Juicing Petraeus for all the credibility he has
The NYTimes has what can only be called a "pre-game" piece on the Petraeus/Crocker testimony. It's really pretty empty, but there were two bits that raised my eyebrows.
What do you think that means? What appearances did the White House suggest that Petraeus found too unethical, too unstrategic, or too distasteful?
Also, Petraeus and Crocker are testifying before Congress Tuesday, but they need a "very large public hall" appearance the day after? (complete with a followon media blitz?)
Sounds to me like the administration doesn't want the last image to be Petraeus knocking back questions from Congress.
I think we got the real flavor of the political Petraeus in the NYTimes story yesterday where he said he wanted to keep all his troops, but was willing to give up one brigade if it would buy him political space at home.
This is a man who sees himself in political combat with those in Washington who want to change his plan.
This is the "highly credible" General Petraeus.
(PS. Why is no media mentioning the fact that Gen. Pace, Gen. Casey, Adm. Fallon, and Sec. Def. Gates, every one of Petraeus' superiors, seem to be advocating against him?)
Military aides have coordinated the general’s schedule with the White House, but officials confirmed that some suggestions for public appearances offered by Mr. Bush’s staff for General Petraeus had been rebuffed.
What do you think that means? What appearances did the White House suggest that Petraeus found too unethical, too unstrategic, or too distasteful?
Also, Petraeus and Crocker are testifying before Congress Tuesday, but they need a "very large public hall" appearance the day after? (complete with a followon media blitz?)
A joint news conference by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker is scheduled for Wednesday. The venue will be a large public hall, not at the Pentagon or State Department; the location remains undisclosed for security reasons. Interviews with television anchors and newspaper and magazine reporters are planned.
Sounds to me like the administration doesn't want the last image to be Petraeus knocking back questions from Congress.
I think we got the real flavor of the political Petraeus in the NYTimes story yesterday where he said he wanted to keep all his troops, but was willing to give up one brigade if it would buy him political space at home.
This is a man who sees himself in political combat with those in Washington who want to change his plan.
This is the "highly credible" General Petraeus.
(PS. Why is no media mentioning the fact that Gen. Pace, Gen. Casey, Adm. Fallon, and Sec. Def. Gates, every one of Petraeus' superiors, seem to be advocating against him?)
posted by mikevotes at
7:04 AM
4 Comments:
"This is a man who sees himself in political combat with those in Washington who want to change his plan."
Just a small quibble here: The surge is not Petraeus' plan. It is the AEI's plan. Petraeus is merely the man chosen to execute it.
Of course, if the surge is deemed to be a failure it will be Petraeus who takes the blame. He is, more correctly, in political combat with those who want to destroy his career, and those people are the ones who tasked him with the surge.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 8:31 AM
Among the many casualties of the Iraq war, is the ability to have honest, non-political, REASONED debate with the goal of finding the BEST way forward. Politically, the mission has become one of promoting/defending a predetermined course. There seems to be no honest consideration as to what the point of all this is, besides some unmeasureable, hackneyed bromides of security.
By
-epm, at 10:05 AM
Todd, very good point that the initiation and design of the plan were done by the AEI in crash sessions in late 2006.
I would reiterate your second point, though, that it is his plan now.
He took that job knowing that he would have to toe that line, so, although he didn't originate it, the plan is his now.
....
EPM, EPM, the collapse of debate happens in every war, it's just that in the unpopular ones, the anti view actually makes it through.
Even in "the good war" of WWII, there was a fair amount of dissent, but because it represented a minority, it was quashed.
I don't think there's ever been clear, reasonable debate on any war.
By
mikevotes, at 2:06 PM
Interesting.
By
-epm, at 8:19 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home