« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Petraeus Stands By Disputed 2004 Op-Ed
Gen. Petraeus almost made it through today's marathon hearing without a question about his September 2004 op-ed in the Washington Post claiming that training for the Iraqi security forces -- which he then commanded -- was going well. Almost.
Not much of that op-ed looks prescient today. Among its claims:
By early spring, nine academies in Iraq and one in Jordan will be graduating a total of 5,000 police each month from the eight-week course, which stresses patrolling and investigative skills, substantive and procedural legal knowledge, and proper use of force and weaponry, as well as pride in the profession and adherence to the police code of conduct.
Nearly three years later, the Jones commission found that the police have practically no investigative or forensic skills to speak of, and that the Iraqi Army -- considered the more competent and trustworthy service -- is at least a year away from having the capacity to take over the country. While it's hard to say that any specific statistic in the op-ed is wrong, events didn't bear out Petraeus' portrait of an increasingly competent security force.
In response to a question from Rep Eliot Engel (D-NY), however, Petraeus defended the piece.
In Petraeus' telling, all was going well with the Iraqi security forces until the 2006 al-Askariya mosque bombing in Samarra and the sectarian slaughter that ensued. That's a quite a simplified version of events. What it omits is that sectarian murder occurred all throughout 2005 with the imprimatur of the elected Shiite government. Late that year, U.S. forces discovered, for instance, that death squads and torture chambers operated out of the Interior Ministry, which controls the police. Then as now, the forces Petraeus' then-command trained became combatants in the civil war. All of this occurred well before Samarra.
It wouldn't have been very difficult for Petraeus to simply concede that his essay on the increasing competence of the security forces hadn't been vindicated. That probably would have humanized Petraeus considerably -- we all get things wrong, after all. Instead, he plowed through as if a statement was true simply because he wished it to be. Isn't that exactly the opposite of why President Bush put the trusted general in charge?
Comments (16)
john mccutchen wrote on September 10, 2007 7:44 PM:"Instead, he plowed through as if a statement was true simply because he wished it to be. Isn't that exactly the opposite of why President Bush put the trusted general in charge?"
Tongue in cheek I hope.
Joe wrote on September 10, 2007 8:12 PM:That's exactly why Bush chose him
Petraeus has a lot in common with William Westmoreland, just as Bush has a lot in common with LBJ.
TheraP wrote on September 10, 2007 8:14 PM:birds of a feather.... bush and his general.
Hank Essay wrote on September 10, 2007 8:15 PM:Thus, further proving that Move On's ad was right on the money.
Betray-Us, indeed.
sunsin wrote on September 10, 2007 8:31 PM:Comparing Bu$h to LBJ is unfair to the latter. At least LBJ worried about the fate of the troops he sent to Vietnam. Bush doesn't give a flying fork.
A wrote on September 10, 2007 9:00 PM:Actually, Joe's comment, "Petraeus has a lot in common with William Westmoreland, just as Bush has a lot in common with LBJ." is a slander both on Westmoreland and LBJ.
JD21 wrote on September 10, 2007 9:24 PM:LBJ agonized much about the Vietnam War and didn't run for reelection, after all, because of it. Westmoreland probably thought the VN War militarily winnable,(at least there was a unique foe, who -it was thought- could be exhausted) and felt compelled to present it as winnable (even if others disagreed).
Both LBJ and Westmoreland were caught up in the anticommunist ideology/fears/hysteria of the day,
with the 'Domino' theory predicting further Communist wins if Vietnam fell.
Now Petraeus and Bush have no such excuse;
Bush seems not to be bothered by U.S. casualties
(nor by Iraq casualties); it is by now clear to all, that the U.S. war aims du jour are not attainable, and the only thing Bush and Petraeus apparently want is to defer the inevitable withdrawal from Iraq to the next administration, which then can be blamed for the defeat.
(As after WW I, the Nazi's 'Dolchstosslegende'
attributed the loss of the war on leftist politicians). And apparently the U.S. is fine with failed states like Somalia, and Bush seems not to care for humanitarian catastrophes as Darfur. So there is no strategic rationale
for this war.--
Even if I didn't like LBJ and Westmoreland, I can see how they arrived at their positions (however misguided they were); but Bush and Petraeus are reckless squanderers of the U.S.'s blood and treasure.
Sorry General. The most recent escalation is not a success. We are not drinking your Fox flavored Cool-Aide anymore.
For four years the situation has been worsening in Iraq. And all that time the Fox Republicans have been saying things have been improving. Froptraeus' blather is just more of that.
Suggestion: wake up and smell the coffee already. If we can't do this with an all-out effort in four years, what makes you think we can do it with a declining effort in four, or eight or even twelve more years.
America is tired of excuses. All you Republicans did is prattle on about how great things are through your right-wing billionaire Murdoch mouthpiece at Fox. Listen to me. Okay? Listen to me. It's not working. You are totally disconnected from reality. You have spun us for four long years and nothing has improved. You have no credibility left anymore. None.
