Another act in the surge theater: setting the stage for Petraeus’s testimony
I’ve likened the political machinations around the surge to theater. And today, as we await General Petraeus’s testimony, the usual players are taking on their customary roles.
The MoveOn Left continues to consider it important to disqualify Petraeus as a liar and Bush stooge before his testimony even begins (“General Betray Us”). Harry Reid has his finger to the wind and is saying the Democrats will now consider withdrawing their demands for a withdrawal date. The Nation calls the surge a “cruel hoax” and discounts any positive results as fleeting and illusory, by definition. And the NY Times kicks up a lot of dust in an effort to spin the fact that the public overwhelmingly trusts military leaders such as Petraeus more than the President or Congress to report on Iraq and make recommendations on how to deal with it.
Here’s the Times on the subject of the public’s confidence in Petraeus and company:
[High public trust of Petraeus as evidenced by polls] is almost certainly why the White House has presented General Petraeus and Mr. Crocker as unbiased professionals, not Bush partisans. President Bush has said for years that decisions about force levels should be left to military commanders, although the decision to send an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq this year and keep them there was not uniformly supported by military leaders. It was primarily made in the White House, and specifically by the president in his role as commander in chief.
Note the careful wording of the first sentence: the White House has presented General Petraeus as unbiased and nonpartisan. Whether or not he actually is such is not addressed. Forgotten is the overwhelming approval of Congress when he was appointed, and the fact that he is actually the military’s premier expert on the subject of fighting insurgencies.
One can even imagine that if there were a Democratic President faced with fighting a war against a crew such as we’ve encountered in Iraq, even that Democrat might might have appointed General Petraeus as commander for the duration. Not to mention the fact that, not all that long ago, many Democrats were calling for sending more troops there—that is, of course, before Bush and Petraeus called their bluff and actually did it.
The first part of the Times’s second sentence would appear to indicate that Bush is one with the American public—that is, he trusts military leaders to make military decisions, particularly about force strength. Not an unreasonable philosophy, one would think. But note the second half of that sentence: the decision to up the force in Iraq by 20,000 was “not uniformly supported by military leaders.”
Shocking! You mean, there was some disagreement? The Times cleverly omits any specifics, of course, but the message is that not everyone was in total accord. What a surprise! I would imagine there was a lack of accorded among military leaders on not upping the force levels, as well. I would also imagine that there are few decisions in military history that have been unanimous. That’s why—earth to NY Times—the military is not a democracy. It’s actually a hierarchical sort of institution, when last I checked.
And the head of that hierarchy is a civilian, the President, who as Commander in Chief gets to have the last word on decisions.
Which brings us to the third sentence in the Times’s paragraph: Bush made the final decision about the surge. This is the Times’s way of trying to take any responsibility for the surge away from the trusted Petraeus and hand it over to the reviled Bush. And that need, of course, is what’s behind the campaigns of MoveOn and so many others to brand Petraeus as a Bush stooge.
The problem is that insulting Petraeus isn’t likely to win a lot of points with the vast majority of reasonable Americans to the right of MoveOn, who actually look up to Petaeus and consider him a straight shooter.
And now the curtain has gone up….
The Democrats haven’t been this traitorous since the days of the Copperheads. We survived that although tens of thousands of blacks suffered needlessly when the Union military was pulled out of Dixie.
Surprising the enemy is very important in propaganda wars, Neo. As we see with moveOn, allowing your opponent time and opportunity to get the first strike, or strikes, in is not a very good idea.
Blacks still are suffering under Democrat leadership. That hasn’t really changed, because of the deal Andrew Johnson made with the South after Lincoln was assassinated. Andrew Johnson was always sympathetic to the South and slavery. He didn’t want to rock the boat. Thus the Left may have a point. There has been institutional slavery. Just not for the reasons they think.
I’m very saddened over this. Our nation’s citizens appear to suffer from a grievous lack of perspective, grounded perhaps in cultural drift, seasoned by minimal knowledge of history, and the desire to sport a geopolitical dunce cap – and be proud of it. I hope that in this technological age, someone will archive the MoveOn ad that appeared in the NYT today so that future generations can marvel, and hopefully gain a better grasp of our defining our nation down.
If MoveOn thinks they have the pulse of the public, why not just come clean and proclaim once and for all that for the political left, there will always be at the root of all the world’s problems an American origin. And that the left will always oppose their definition of American imperialism manifest by any military deployment – save for pet, superficial humanitarian missions – regardless of circumstance. And that inherent evils will always be the US, free market economics, and the State of Israel. Why not proclaim publicly what Chomsky embraces?
Talk of paradox: scarcely a day passes since Bin Laden offers his terms to end WWIV and the political left attacks General Petraus. The paradox of course is that his terms, to wit, embrace Islam and convert, are at total odds with the notion of liberalism, of which the left purports – falsely – to subscribe to.
Sadly, the Dems are likely to carry 2008. And they will be probed by Al-Qaeda shortly thereafter.
Good point, Peter.
Long forgotten, too, is the shameful record of New York City Democrats during the Civil War draft riots, during the three days of which New Yorkers lynched 11 black men.
Interestingly, statistics on lynchings by state (such as this) tend to start late enough to miss this period, and so make New York look relatively blameless. Must be that New York sophistication in action.
Who really can argue, considering the history of this administration, that Bush wasn’t responsible for the “surge?” Why would this statement from the Times be a surprise to anyone. Of course he made the decision. It is hardly trying to shift the blame to Petreus. It just confirms an understanding of the whole mess from the getgo.
Speaking of lynching; here’s something a bit off topic, but noteworthy.
Robert Zangrando, cites statistics for the period of 1882—1968 in his book, “The NAACP Crusade Against Lynching”. Using figures from the Tuskegee Institute he finds a total of 4,742 for the 87-year period, of which 1,297 victims were white and 3,445 were black.
Google it
For me, it all boils down to credibility. It isn’t a bad strategy for the Bush administration to put so much weight on Patreaus’ testimony, it’s actually a good strategy. By continuing to remark that “we have to wait to see what Patraeus and Crocker have to say” takes the “blame” off of them and puts a different face, and if you will, more weight, to the entire operation. And, as for Move On, totally idiotic. This dog and pony show isn’t meant to change the minds of those opposed to the war, but rather those who are teetering on the fence, the Republicans facing re-election. It’s one thing to go after someones credibility who has demonstrated failure. It’s a baseless attack on another who has proven himself to be very qualified to make the assessments. MoveOn is only helping to galvanize those who are starting to have serious doubts. I just wish he were the go-to guy from the very start.
first you condemn Reid as being unwilling to compromise. Now he’s ridiculed as having his finger to the wind.
Is that fair?
Compromising with your opposition and sticking your finger to the wind are not opposites. One could easily do one, both or neither. So yes, it IS fair.
Is that fair?
In war it is fair.
Well, Neo, looks like you picked up another nasty, adolescent troll. What a sophomoric bugger.
Ariel: Deleted.
But it’s not another nasty, adolescent troll. It’s one of the same old same old ones.