posted
I highly recommend this article, "Syncophant Savior," from the American Conservative magazine. It does not attack Patreaus, but it does explain exactly why his performance was so disappointing and ultimately so useless in the Iraq war.
"David Petraeus is a political general. Yet in presenting his recent assessment of the Iraq War and in describing the “way forward,” Petraeus demonstrated that he is a political general of the worst kind—one who indulges in the politics of accommodation that is Washington’s bread and butter but has thereby deferred a far more urgent political imperative, namely, bringing our military policies into harmony with our political purposes.
"From the very beginning of the Iraq War, such harmony has been absent. The war’s military and political aspects have been badly out of synch. (In this regard, the hackneyed comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam are tragically apt.) The failure to plan for an occupation, the wildly inflated expectations of Iraq’s rapid transformation into a liberal democracy, Donald Rumsfeld’s stubborn refusal to acknowledge the insurgency’s existence until long after it had begun, the deeply flawed kick-down-the-door campaign that ensued once Rumsfeld could no longer deny reality: all of these meant that from the outset, the exertions of U.S. troops, however great, tended to be at odds with our stated political intentions. Our actions were counterproductive."
[...]
"Petraeus has chosen a middle course, carefully crafted to cause the least amount of consternation among various Washington constituencies he is eager to accommodate. This is the politics of give and take, of horse trading, of putting lipstick on a pig. Ultimately, it is the politics of avoidance.
"A political general in the mold of Washington or Grant would have taken a different course, using his moment in the spotlight not to minimize consternation but to stir it up to the maximum extent. He would have capitalized on his status as man of the hour to oblige civilian leaders, both in Congress and in the executive branch, to do what they have not done since the Iraq War began—namely, their jobs. He would have insisted upon the president and the Congress making decisions that wartime summons them—and not military commanders—to make. Instead, Petraeus issued everyone a pass."
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Democrats should have the next day fired back by condeming a Republican sponsored ad against a Democrat.
I think that is one of the worst responses they could have made, though it still would have been better than what they did.
You're asking them to play the same sort of political games. I have a higher bar, in that I expect them to do their jobs and also act in concordance with the Constitution.
If you want to do your job, then you stand strongly against an official act of the U.S. government aiming at curtailing or discouraging the use of freedom of speech.
If you really want to do your job, you say something along the lines of "Well, this is just a silly sideshow. What we should be focusing on in the actual war in Iraq and why is it going so poorly and what are we going to do about it." Besides paying more than lip service to an incredibly important issue, it would not just largely neuter the Republicans' attempt at distraction, but actually turn it around on them.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, while I was advocating a different kind of political game, I think it would have been a good idea to underscore how RIDICULOUS the whole thing was. Democrats should have voted as a bloc to shoot down the whole thing, that would have been the best move, but barring that, they should have done something, ANYTHING, to point out how ridiculous it was. They need to stop letting Republicans push them around.
Ignoring it might have worked, it might not have. It'd still give Republicans a month of material for stump speeches, for those running for office next year, but it might have passed over quicker. What would really have worked is ignoring it and then passing some, any, sort of Iraq legislation that actually does something more than scold the Iraqi government and throw sticks at Pres. Bush.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought Pelosi's response was probably the best. I can't look for the exact quote right now, but when a republican in the House suggested that they should pass a similar censure measure she said something along the lines of "No, that's meaningless. We'll focus our attention on solving actual problems."
posted
Pelosi also has a hell of a lot more power when it comes to killing legislation before it hits the floor. The party in charge of the House decides what makes it to the floor, it's not quite so strict in the Senate. Democrats probably could have killed it in committee in the Senate too, but you don't have to win as many people over to your side in the Senate, it's much more high profile and easy to play PR games.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A quick update, the House passed a censure of moveon.org. It passed with an overwhelming majority of 341-79 with 17 voting present. Democrats that voted for the bill included Representative David Obey of Wisconsin one of the most vocal opponents of the war in Iraq since the beginning. Obey argued for House Resolution on the floor recounting that when he grew up during the McCarthy era his best teacher was publicly destroyed when McCarthy-ists called him a Bolshevik. Nobody's patriotism should be questioned the way moveon.org did to General Petraeus. If he was not willing to stand to Republicans unsubstantially questioning a person's loyalties, then he should not stand to the left doing so either. He called moveon.org's actions juvenile and unworthy of public discourse.
Posts: 359 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are times when I wonder just who, ultimately, is in charge of political groups. It seems unlikely at best that those in charge of moveon didn't realize the sort of reaction this ad would trigger.
Is there a part of this that isn't positive for their enemies, that doesn't help the ones they're supposedly targeting? I don't get it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Such a good use of our legislature's time.
A series of impotent resolutions may be preferable to some of the "real" work that the legislature does.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Daily Show has an occasional piece called "You're Not Helping." I think this would apply.
Last week Rush Limbaugh, in a conversation about soldiers condemning the Iraq War, said something inferring that any soldier against the war was not a real soldier. He backed away the next day, saying that he was actually referring to a specific soldier who had been shown up as a phony, but the reference in context seems pretty clear.
There have been calls to denounce him on the floor of the Senate as well, partly in retaliation for the MoveOn censure, and I don't want to see that happen either, much as I despise Rush. The legislators can go on all the talk shows they want and condemn to their hearts' content, but on that floor they're on my time and they need to stop goofing off and showboating and get some work done.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
We're in an election cycle now. Neither party will rock the boat between now and November, which means pissing away 13 months of time that could be used solving problems.
You'll see some minor legislation passed, and the SCHIP thing will be interesting, to see how it ends anyway, but big solutions to our big problems? Nope.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
