding the 101st Airborne Division from 2003 to 2004 and then the training of Iraqi security forces from 2004 to 2005 -- as the only general to leave the war with his reputation enhanced." One interesting question is: How did this happen? Indeed, I think that's one of the greatest stories never told of the Iraq War.

The good reputation he emerged with following his time commanding the 101st can be attributed in large part to the fact that conditions remained unusually good in his AOR compared to what was happening in adjacent AORs. But it was thanks to his good reputation from that first tour that he was selected to head up the vital ISF training mission during his second tour. That mission, however, didn't go well at all. So why did Petraeus' reputation stay good?

Well in part it happened because he's a smart, articulate, well-educated general. But in large part it happened because he's a smart, articulate, well-educated general who was (and is) very good at cultivating the press. In particular, before being appointed to command MNF-Iraq Petraeus was a source, both on and off the record, for a wide variety of journalists both those working "straight" reporting jobs and those doing more opiniated work critical of the Bush administration from both a moderate liberal perspective and a neocon perspective. During that period, he cultivated a lot of good will and credibility that he's deployed to great effect since taking command. The fact that Petraeus has been a source for a lot of the journalists who cover the Iraq debate is a key element in understanding the politics of the surge and of the "Petraeus report." But it's a story that you'll never see reported on in detail because that would violate the rules of the game.

Comments

Yes, exactly. This is very important point.

One thing that people never closely involved in the political/media world often don't realize is that certain types of "corruption" are not only acceptable, but even regarded as necessary to the workings of the system.

For example, any reporter who accepts a wad of cash in return for favorable "spin" on a story is regarded as a crook, and usually fired and black-listed if caught.

On the other hand, a reporter who trades favorable "spin" in return for information or tips, is usually regarded as a good and ethical reporter.

Basically, "information bribery" is a central currency of the media ecosystem. But this can have very, very negative consequences when it comes to informing the public on many matters.

Posted by RKU | January 24, 2008 2:00 PM

In particular, before being appointed to command MNF-Iraq Petraeus was a source, both on and off the record, for a wide variety of journalists both those working "straight" reporting jobs and those doing more opiniated work critical of the Bush administration from both a moderate liberal perspective and a neocon perspective.

When did Petraeus ever say anything bad about the Decider? We know that the Bushies punish disloyalty. So what exactly justifies the above statement?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | January 24, 2008 2:10 PM

Anybody who read Thomas Ricks' "Fiasco" could see that Petraeus played him like a fiddle.

Posted by Gary | January 24, 2008 2:18 PM

You know, the game is still the game.

Posted by crack | January 24, 2008 2:20 PM

This might go a long way in explaining his good reputation in general, but I don't think it can explain his reputation within the military.

I heard a lot of very positive things about Petraeus from my brother, who is in Iraq with the Marine Corps (though he was still in Quantico at the time). He had a very high opinion of Petraeus based on what he'd heard from other marines, not a group that is very interested in what the media has to say about their own. As I understand it, these opinions within the corps spread by word of mouth from marine to marine, and really, what else would one expect?

I don't think his reputation proves he was a great general, but I don't think you can develop a great reputation among marines by being presented well in the media.

Posted by NC Saint | January 24, 2008 2:25 PM

You left out his other major job during this period, which was to oversee the drafting of the new Counter-Insurgency Manual for the Army. I think his high profile pushing of a change in overall strategy is another important part of his high reputation.

That he managed to be successful in his push towards a new strategy, despite the well documented antipathy towards counter-insurgency type warfare in the Army, is probably partly further evidence of his skill in working the political angles (in this case within the DOD), and partly the result of the Army realizing that they needed a change, with Petraeus happening to be in the right place at the right time to be an agent of that change.

Posted by Doug T | January 24, 2008 2:37 PM

Basically, "information bribery" is a central currency of the media ecosystem.
Posted by RKU | January 24, 2008 2:00 PM

It's not even information that's being trafficked, it's access. Rarely is any useful information divulged, but the reporter got the information from a highly-placed source, which makes it "valuable".

Posted by Kurzbein | January 24, 2008 4:03 PM

One interesting question is: How did this happen? Indeed, I think that's one of the greatest stories never told of the Iraq War.

Um, did you see most of the other generals who were running the war in Iraq? Compared to those McClellans, Petraeus was Grant without the sensitivity to alcohol.

Posted by Brian | January 24, 2008 4:28 PM

"You left out his other major job during this period, which was to oversee the drafting of the new Counter-Insurgency Manual for the Army. I think his high profile pushing of a change in overall strategy is another important part of his high reputation."

Very true. As a stand-alone document, it is rather good and shows his solid theoretical grasp of political violence in certain situations. However, since then he became a propagandist to forward his career. He has been trying to apply his theory without the proper resources (enough troops, body armor, local goodwill, cultural respect and understanding between us and Iraqis, an Iraqi national identity, etc.), like trying to carve a copy of the Statue of David out of marble only using a toothbrush.

Posted by Reality Man | January 24, 2008 9:26 PM

Ah... he may have gotten a good reputation because he's a very good commander and has, essentially, won the war for us.

Before the inevitable chorus of denial erupts, some people should ask themselves why that prospect -- American victory -- evokes in them rage and despair rather than triumph and joy.

Just for the sake of argument, let's assume for the moment that by the end of this year it's obvious we've won, the permanent garrison is settling in, Iraqi politics is displaying only the usual Arab corruption and violence, and Iraq has been added to the American hegemony as a reasonably stable client state.

Now, what's your immediate _emotional_ reaction to that prospect? Is it positive? And if not, why not? Be honest here.

Petraeus has also shown one of the basic attributes of a good general: bloody-minded refusal to accept the possibility of defeat.

Defeat is, after all, mainly a state of mind. There are only three ways to lose a war: being overcome by grossly superior force, utter tactical or operational incompetence, or losing your nerve. Only the first is tolerable.

If you possess superior force, aren't enormously qualitatively inferior, and refuse to accept any outcome but victory, then you can't be beaten -- something that U.S. Grant (and Lincoln) knew -- unless you squeal and give up.

Just keep hitting them. Take any hits they land in silence, don't flinch, don't pause, don't take a step back, and smash them -- smash and smash and smash until they go down. Once they're down kick them until you hear bone snap, and/or until they scream I'M WHIPPED loud and long and sincerely.

Posted by S.M. Stirling | January 24, 2008 11:17 PM

Stirling: does the word "idiot" ring a bell?

"Just for the sake of argument, let's assume for the moment that by the end of this year it's obvious we've won, the permanent garrison is settling in, Iraqi politics is displaying only the usual Arab corruption and violence, and Iraq has been added to the American hegemony as a reasonably stable client state."

None of which is in the cards by any reading of the current situation and the positions of the players. Only an advanced degree of ketamine addiction could produce such a view of the situation on the ground.

"Now, what's your immediate _emotional_ reaction to that prospect? Is it positive? And if not, why not? Be honest here."

Incredulity that you could be living in such a fantasy world.

Why? Because I know from reading stuff other than what's on Fox News that the situation on the ground is rather different than anything you've said.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 24, 2008 11:50 PM