Chain of Command

Ilan Goldenberg notes this crucial sentence from Tom Ricks: "Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and top military officers have said they would like to see continued withdrawals throughout this year, but Bush has indicated he is likely to be guided by Petraeus's views."

I hope we can keep this in mind in the future. It's clearly within Bush's right as President to decide that he doesn't agree with his key advisors on military policy and instead wants to give David Petraeus extra resources that Petraeus' superiors think could be better used elsewhere. But that's what Bush is doing. He's not being guided by "military advice" as opposed to political logic inside the Beltway. Just as he decided upon the surge in the first place and then set about firing the already-in-place generals who disagreed with it, he's again siding with a minority viewpoint.

In this particular case, though, it's worth asking what probative value Petraeus' opinions are supposed to have. It seems to me that any officer in Petraeus' position would probably feel that more resources should go to his mission and fewer resources should go to someone else's mission. If he were in charge of Afghanistan wouldn't he want more troops there, too? That's not to say anything against the guy. But it's just common sense that you need to discount these kind of claims. The people in charge of the Navy want the Navy's budget to go up, and every member of congress things his district deserves more highway spending.

Comments

That's because General High Admiral David Vespasian Julius Claudius Cincinnatus Antonio Banderas Petraeus came up the single-most brilliant strategy -- Teh SURGE(tm)!!! -- that has ever been invented in the history of strategic strategizoration, and anyone on the surface of the Earf who doubts His wisdom clearly hates the troops and wants Al Qa'ida to kill all the world's infants.

Posted by El Cid | February 1, 2008 9:52 AM

Petraeus is a sock puppet on the hand of a sock puppet.

Posted by john o. | February 1, 2008 10:03 AM

he people in charge of the Navy want the Navy's budget to go up, and every member of congress things his district deserves more highway spending.

Damn!! Do you proof read your posts before hitting send? It should read "thinks his district deserves more highway spending."

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | February 1, 2008 10:05 AM

Ask a silly question:

It's worth asking what probative value Petraeus' opinions are supposed to have.

Huh? Petraeus is a future Republican presidential candidate! You can't get more probative than that!

Although, I have to say, when you say "probative," a certain Cartman episode comes to mind, for some reason...

Posted by lambert strether | February 1, 2008 10:32 AM

Reminds me of the way that every failed Civil War general always claimed he would have succeeded if he'd had more troops (or occasionally horses). Yet another reminder that Bush isn't Lincoln, who saw through that stuff pretty quickly.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | February 1, 2008 10:38 AM

Matt,
intriguing post on Bush's reliance on Petraeus. Petraeus is among the last hopes Bush has to secure a noble warrior legacy. I sense a lot of transfer of identity from Fly-boy war-hero-in-his-own-mind G. W. to great soldier-leader General Petraeus. It is critical for Bush that Petraeus succeed, even if only "arguably" or ambiguously. As a political matter, the greatest rescue of Bush's legacy would be eventual success of some kind in Iraq and Petraeus running successfully for President in 2012. But to get there, Petraeus needs all the help he can get.

Posted by Chris Darrouzet | February 1, 2008 10:40 AM

Congress is partly complicit in this. One of the things they should have done by now is hold hearings on the state of the war in Afghanistan.

Whether it would have made them any more informed, who knows? But the existence of that other war that also could use more troops than it's getting, and the fact that giving Iraq every last soldier we can scrape up has costs elsewhere, might've re-entered the public discussion.

And by letting Petraeus call the tune, that's how Bush is abdicating his responsibilities: he's ignoring the reality that Iraq isn't the only demand on our military.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | February 1, 2008 11:12 AM

if bush were capable of soliciting and listening to good advice we'd have a lot fewer (if any) troops in iraq and afganistan and would not be having this discussion. Why should we suddenly expect better? Move on, hold your breath until next year, and hope a loved one isn't caught in that C.F. over there.

Posted by mike c | February 1, 2008 3:29 PM

Seems correct that GWB has bet the ranch on the surge 'succeeding,' in the sense of keeping the insurgency minimized until Jan20th, '09. But isn't Pataeus slated for NATO? I think Ondierno who will succeed him has quite a bit to say about troop levels and back in Oct '07 was saying how the increased troop levels were essential to their stategy.

Posted by JohnMcC | February 1, 2008 3:57 PM

It seems to me that any officer in Petraeus' position would probably feel that more resources should go to his mission and fewer resources should go to someone else's mission.

See, e. g., Robert E. Lee's views on whether to send troops to the relief of Vicksburg (let's invade Pennsylvania instead!). We all know how well that worked out . . .

Posted by rea | February 1, 2008 7:57 PM

Odierno is one of the biggest morons in the service. I hope he's in charge when the Iraqis finally decide to throw us out of Iraq and that he gets the blame.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 2, 2008 12:03 AM