A link roundup.
My question is, when did he go from being General Betrayus to General Petraeus? When George Bush left office? I think people are going to have a lot of fun in the next couple days digging up derogatory quotes from the secretary of state, president and vice president from happier, anti-Petraeus days, when they were in the minority and had the luxury of being politically irresponsible.
[Update a few minutes later]
OK, some similar thoughts from VDH:
It is one of ironies of our present warped climate that Petraeus will face far less criticism from the media and politicians than during 2007–8 (there will be no more “General Betray Us” ads or “suspension of disbelief” ridicule), because his success this time will reflect well on Obama rather than George Bush. It is a further irony that Obama is surging with Petraeus despite not long ago declaring that such a strategy and such a commander were failures in Iraq. And it is an even further irony that he is now rightly calling for “common purpose” when — again not long ago, at a critical juncture in Iraq — Obama himself, for partisan purposes on the campaign trail, had no interest in the common purpose of military success in Iraq.
It’s a lot easier to campaign than to govern.
[Update mid afternoon]
And so it begins. Here’s an example of a little less than three years ago, from the senator who is now president:
“The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops,” Mr. Obama said. “Not in six months or one year — now.”
In his address, Mr. Obama proposed removing American combat troops at a pace of one or two brigades a month, which is about twice as fast as American commanders in Iraq have deemed prudent. There are currently about 20 combat brigades in Iraq, which General Petraeus has committed to reducing to 15 next summer.
As I said, it’s easier to campaign. Especially when you’re a Democrat, and the press never holds you accountable for your past words or actions.
Interesting. And sort of unsettling. David Petraeus would seem to be one of the greatest generals, or even leaders of men, given what he had to do in Iraq, this country has seen in fifty years. It would be unbelievably tragic if his star set because Team O has already screwed the pooch in Afghanistan. I hope to God he can pull it out — and if he does, this man should probably be President.
Interesting, Obama was against the surge before putting the general in charge of the surge back in charge of another surge…
Carl, rarely to I disagree with your sage reasoning, but here I must do so.
Like you, I hope that Petraeus does pull this off, and that Obama and his ilk haven’t screwed things up beyond redemption. BUT…even if this does happen, Petraeus would perform his finest service to the nation if he took a Shermanesque approach to public office, particularly the presidency. Not because he is unworthy of this position (for all I know, he would be a wonderful president, certainly Eisenhower was), but because we as a nation are far better off keeping our military (which I admire and respect beyond words) far, far away from the levers of civilian authority. For every Eisenhower there is a Grant, and worse, a MacArthur or a Powell.
Even with all this said, the culture of the military (and the nature of the decisions being made) is so fundamentally different from that of civilian politics that I wonder whether or not even the greatest military leaders could carry their success over…
Let’s see:
1) Obama never said that he had no confidence in Petraeus – not during the campaign or ever.
2) Keith Olberman wanted to keep McCrystal in charge – he had a “special comment” to that effect last night. Olberman is not the boss of Obama.
3) I was not fond of the “General Betrayus” ad. But this is not 2006, and Petraeus has a track record of success, which nobody else had at the time. If three or four people have failed at something, assuming person #5 will succeed is a leap of faith.
4) Saying “Obama had no interest in military success” in Iraq is directly in conflict with what Obama said at a widely-televised Senate hearing, to wit: Number one, we all have the greatest interest in seeing a successful resolution to Iraq — all of us do. And that, I think, has to be stated clearly in the record.
Actually, Chris, it is not hard to find prior criticisms of Petraeus from Obama’s days as a senator. From Vanity Fair:
“When his turn came to question Petraeus, Obama lectured Petraeus on the futility of his mission, the surge in Iraq. He used up his entire seven-minute allotment, giving the general no chance to respond to anything he said. Among the things Obama said to Petraeus: ‘We have now set the bar so low that modest improvement in what was a completely chaotic situation’s considered success, but it’s not. This continues to be a disastrous foreign policy mistake.'”
Be more careful if you insist on using the words ‘never’ and ‘ever’.
Also, when the Senate voted in Sept 2007 “To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces” the resolution passed and Obama was one of three who chose not to vote on the resolution. One of the others choosing not to vote? Senator Biden
“what Obama said…”
Psst. He lies.
