What Happens In January

It seems that Rep. Ellen Tauscher actually thought up an original and potentially informative practical question to ask General Petraeus -- what's he going to do if in January 2009 his commander-in-chief says he wants to withdraw from Iraq and needs his theater commander to start drawing up plans and giving advice on logistics? Apparently, Petraeus wasn't content to say something straightforward about how he'd do his job:

"I would back up," he said, "and ask what's the mission, what's the desired endstate. And then you advise on resources..." Tauscher said the goal would be to keep the security gains of the surge, fix the readiness problems of the military and cut U.S. costs in Iraq.

"My response would be dialogue on what the risks would be. And, again, this is about risk." Petraeus sounded a lot like he was saying he would not be willing to advise a President Obama or a President Clinton on withdrawal -- something that, unless he was willing to resign, is very Constitutionally dubious.

He then backed up and said "I absolutely support the idea of civial control of the military" (good to hear!) but still didn't say either that he would offer the requested advice or that he'd resign in protest and let someone new come on board. This kind of thing -- resistance from inside the command structure to implementing a new president's electoral mandate to end the war -- is likely to be a substantial political landmine for the next administration. It's one of several reasons why I think it's absolutely vital to campaign on a clear and unambiguous determination to genuinely end the war (i.e., without this residual business) to ensure that there's no doubt in anyone's mind about where the country stands.

Comments

i'm curious: when bush asked him to stall the war through the end of this administration, did he ask "what's the mission?"

Posted by howard | April 9, 2008 12:24 PM

The language is certainly strained, but I'm not sure this as wildly off base as spackerman says. In this scenario, you would want the commanding general to clarify what the objectives of his new mission are, to provide the president with a candid assessment of the risks, and to advise the president of the resources available to carry out his/her orders.

Obviously, it's a disaster for him to say, "Withdrawal's too risky, I won't do it." But it's a different kind of disaster to say, "Okay! Withdrawal . . . would you like that with two ponies or three?" I'm in a generous mood, but I think Petraeus was trying to chart a middle course.

Posted by southpaw | April 9, 2008 12:30 PM

Why is that suprising? Hasn't Petraeus gone on Hugh Hewitt? Or was it Rush's show? Remember when Glenn Greenwald wanted to interview Petraeus and the shit storm that turned into? Petraeus obviously has political ambitions and he obviously seems to know that helping out Democrats won't get him elected to much of anything.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 9, 2008 12:35 PM

I wouldn't confuse Patraeus with the military writ large. I think any number of high ranking officers would be pretty happy to be told to plan a way to get out of this debacle in a hurry.

Posted by Sir Charles | April 9, 2008 12:40 PM

This kind of thing -- resistance from inside the command structure to implementing a new president's electoral mandate to end the war -- is likely to be a substantial political landmine for the next administration. I think it's absolutely vital to campaign on a clear and unambiguous determination to genuinely end the war (i.e., without this residual business) to ensure that there's no doubt in anyone's mind about where the country stands.

This is a rather complex way of arguing the case for tossing people out until the President no longer has to listen to critics or dissenters. Huh. Imagine that.

Posted by MarkG | April 9, 2008 12:42 PM

It won't be a political landmine if the next President stands his ground instead of backing down at the least sign of resistance like that coward Bill Clinton.

Posted by blah | April 9, 2008 1:17 PM

Let's all remember that even Pres. Obama will have about 70k-80k troops in Iraq thru his 1st term. The oil, airbases, and our new embassy must be guarded by American soldiers, we can't sub-contract that out to a mercenary force.

Above all, Israel must be secured. An Iraqi-shia state controlled by the dreaded mullahs in Persia would make Abe Foxman, Michael Ledeen, and Sheldon Adelson very scared. Total withdrawal won't happen for 10-20 years, until we get smart and install a strong man to keep the crazies in a box.

Turn off the Congressional hearings. Nothing major will change. We are not going anywhere.

Posted by max bootlicker | April 9, 2008 1:33 PM

If I remember correctly the last Democratic President didn't last a week before he caved - on gays in the military.

That is why the Democrats need to campaign hard on this issue so that the President has a clear public mandate to bring the troops home.

