A General Dissembles

[Zaknafien]

A General Dissembles

Robert Scheer

Link to The Nation article

Of course, Gen. David Petraeus predicts success in the Iraq War. What wonders couldn't generals achieve with more troops and more time? The battle is always going well until it is lost, and then they blame defeat on the politicians and the public.

There's no shortage of retired generals who will tell you we could have won in Vietnam, if only we had sent more troops, or bombed the dikes in the North, or been willing to kill more than the 3.4 million Vietnamese who died along with 59,000 American soldiers. Instead, the politicians and public, led by that bleeding heart President Richard Nixon, lost the will to win. Thus, the dominos fell to communism, and Red China and Red Vietnam now rule the world by dint of military force. Have you been to Wal-Mart lately? The triumph of communism is total.

Once again, we have a general repeatedly promising to save western civilization by turning the corner in yet another intractable and unnecessary foreign war. Back on Sept. 26, 2004, in the weeks before the midterm congressional elections, Petraeus took to the op-ed page of the Washington Post to make sure the voters didn't vote wrong. Despite appearances, he claimed the war in Iraq was going very well: "I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up," Petraeus wrote. "The institutions that oversee them are being re-established from the top down. And Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously ... there has been progress in the effort to enable Iraqis to shoulder more of the load for their own security, something they are keen to do."

So keen, it makes one's heart swell. So keen that three years later, after the expenditure of $450 billion more in taxpayer funds, and more US troops in proportion to the Iraqi population than, at the height of the Vietnam War, we had in Vietnam, the good general now insists it would be disastrous to even think about bringing any American troops home before next summer.

That's at least another $150 billion and many more Iraqi and US lives wasted. But wait--Ryan C. Crocker, the US ambassador to Iraq, also testified before Congress this week with Petraeus, and he has more good news about what he still celebrates as the "liberation of Iraq." Remember that Bush Administration promise that the oil-rich Iraqis would pick up the check for the cost of their liberation? Well, Crocker is bullish on that front: the Iraqi economy is on schedule to grow by 6 percent, according to his testimony. Perhaps he is referring to the additional money dumped into Iraq's economy by American taxpayers chipping in for the surge.

He certainly wasn't basing his estimate on any improvement in Iraqi oil production or any other economic component. As the International Monetary Fund reported last month in its annual review of Iraq's economy, "Economic growth has been slower than expected at the time of the last (review) mainly because the expected expansion of oil production has failed to materialize." In case you haven't noticed, oil is the Iraqi economy, yet a recent GAO report stated an additional $57 billion in US tax dollars will be needed to bring oil and electricity production to the level where it can satisfy Iraq's domestic demand by the year 2015.

Ambassador Crocker actually had the nerve to compare the bloody religious fratricide in Iraq, which our inane invasion unleashed, to the American battle over state's rights, once again reducing the complexities of world history to an easily understood but totally irrelevant example from the American experience. In that case, a better analogy might have been made to the American Indian wars, given that the only thing the United States has been able to do effectively in Iraq is unleash superior firepower. At the current rate, Iraq will be liberated when there are no Iraqis.

Perhaps that is why this week's ABC/BBC poll shows that 70 percent of Iraqis believe security has deteriorated since the surge and that 60 percent believe attacks on US forces are justified. And 93 percent of Sunnis, whom the general and ambassador claim are joining our side, want to see us dead.

As for optimism, only 29 percent of Iraqis now think the situation will get better, as opposed to 64 percent who shared that optimism before the surge--which almost 70 percent of Iraqis believe has "hampered conditions for political dialogue, reconstruction and economic development."

So, ambassadors and generals lie. Get used to it.

[Ronin]

"why do you hate freedom? "

[Tribesman]

In case you haven't noticed, oil is the Iraqi economy, yet a recent GAO report stated an additional $57 billion in US tax dollars will be needed to bring oil and electricity production to the level where it can satisfy Iraq's domestic demand by the year 2015.

Don't worry , when the Iranians stand up America can stand down .
New power stations , new power lines , connection to the Iranian national grid , and you know for some strange reason these Iran/Iraq development projects don't seem to be targetted by the insurgents .
Two new oil pipelines in the offing too .
Projections of Iranian non-electric/oil trade exports growing to 10 billion a year ...dinnerjacket says thankyou George .