Saying “Obama had no interest in military success” in Iraq is directly in conflict with what Obama said at a widely-televised Senate hearing.
No it’s not. “Military success” is not the same as “successful resolution”. He wanted the troops out. That was his successful resolution. He had no interest in military victory whatsoever.
Scott, you have a point, but isn’t the key question the character of the military man, and not the mere fact of his service? We’ve had quite a lot of military leaders who served very able terms in office, starting with General Washington. (Parenthetically, I very much disagree about Grant. I think he was quite a good President, and simply suffered from his natural modesty and plain-spokenness, not to say relatively Bush-like unsophistication, the fact that he died young and could not defend himself even if he would, and most importantly the fact that 1880s and 1890s manifest-destinty racists, “Progressives,” and Southern Democrats wanted to smear him for his strong defense of the rights of blacks and Indians. Those Democrats saw civil service reform as the wedge issue that could return them to power, and smearing Grant and the Republicans for alleged civil service corruption was a nice twofer.)
Without doubt, for every General Eisenhower (or General Grant or General Jackson) there are many showboating General MacArthurs. Character in generals is not necessarily more common than among civilians. That just means we have to exercise judgment as usual.
And anyway, one of the reasons I like Petraeus — and would be pleased to support him for President — is precisely because he’s not a showboater, boasting poltroon, or narcissist. He really does seem driven by duty and perhaps some sense of pride in accomplishment. This is exactly the kind of man we need as President.
Obama said the surge wouldn’t work. He was wrong. He said we should be doing more in Afghanistan instead. We are now and his hand-picked general screwed the pooch. Talk about a reverse Midas. Even Dems in AZ are telling him not to sue. General Petraeus is probably saying, “Thanks a lot McChrystal.”
Hey Chris, reconcile #4 with this, “I will end this war as president,” he(Obama) said, speaking from a podium…July 08
it is not hard to find prior criticisms of Petraeus from Obama’s days as a senator.
Then find some. The quote you offered is a criticism of Petraeus’s mission, not of Petraeus.
Obama said the surge wouldn’t work. He was wrong.
No, he said that our standards for success were too low, and they were. Paying off Sunni insurgents reduced violence in Iraq, and that’s good as far as it goes, but we’d be much, much better off if we’d listened to Obama (among others) in 2002.
I hear you’re a lousy businessman, poor lover and you kick dogs Jim, but don’t take this as any sort of criticism of you.
That’s some knife you’ve got there Jim. Criticizing Petraeus’s plan is not a in any sense a criticism of the general?
How about Hillary preemptively not calling Petraeus a liar. She didn’t do that either?
I have my own theories about why Petraeus was selected. Let us say it is a win-win situation for Obama regardless if the General wins or loses the Afghanistan campaign.
As for surges, I remember there was an US surge in Vietnam before the Tet Offensive as well.
For a victory in Afghanistan to be possible several conditions should be created. Taliban bases of support outside Afghanistan should be destroyed. Insurgents should be separated. The population enlisted to the government’s side. I do not see any of that happening.
Part of the problem is Karzai. He already was a weak leader with poor grass roots support. The last elections were plainly fraudulent. Unfortunately, the Taliban killed the guy I believe would have been the ideal leader for Afghanistan just before the war started.
One alternative would have been to reinstate the monarchy in Afghanistan as a figurehead, under a parliamentary monarchy system. However we are too far into the mess to change the system now. Better just to change the leadership instead.
It is also pointless to think of a victory in Afghanistan without support from the regional powers. Well some of them anyway. Russia’s support is nice, but not enough.
Carl, I suspect that we are closer on this than my original comments might have suggested. Clearly you are correct that character matters the most, and I completely agree with you that Petraeus seems to have the character part of the equational nailed down.
My concern, however, is that there are far more naked opportunists who can fake the character qualification (MacArthur was a superb example of this, though others abound), while at the same time using the ‘gloss’ of military competence (once again turning to MacArthur, he was little more than competent, yet pretended to far more) to gain the adoration of those easily swayed. History (not only American history) is full of this sort, and our Founders were deeply suspicious of them as a result. Given teh ability of modern PR campaigns to build mountains out of less than molehills (see: Obama, Barrack), I would prefer to leave this particular temptation outside of the reach of our military leaders. Too many Ceasars, not enough Cinncinatiuses…
Regarding your comments on Grant…you are absolutely correct, and I am ashamed to have made such an ignorant statement. I have always been a big Grant fan (his memoirs are, in my opinion, among the best of any American military leader), and to unthinkingly repeat emply slurs was simply foolish on my part…
Perhaps I have spent too much time on the same blog as Jim and Chris?