Posted by ndm | April 9, 2008 2:11 PM

By their nature, four star generals are political soldiers. Petraeus wasn't going to screw up his career by spelling out a process his boss doesn't like. He can see that it's about even odds that the next boss will keep the old boss' Iraq strategy.

If the General ends up saluting someone other than McCain, and is asked for a plan, I'm pretty sure he'll provide it. If he won't, or argues too strongly about staying the course, he'll be out, clean and simple.

Posted by cmholm | April 9, 2008 2:42 PM

So you're saying that a dem president won't "listen to the generals on the ground?" Wasn't that a big complaint of the Bush admin.

Posted by Judd | April 9, 2008 3:05 PM

Generals should be consulted on tactics. The strategic direction comes from the civilian leadership. Period. If the President says "I want us out of Iraq", the generals' job is to find a way how. It's not their job to debate with the President whether withdrawal is a good idea.

Posted by TH | April 9, 2008 3:29 PM

The point of "listening to the generals on the ground" isn't to ask for their advice on political issues, but for tactical issues (like having enough troops to have occupied Iraq at the beginning).

Posted by travis | April 9, 2008 3:30 PM

Generals should be consulted on tactics. The strategic direction comes from the civilian leadership. Period. If the President says "I want us out of Iraq", the generals' job is to find a way how. It's not their job to debate with the President whether withdrawal is a good idea.

Posted by TH | April 9, 2008 3:48 PM

This is a rather complex way of arguing the case for tossing people out until the President no longer has to listen to critics or dissenters. Huh. Imagine that.

Which is a very good idea as an approach to Centcom.

As opposed to the Bush policy of doing exactly this and then pretending that the military is the one determining your strategic planning. All the criticism directed at Bush has been for his hiding behind his generals.

Based on this response from Petraeus, I think the thing to do is to kick him out the day after inauguration. It'll be great for Petraues' political ambitions, but who cares? I suppose if you've really got balls, you'll try to humiliate him first, but it would be difficult to find a way to discredit the man that wouldn't actually be a bonus to his political career as a Republican.

Posted by mpowell | April 9, 2008 3:49 PM

TH and Travis, exactly! You just made my point.

Posted by Judd | April 9, 2008 3:57 PM

This exchange demonstrates once again that Petreaus is nothing but a Bush sock puppet.

His ass should have been canned long ago. He was the one who was responsible for losing nearly 100,000 weapons to the Iraqi insurgents. He's an incompetent dolt, one of those politicized generals who's career is dependent on their kissing their superiors asses on their way up the ladder.

Admiral Fallon didn't like him, whatever Fallon may have said later in mitigation. And now it's likely this jerk will be promoted to Fallon's former position as commander of CentCom.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 9, 2008 5:31 PM

Obama should make Wes Clark military advisor the President, use him to lean on the brass, then shift him to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs over time. JFK did something similar. It doesn't matter that Clark was for Hillary before, he's good for the job that needs doing.

Posted by otto | April 9, 2008 6:55 PM

Many of you right-wingers chiming in here are conveniently forgetting that Bush justifies his policies by saying, "well, I'm listening to the generals in Iraq, who are telling me that our best course of action is X." Of course, they're telling him this because he fired everyone that told him otherwise.

Posted by Tyro | April 9, 2008 8:06 PM

Re otto

"Obama should make Wes Clark military advisor the President, use him to lean on the brass, then shift him to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs over time"

But that will cause Don Williams to plotz.

Posted by SLC | April 9, 2008 9:14 PM

Don't a lot of people in the military hate Clark and see him as a careerist blowhard? I don't think he has a lot of friends at the Pentagon that could help him out.

Posted by Reality Man | April 10, 2008 2:11 AM

An Iraqi-shia state controlled by the dreaded mullahs in Persia

Um, that's what we have now, not what will happen after we leave. Muqtada will be the last man standing, and he's a Shiite Iraqi nationalist who is suspicious of and not particularly fond of Iran, though he's not above accepting monetary or miltary support from them when he needs it, like any good pragmatist working his way into power.

The Iraqi politicans who are bought-and-paid-for Iranian tools are Nouri al-Maliki, his Dawa Party, and the Badr Brigades on which his power depends. Defending their interests as the US is doing doesn't combat Iranian influence, it solidifies Iranian influence.

Posted by Daddy Love | April 10, 2008 6:53 PM