[Kagemusha]

Well why blame Generals,when all they do is follow orders. Political leadership makes the decisions to go to war,or what ever happends after an succesfull invasion. Political leadership should also take responsibility for their own mistakes if things dont go as they thought. But then on the other hand, that will propably never happen, because of the nature of the people who do politics for a living.

[Zaknafien]

but Generals with Presidential aspirations tend to make all the right noises when appealing to their bases.

[macsen rufus]

I thought "Private Eye" summed it up quite well on the latest cover: here

[Navaros]

In the months prior to his big report, I always figured that Gen. Petraeus was going to lie about the War on Iraq, and instead say exactly what Bush wanted him to say. It was very easy to accurately guess, months ahead of time, that he would have fudged the report in order to tow the line of distorting reality for the sake of keeping the occupation going for a decade more or longer.

However, in the back of my mind I was thinking maybe since he's a General, there is a possiblity he would have dignity and therefore not do any of that. But when the report came it removed all doubt about that possibly happening, and showed that Generals don't necessarily have any dignity. It became very clear that the Gen. was a sham just like Bush, Rummy, Condi and all the rest.

[Odin]

However, in the back of my mind I was thinking maybe since he's a General, there is a possiblity he would have dignity and therefore not do any of that. But when the report came it removed all doubt about that possibly happen. It became very clear that the Gen. was a sham just like Bush, Rummy, Condi and all the rest.

Odd I knew it was a sham when they trotted out the cargo trucks as potential mobile chemical weapons factories.

Not only that when they started a policing/reconstruction mission, I knew it would be a drain then. There idiots, if you make the decision to go to war you execute a war plan, not god dam hand holding.

thats what patreus is doing, handholding and securing one or two areas. What happened to the good old days when you defeated your enemy everyone was put to the sword, the women were raped and the cities pillaged?

Every dam one of these people, congress included should be made to wear clown outfits when ever making public appearances. This war is a joke, and so is its premise, outlay, and payoff.

But there is still time.... Redeploy all U.S. forces to the south and retake that area fortifying the Basra oil fields. Line up the oil tankers and drain the oil and ship it back to gulf coast refineries. Let the iraqis figure out the rest.

thats what this general should be attempting to do, not play referee for the iraqi's. We have made a huge mess over there, and it dosent appear to have to many avenues for glory left.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

In the months prior to his big report, I always figured that Gen. Petraeus was going to lie about the War on Iraq, and instead say exactly what Bush wanted him to say. It was very easy to accurately guess, months ahead of time, that he would have fudged the report in order to tow the line of distorting reality for the sake of keeping the occupation going for a decade more or longer.

However, in the back of my mind I was thinking maybe since he's a General, there is a possiblity he would have dignity and therefore not do any of that. But when the report came it removed all doubt about that possibly happening, and showed that Generals don't necessarily have any dignity. It became very clear that the Gen. was a sham just like Bush, Rummy, Condi and all the rest.

So, only if Patreus had concluded that we were in over our heads and needed to begin a withdrawal from Iraq, would he have been telling the truth. How is this any less of a "prejudiced" perspective than is the "you're a pack of traitors if you don't support the President" stance that the Hannity Zombie crowd takes?

[Crazed Rabbit]

I find the depth to which 'the left' actually believes General Petraeus has betrayed the troops is fascinating. They actually believe that he has betrayed the troops in Iraq.

They have a religious fanaticism about the correctness of their opinions, so much that they don't register as opinions in their minds, but as the truth, the reality. That they gain this reality from a echo room of leftists blogs and news doesn't deter them. And so it becomes that they know more about Iraq than the commanding general, that the facts he reports are wrong and deceitful, and what they say is right.

And confident in that, they confidently proclaim the general a traitor. Think about that; they say a man who has spent his whole life in the service of this nation, fighting for it, is a traitor because he does not agree with their opinions on Iraq. People who disagree with them have become traitors.

This is not a sudden thing. Look at past years, and present, where they have demanded Bush's impeachment, called members of his administrations puppets or any number of names. The far left cannot agree to disagree; its enemies must be destroyed. Look at the campaign they waged against Lieberman.

As for the article, I think two quotes from it sums it up:

once again reducing the complexities of world history to an easily understood but totally irrelevant example from the American experience.

And with this part earlier in the piece:

There's no shortage of retired generals who will tell you we could have won in Vietnam, if only we had sent more troops, or bombed the dikes in the North,
...
Once again, we have a general repeatedly promising to save western civilization by turning the corner in yet another intractable and unnecessary foreign war.

Totally irrelevant, you were saying?

