Questions for Petraeus

David Corn rounds up some expert opinion on the questions David Petraeus ought to be asked in his congressional testimony next week. It's good stuff.

I would add, though, that the whole idea of having a huge political circus centered around testimony from the theater commander is pretty bad. There's no genuine informational content to this sort of thing, and it's not really appropriate for someone in Petraeus' job to be serving as a press spokesman for administration policy. The White House should send someone with a political appointment to defend their policy on the Hill, this isn't the role of career military professionals.

Comments

On a related note, one of my great hopes is that President Obama or President Clinton will issue an order as Commander-in-Chief that no active duty military officer is allowed to appear on political talk shows. Serving officers are supposed to be apolitical, and once on TV representing the administration, that's simply impossible.

Posted by j.e.b. | April 3, 2008 1:31 PM

The White House should send someone with a political appointment to defend their policy on the Hill, this isn't the role of career military professionals

Presumably they are - Ambassador Crocker. At least, that's what happened 6 months ago.

And Matthew's comment is doubly odd in that the White House can't "send" anyone. Congress - you know, the body that is controlled by Democrats - have to ask Petraeus to come. I mean, it's not like Petraeus is just going to show up and hope someone in Congress will open the door and let him speak.

A little more thought ought to be going into these posts.

Posted by Al | April 3, 2008 1:35 PM

It should be noted that Petraeus was appointed by Bush, specifically, to be the commander of MNF-I. And his parroting of administration policy is his gambit that the Chief of Staff of the Army, or some other sinecure could be his for the asking when he's done in Baghdad.

Posted by Trigger | April 3, 2008 1:44 PM

Al,

It's true that Congress has requested testimony from Petraeus -- and Matt should understand that -- but neither Petraeus nor Crocker are really "political appointees", except in the sense that both needed to be confirmed on the Hill before assuming their current assignments. Both are career public servants who have served under Democratic and Republican administrations over their 30+ year careers. It's easy to forget that when Democrats (including Matt) launched unprecedented political attacks on a serving military officer. Funny that Matt is now concerned about politicizing the military.

Posted by Fred | April 3, 2008 1:49 PM

Al and Fred:

Bush's golden child, hand-picked to rehabilitate the public image of the war, is slated to appear in front of Congress. What questions should we ask him? Oops! We wouldn't want to politicize a serving officer.

Posted by mpowell | April 3, 2008 1:55 PM

Petraeus was confirmed to his position as a military commander by Congress? I find that highly unlikely. I've never heard of such a thing.

And Fred's tears about the unprecedented political attacks on a serving military officer make me smile. Those military officers can take artillery fire, but the moment Matt Yglesias opens up with a political attack they just start bawling! Matt, stop picking on the generals! It's not fair! When Republicans send men in uniform to spout administration policy they are supposed to be absolutely immune from criticism!

In all seriousness, Fred, you should realize that all generals are, by definition, politicians. They may not be elected, but they live and breathe in the world of politics every day.

Posted by Rob Mac | April 3, 2008 2:09 PM

....it's not really appropriate for someone in Petraeus' job to be serving as a press spokesman for administration policy.

It's not only appropriate, it's inevitable, once you realize that Iraq's not a 'war', not even an 'occupation', but the world's most expensive campaign commercial.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | April 3, 2008 2:24 PM

Fred, your life as a "career public servant" ends and your life as a "political appointee" begins when you receive a political appointment from the president that needs to be confirmed by the Senate.

Posted by Tyro | April 3, 2008 2:25 PM

I think the point is we shouldn't need congressional hearings to obtain answers to fairly basic questions (no matter how complicated the answers are).

Posted by AKBY | April 3, 2008 2:47 PM

2 years ago?

President: Will the surge work?
General #1: No.
President: Get out. Will the surge work?
General #2: No.
President: Get out. Will the surge work?
General #3: No.
President: Get out. Will the surge work?
General Petraeus: Sir, yes sir, and I can put that shit in a fucking .ppt file.
President: I think I love you.

Posted by norbizness | April 3, 2008 2:56 PM

"Petraeus was confirmed to his position as a military commander by Congress? I find that highly unlikely. I've never heard of such a thing."

High-level military promotions (I think technically everything above Captain ?) require Senate confirmation. In most cases it's a rubber stamp; but the for the senior positions such as Chief of Staff of the Army, CENTCOM Commander etc
there would be hearings.

Since Gen Petraeus got a promotion (to 4-star ?)
with his appointment, it required confirmation.

Posted by Richard Cownie | April 3, 2008 3:05 PM

Hopefully the Congress will ask General David Gaius Vespasian Antonio Banderas Petraeus crucial questions such as "How awesome are you?" and "Hey, you remember that one time when all the Republicans and pundits were all, like, in the face of the Democrats and liberals going, 'Hey, how come you won't admit that The Surge is Working?' Yeah, that was, like, awesome."

Posted by El Cid | April 3, 2008 3:05 PM

2 years ago? ... General Petraeus: Sir, yes sir, and I can put that shit in a fucking .ppt file. President: I think I love you.

1.5 years ago?
Harry Reid: "Listen to the Generals!"

Posted by Al | April 3, 2008 3:13 PM

"Those military officers can take artillery fire, but the moment Matt Yglesias opens up with a political attack they just start bawling! Matt, stop picking on the generals! It's not fair!"