It's time to start pulling out. We know you are desperately trying to keep America's heads shoved into the toilet bown in Iraq so you can share the blame with the next Administration which, rest assured, will not be from your sorry party. America is not buying it. We want out. Our presence is only delaying political reconciliation and, in the interim, causing lots and lots of deaths and hundreds of billions of our money wasted.
sahmadi wrote on September 10, 2007 10:10 PM:You guys are fools. Eliot Engle was a strong supporter for this war. His criticism lacks as much credibility as Gen Petraeus's report.
The Democrats are not going to stop this war. The Republicans are not going to stop this war. Only when the military breaks out of sheer exhaustion and stress will this war end.
As for the general American populace...well they could care less about this war. They are just tired of hearing about Iraq. Who cares? As long as I am not effect then we need to protect American's honor is their thinking.
OCPatriot wrote on September 10, 2007 10:26 PM:Put him in the same box as Powell in terms of integrity. He lost it. Getting the report from Petraeus is like getting the report from the fox who's guarding the henhouse. Come on, guys and gals, of course he can, with a straight face, say we're making progress. What else can he say? No, let's throw in the towel and go home? That wasn't his mission; they didn't give him a command to fail; how idiotic can you get, if you expect an objective report from this man? He probably even believes he's objective and telling the truth. So the beat goes on ... so the war and the killing and the stupid spending of money continues. And despite what Lantos said, no one really ripped him apart; that's the kind of Congress we have.
dday wrote on September 10, 2007 10:33 PM:I'm glad somebody mentioned that op-ed, and for Petraeus to suggest that it was completely accurate, and only the Samarra bombing derailed his wonderful Iraqi security forces, is just insane. The longtime wingnut mantra on this war is that things were going just perfectly in early February 2006 until that bombing. This is months after the "last throes" comment, months after Cindy Sheehan's summer, months after John Murtha called for withdrawal because of how bad it was getting. The facts do not support such revisionist history. And Petraeus buying into it just reveals him as a deluded apologist.
jvill wrote on September 11, 2007 10:50 AM:As for the general American populace...well they could care less about this war. They are just tired of hearing about Iraq. Who cares? As long as I am not effect then we need to protect American's honor is their thinking.
Posted by: sahmadi
Date: September 10, 2007 10:10 PM
And that's why it has for years consistently polled as the most important issue this country faces?
What the American people don't want to do is admit defeat, however that's defined these days. If the point was regime change, great! We won! Let's leave!
But who knows what the real goal is anymore. But regardless, even our great military can't overcome 5 years of mind-boggling bungling and corruption. If our goals are defined as anything more than removing Saddam, we've lost this one. And the people who lost it for us need to keep denying that fact lest they be hanged.
You want people to care?
Draft.
This war will be over in 6 months.
OCPatriot wrote on September 11, 2007 11:43 AM:In November 2006 I wrote:
Anonymous wrote on September 11, 2007 12:04 PM:The people who are going to Iraq are genuine heroes and we should be proud of their determination to fight for our safety. Unfortunately, the job they are being asked to do is not what they have been trained for. They are trained to fight in wars, and what is being asked of them in Iraq is to help build a nation, to quell an insurgency, to mediate a civil war. It is a mistake to ask our Armed Forces, which have won the Afghanistani War and the Iraqi War for us, to serve as peace-keepers and mediators of the aftermath. This message is not one the current Administration wants to hear, because it shows just how short-sighted they have been. Fighting an insurgency is not what conventional armed forces are trained for or equipped to do; just as the Israeli Army, a darned good army, after their difficulties in Lebanon with Hezbolla, has learned. Good military people know this but, curiously, haven't been very vocal about it. The Armed Forces are not properly trained or structured to build nations, install democracy, fight insurgencies, intervene in civil wars or even fight guerillas. That's fact. To change their mission, or to re-train them and re-structure them, will take time and could weaken their primary mission. Not something we want to play around with, is it?
"Instead, he plowed through as if a statement was true simply because he wished it to be."
Unfortunately, that is the modus operandi of most US General Officers.
some dude named steevo wrote on September 11, 2007 12:05 PM:"Instead, he plowed through as if a statement was true simply because he wished it to be."
Unfortunately, that is the modus operandi of most US General Officers.
Nick wrote on September 11, 2007 12:37 PM:Spencer,
Drop me an email, fool.
Robert Green wrote on September 11, 2007 4:51 PM:Ex US Marine Korean combat vet-- Trying to make Iraq one nation--How stupid and what a miss statment for Bush to compare either Korea or Viet Nam to Iraq. We spent 37 thousand lives to keep
North and South Korea SEPERATE. Likewise we spent 47 thousand lives to keep North and South Viet Nam SEPERATE. Now Bush somehow insists on making one country out of four groups of folks who will NEVER get along. S/Sgt R Green USMC