Re: McChrystal
Irony abounds in the sacking of McChrystal. I believe the Rolling Stone article claimed that McChrystal said he voted for Obama!
If true, the first thing that occurs to me is that admission is the greatest evidence that McChrystal has questionable judgement. The second is that McChrystal wised up to the Obama con quicker than a lot of other (suckers) supporters have. Third, is that this is another case of Obama throwing a (former) supporter under the bus! How many does that make now?
But perhaps the most important aspect of this brouhaha is the light briefly played upon the Obama national security team. McChrystal was guilty of the truest sense of a ‘gaffe’, that of saying what he truly believed. Can America afford the Obama clowns who McCrystal complained about, who are so key in conducting Afghanistan policy?
He actually was against Petraeus before he was for him.
“No, he said that our standards for success were too low, and they were.”
“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” …”In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”
Enjoy that crow.
reinstate the monarchy in Afghanistan as a figurehead, under a parliamentary monarchy system
Sometimes I think the best solution everywhere there are tyrants is to just saturation bomb them with food and .38 handguns and let the natives sort things out. “Are you wearing lipstick under that burka?” …bang, bang, bang.
bang. bang.
bang. Just to be sure.
Obama says, “Save me Obi-won Petraeus, you’re my only hope!”
Scott, you wrote:
I would prefer to leave this particular temptation outside of the reach of our military leaders.
As part of a democratic society, you can’t. And it’s not clear to me why military leaders have less of a conflict of interest or for that matter, a greater threat to national welfare here than lawyers, bureaucrats, or politicians. A congresscritter angling for higher office can be pretty dangerous too.
Ultimately, I think it’s a bad idea to exclude former military officers from seeking higher office. It’s undemocratic, unfair, and excludes a group of people, some with unusual competence and proven leadership ability. It also drives a wedge between military and civil society. Scott, you’re proposing a policy that groups the military with low trust groups like foreigners or felons.
Finally, I see no evidence that there is a problem here which merits concern over military coups. We have a military which is a citizen-based, voluntary army. It continues to serve the US faithfully. I say we keep the faith and allow our ex-military to serve in the civilian world as they do in the military.
I caught a discussion of Petraeus on National Propaganda Radio this morning and apparently the Hive’s party-line is now “Petraeus–good.” He sounded like such a fine fellow compared to the Left’s “General Betrayus” of not long ago.
Karl,
I don’t disagree with you in principle. I am not suggesting that the military be formally excluded from participation in politics (this would be an appalling breach of faith with those who sacrifice on behalf of all of us), but rather that we restrain our (somewhat natural, and even rational) desire to embrace successful military leaders as solutions to national crises. Petraeus has shown himself to be a superb military leader (and in fairness to him, has shown no political ambitions whatsoever), but outside of the somewhat cloistered world of the Pentagon, we know nothing of his ability to lead a society. If the Obama debacle has taught us nothing else, it should give us some insight into the problems of annointing untried and untested leaders with no real experience. Petraeus has executive experience true, but the civilian world is a different thing entirely…
Much more, I worry that for every Petraeus (or Eisenhower), we get a MacArthur or a McClellan, either of whom would have been catastrophic for the country. Your point that an ambitious congressthing is often as dangerous is correct (and certainly well taken), but the danger with a high ranking military leader with a record of conquest is that they bring the potential of turning to a ‘man on horseback’ first for good reasons, later for habit, whereas congressthings are simply a necessary evil that we all acknowlege and are properly suspicious of.
As you cogently note, I should not suggest that the military is a low-trust institution (quite the opposite). Rather I believe it is so high-trust and occupies a unique position in our civilization that we might be best advised to both honor and not to screw with… I am not worried about them corrupting us…rather I worry about us corrupting them…
ken anthony – I linked to a transcript of what Obama actually said at the hearing. What you’ll see is that Obama 1) did let Petraeus talk and 2) was critical of Bush’s “make Iraq a model democracy” plan.