Crazed Rabbit

[drone]

I find the depth to which 'the left' actually believes General Petraeus has betrayed the troops is fascinating. They actually believe that he has betrayed the troops in Iraq.

They have a religious fanaticism about the correctness of their opinions, so much that they don't register as opinions in their minds, but as the truth, the reality. That they gain this reality from a echo room of leftists blogs and news doesn't deter them. And so it becomes that they know more about Iraq than the commanding general, that the facts he reports are wrong and deceitful, and what they say is right.

And confident in that, they confidently proclaim the general a traitor. Think about that; they say a man who has spent his whole life in the service of this nation, fighting for it, is a traitor because he does not agree with their opinions on Iraq. People who disagree with them have become traitors.

This is not a sudden thing. Look at past years, and present, where they have demanded Bush's impeachment, called members of his administrations puppets or any number of names. The far left cannot agree to disagree; its enemies must be destroyed. Look at the campaign they waged against Lieberman.

Much the same can be said about the "right" and the administration. If you don't agree with us, you hate freedom, that sort of thing. This is what happens when the nation's politics become polarized, something the "right" have consciously set about to do. One could almost say they are reaping what they have sown.

As to the general's report, I'm not really sure what people expected. Most men in his position don't really want to sit in front of Congress and say "I can't fix our problem, I'm ready to give up". He also doesn't particularly want to cheese off his commander. He may be on the political take, or he may not. But he is in a lose-lose situation either way.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Much the same can be said about the "right" and the administration. If you don't agree with us, you hate freedom, that sort of thing.

Hmm. Not really. Who exactly said 'you hate freedom if you don't agree with us'? On blogs and the like, right wing posters tend to be less vehement than left wing posters, perhaps stemming from the progressive stance of the left that demands change. Or perhaps progressive ideals like socialism appeal more to uncritical thought.

Whatever the reason, they are very much alone in their fanaticism. Read some blogs and what they wish upon the Bush administration officials. They smirk when his spokesman gets cancer. They've even attacked John Edward's wife for criticizing the 'Betray Us' ad by MoveOn.Org. I'm going to bring up Lieberman again because its a great example. A long time democrat run out of his party by the left because he disagreed with them on war.

They also differ in the impact they have on the mainstream sections of the party. Look at who pays attention to Ann Coulter (noone) and who pays attention to that dailyKos guy (the democrat national committee).

CR

[Xiahou]

In case anyone didn't know what a dullard Robert Scheer is...

[drone]

Hmm. Not really. Who exactly said 'you hate freedom if you don't agree with us'? On blogs and the like, right wing posters tend to be less vehement than left wing posters, perhaps stemming from the progressive stance of the left that demands change. Or perhaps progressive ideals like socialism appeal more to uncritical thought.

Whatever the reason, they are very much alone in their fanaticism. Read some blogs and what they wish upon the Bush administration officials. They smirk when his spokesman gets cancer. They've even attacked John Edward's wife for criticizing the 'Betray Us' ad by MoveOn.Org. I'm going to bring up Lieberman again because its a great example. A long time democrat run out of his party by the left because he disagreed with them on war.

Well, I wasn't really referring to right-wing bloggers, I was speaking about the people with actual power. They will usually be a little less vehement, for appearances if nothing else.

In my opinion, the attitude problems of the "left" comes from many sources. Foremost is the frustration of both being shunted out of power for so long and their inability to convince more Americans to vote for their candidates. There is probably some intellectual snobbery going on, as well as a lack of accountability. Now that Congress is Democratic, the accountability issue should be disappearing (of course, they haven't really been able to get anything done anyway ).

The big difference in the past 20 years between the Dems and the GOP has always been organization and issue discipline. The GOP is better at presenting a common front, while the Dems get a cacophony of opinions from center-right to wacko-left. Coming to a consensus is going to be harder, especially when they haven't even been fed scraps for a while.

They also differ in the impact they have on the mainstream sections of the party. Look at who pays attention to Ann Coulter (noone) and who pays attention to that dailyKos guy (the democrat national committee).

Well, no one pays attention to Coulter because they don't have to. The "right" blogosphere takes their cues from the administration/RNC/official party line, and are mostly supportive. The DNC is incompetent, and trying to incorporate the wide spectrum of viewpoints makes their job so much more difficult. Until they sort this out, the GOP will continue to eat them alive. Lieberman got kicked out, and he still got elected as an independent. Just goes to show that the Democratic leadership is a bunch of maroons.