I'm not worried about the military officers; I'm worried about the future of our country. If political attacks on active duty military officers become fair game, we're one step closer to a Latin American style of politics here. What happens if the active duty officers start to push back? How would you feel if, say, the (currently non-partisan) Military Officers Association of America bought a full-page ad in the NY Times suggesting that Barack Obama was a traitor?

"Fred, your life as a "career public servant" ends and your life as a "political appointee" begins when you receive a political appointment from the president that needs to be confirmed by the Senate."

Tyro,

All general officers require Senate confirmation to attain that rank; traditionally, we haven't considered the general officer corps to be a legitimate target of political attacks.

Posted by Fred | April 3, 2008 3:37 PM

No way in hell Bush knows what a .ppt is. None.

Posted by 55 | April 3, 2008 3:48 PM

traditionally, we haven't considered the general officer corps to be a legitimate target of political attacks.

I just love broad assertions of tradition. Nothing better than tradition when you got tradition on your side. Of course, I'd love to see where this tradition is written down and has been in some way noted. I can't very well to ask you to produce all the non-political comments towards the general officer corps and point out how none of them contain political attacks. If I were to post some examples of previous "political attacks," but then we'd have to get into a discussion of whether they were "legitimate." Ignoring that, we'd have to define what is meant by "political attack" when discussing the general officer corps. Is questioning the strategy used by a general a "political attack?" What is the proper decorum for addressing a general? How low should I bow my head so as to be respectful? May I look said general directly in the eye, or am I only allowed to catch glimpses of such a golden visage out the corner of my eye?

Posted by Rambuncle | April 3, 2008 4:42 PM

What the heck is a "political attack", Fred? Criticizing someone for acting as a mouthpiece of the president? I love the cowardly hiding behind made-up "traditions" from conservatives in order to hide themselves from responsibility for their moral and policy failures.

But that's right, Fred... hide behind Gen. Petreus rather than face up to the fact that you support stupid ideas and lash out at anyone who calls you on it. As is obvious to everyone, Petreus is in a different category than civil servants, anbd it's dishonest and cowardly of you to claim otherwise simply because you feel that criticizing of public spin from a White House PR offensive is inappropriate.

Posted by Tyro | April 3, 2008 4:47 PM

Tyro,

That you have characterized this last response of mine to you

All general officers require Senate confirmation to attain that rank; traditionally, we haven't considered the general officer corps to be a legitimate target of political attacks.

as "lashing out", and that you feign ignorance of the simple phrase "political attacks", suggests that you aren't interested in a rational discussion. When you are, let me know, and we can have one.

Posted by Fred | April 3, 2008 5:30 PM

People like Petraeus and Crocker are dedicated, highly-competent, life-long public servants who would rather take a bullet than modify their best assessment on important subjects within their professional purview to match some transient partisan political agenda.

Sometimes the pursuit of maximum cynicism is more of a fashion statement than a serious evaluation of the data. Partisans, get a life.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 3, 2008 5:45 PM

People like Petraeus and Crocker are dedicated, highly-competent, life-long public servants who would rather take a bullet than modify their best assessment on important subjects within their professional purview to match some transient partisan political agenda.

Rather take a bullet? I'm glad you decided to go full-throttle on the hyperbole, because it really brings out how baseless and just plain stupid your claim is.

Posted by Kalkin | April 3, 2008 5:58 PM

Hyperbole? Compared to what? The wholesale trashing of the considered, hard-won judgment of our nation's best-qualified and most objective experts on matters of vital national interest?

You must be joking.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 3, 2008 6:47 PM

Why, none of you cowardly, Quisling b*st*rds deserve to even breathe while a man who daily risks the fires of hell for your sinning, worthless hinds considers entering the halls of democracy's most hallowed institution!!!

(How's that Robert Powell?)

Posted by El Cid | April 3, 2008 7:57 PM

"best-qualified and most objective experts"

I'm the one who's joking? Oy. What a world we live in.

Posted by Kalkin | April 4, 2008 1:42 AM

Al: "A little more thought ought to be going into these posts."

Good thinking, Al. We'll be looking forward to that from you. If you can ever rise to the level of sleazy stupidity of Robert Powell, we'll give you a cookie.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 4, 2008 4:29 AM

Crocker and Petraeus have spent their entire adult lives and careers preparing for exactly this sort of assignment. They are apolitical technocrats, and as far as I can tell may vote Democrat--they've certainly served under both parties. They aren't infallible, but I challenge anyone to name people with more direct knowledge and current information on Iraq than those two.

El Cid--I don't know, nice try I guess. I think you should leave the information-free ranting, frothing and name-calling to the real experts, though. Paging The Incredible Hack...

Posted by Robert Powell | April 4, 2008 4:30 AM

Gee, if the right learned just one thing from Ollie North, it's that a uniform combined with professional deference makes voters swoon.

Posted by Dan Hartung | April 4, 2008 6:11 AM

Mr. Hartung:
With all due respect, this has nothing to do with "right" or left. Ollie North was a light Colonel who became a partisan goon and political hack. Petraeus is a four-star general with an advanced degree from Princeton. Crocker, who does not wear a uniform, speaks Arabic and has lived for years at or near the grass roots level in the Middle East.

One of the greatest obstacles to developing a reasonably clear view of our foreign policy issues is the simplistic approach afforded by partisan domestic politics. You see a lot of that around here.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 4, 2008 6:35 AM