Bilwick1 – here’s a thought for you. If an unknown individual comes to you and says “I can do what nobody else has done,” a level of skepticism is in order. (“General Betrayus” was never in order.)
Now, going on five years later, the formerly unknown individual has done what he said he was going to do. My thought is that, perhaps a track record of success actually matters, and given that track record, re-evaluating an individual’s abilities is in order.
“Bilwick1 – here’s a thought for you. If an unknown individual comes to you and says “I can do what nobody else has done,” a level of skepticism is in order. (“General Betrayus” was never in order.)”
HUH?
Bilwick1 – I’ll make it simpler. In 2006, General Petraeus was just yet another General who promised to clean up a mess.
In 2010, he’s a General who actually (for some values of ‘clean’) cleaned up a a mess.
The difference between 2006 and 2010 explains why he’s now much more respected.
Or even simpler – America likes a winner, and Petraeus won.
CG, it sounds like you’re making a counter-argument to some argument I didn’t make.
CG, it sounds like you’re making a counter-argument to some argument I didn’t make.
He does that a lot. It’s much easier than responding to arguments that people actually make.
Oh, wait, I get it. You’re saying that the Hive’s seeming antipathy to Petraeus in the past was based on solely on a rational skepticism but now they’re okay with him because he’s proven himself. If that’s your argument, who could argue? If there’s one group of folks who clearly base their party-line shifts on reason, it’s the Hive!
CG is probably referring to that hard-nosed skepticism the Hive exhibited when they annointed Obama “the Chosen One.”
The question is if there was skepticism in Petraeus that he may not be able to do what no one else has done; then where was the skepticism for Obama improving the economy with more socialism in 2008? But I digress from the topic.
The difference between 2006 and 2010 explains why he’s now much more respected.
Respect for the military, that is a hallmark of code pink and the left isn’t it? Or perhaps BDS is the difference between those years? Before Obama, we needed a ‘willing suspension of disbelief’ a very careful way of calling the general a liar. Any respect at all would be a huge difference.
Yes, success breeds respect. But as Ron Silver said at the Clinton inauguration before his enlightenment… “Those are our jets now!”
The only reason this admin shows the general any respect is because of the CinC needs him and no other reason.
The Belmont Club has a good analysis.
ken anthony – I spent four years in the US Navy. I respect the military, and am not affiliated with Code Pink or MoveOn. In 2006, I did have doubts as to whether Petraeus (or anybody) could fix the mess in Iraq.
MoveOn is to my political view as evangelicals are to Rand’s – faced with a binary choice, they may vote for the same person, but they arrive at that decision in different ways.
Yes, Scott, I believe you are correct, and that we do not disagree in any important way. I would also squint carefully at successful generals as Presidents. I despise Caesarism in all its incarnations.
I think Petraeus deserves credit, however, for much more than just successful military leadership and mlitary success. Remember, he was successful in counter-insurgency in Iraq, and arguably in “nation building,” and certainly in his ability to herd cats with respect to getting the many fractious factions in Iraq into some kind of pulling together mode. Better experience for the odd sort of leadership we expect from a President unable to simply command Congress, or even most of America in general (thank God) would be hard to imagine. He’s a man who has experience leading by methods other than sheer power of command. That’s key.
This is, incindentally, one of the reasons I think Barack Obama sucks goat balls as a President. His “executive” experience is in the classroom, and, if you cast your mind back to college or, worse, high-school, you’ll recall that a more fascist organization hardly exists than the classroom, where the Dear Leader (the teacher) reigns utterly supreme, judge of all, with zero power to dissent among those led. It never surprises me that academia breeds fascists, for academia itself is deeply fascist, each leader supreme in his little fief, not just legally but morally, like a medieval lord of the manor.
I did have doubts as to whether Petraeus (or anybody) could fix the mess in Iraq.
Assuming you are rational (for the sake of argument) says nothing about the rationality of the hive. Why is Petraeus suddenly their boy rather than the object of scorn? Tick. Tick. Tick. Times up. It’s because they are not rational. They’re mobsters, gangsters and thugs and Obama is their guy.
ken anthony – dehumanizing your political oponents by calling them a “hive,” “gangsters” or “thugs” may make you feel better. It is neither accurate nor conducive to productive discussion.