General Confusion: McChrystal, Petraeus

When Dwight David Eisenhower came back from World War II, no one knew whether he was a Republican or Democrat until he ran for president. He had spent his years as a commanding general steering clear of politics.

Not so today. Starting three years ago when Iraq was in shambles, George W. Bush took political cover behind Gen. David Petraeus, who successfully redirected a misbegotten war into a counter-insurgency that worked well enough to open the way for American troop withdrawal under the next president.

Now, in Afghanistan, this breach of traditional military-political separation is haunting the effort to devise a new strategy for another failing war.

Suddenly, Barack Obama's choice, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, is embarrassing his Commander-in-Chief by making preemptive speeches about decisions still in the making, leading to the kind of possible confrontation unseen since Harry Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur in 1951 for politicking to widen the Korean War.

McChrystal is no MacArthur, and his going public prematurely is much more likely the result of inexperience rather than arrogance, but the Petraeus precedent is complicating a painful debate in a time of political polarization.

As he showed clearly on 60 Minutes last month, McChrystal is a conscientious, forceful commander with no illusions about Afghanistan, but going public with what should be his confidential advice to the President before final decisions are made is a disservice to both his Commander-in-Chief and Pentagon superiors.

Meanwhile, Gen. Petraeus, who may or may not be thinking about running for president in 2012, is reported to have "largely muzzled himself from the fierce public debate about the war to avoid antagonizing the White House, which does not want pressure from military superstars and is wary of the general’s ambitions in particular."

Petraeus is a gifted military man, as McChrystal also seems to be, but while they are in uniform, they would do well to keep their political views apart in the Eisenhower manner. If and when they become civilians, there will be time enough for airing them forcefully.

Update: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the Bush holdover, weighed in today, subtly criticizing McChrystal. “I believe," he said, "the decisions that the president will make for the next stage of the Afghanistan campaign will be among the most important of his presidency, so it is important that we take our time to do all we can to get this right.

“And in this process, it is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations--civilians and military alike--provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately.

“And speaking for the Department of Defense, once the commander in chief makes his decisions, we will salute and execute those decisions faithfully and to the best of our ability.”

Losing the Anti-War War

Evidence that the Iraq narrative has turned is everywhere.

“Victory Is Within Reach in Iraq,” a Wall Street Journal headline enthuses this weekend, claiming that “highly respected officers including the commander of Special Forces in Iraq, Gen. Stanley McCrystal, reportedly feel it is justified by the facts on the ground.”

The Washington Post reports “The Next Challenge in Iraq,” quoting Adm. William Fallon, head of the U.S. Central Command:

"I look at the numbers, and I say the success that General Petraeus and the guys have made is amazing. But how do we leverage that to get the Iraqi government to take decisions that will provide enduring security? How do we help them take advantage of this?"

The Los Angeles Times cites, “Tough going for antiwar Republicans,” reporting that “Despite months of pressure, no more than eight Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate have backed any measure that mandates a troop withdrawal. And GOP strategists predict that is unlikely to change.”

How much our situation in Iraq has changed is highly debatable, but the battle is Washington seems to be lost. What do Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi do now?

Bush’s stubbornness and their own ineffectual legislative maneuvering have put them in a bind. To persist in railing against the war may only feed charges that they are “defeatist.” To back off efforts to get us out of Iraq will enrage those who gave them control of Congress to do just that.

In coming months, they will undoubtedly concentrate on domestic issues--health insurance, housing, tax reform--to persuade voters that Democrats can get something done.

Meanwhile, the dying in Iraq goes on. The numbers may be slightly smaller, but the blood is just as real as it was before Americans lost hope of stopping it anytime soon.

Democratic Sleepwalking in Washington

Now that the month of decision about Iraq has come and gone in a Petraeus-MoveOn cloud of dust, the United States government starts October in a worse stupor than ever.

Democrats who took over Congress in a fever to stop the old war and expose Bush-Cheney lawlessness have just opened the door to a new war and, after months of bloviating about Administration scandals, have only the sorry scalp of Alberto Gonzales to show for their efforts.

The Presidential front runners are still wagging fingers at George Bush without promising to be out of Iraq by 2013 while the frontmost runner of all, the new, improved Hillary Clinton of 2007, casts a vote for Kyl/Lieberman aggression against Iran that looks very much like the one for invading Iraq in 2002.

Only a party elder and a Senate newcomer are awake enough to sound an alarm. As Mario Cuomo reminds Congress of its Constitutional power and responsibility, freshman Senator Jim Webb speaks up about last week’s move against Iran:

“This proposal is Dick Cheney’s fondest pipe dream. It’s not a prescription for success. At best, it’s a deliberate attempt to divert attention from a failed diplomatic policy. At worst, it could be read as a back door method of gaining Congressional validation for action without one hearing or without serious debate.”

Whatever Bush and Cheney have put into the Washington water supply, it has most Democrats pushing the snooze button on their 2008 alarm clocks. They may wake up with the worst political hangover ever.

Bush-Hunting Season Opens

Next week the President officially becomes a lame duck. One of his staunchest Senate supporters, Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, has turned on the issue of children’s health insurance and is actively fighting to defeat him.

“We’re going to try [to] convince people in the House to change their vote,” he said yesterday. “All I can do is make phone calls.”

Not quite “Here I stand, I can do no other,” but 18 Senate Republicans defected from Bush dogma yesterday by voting for the State Children’s Health Insurance Bill the President has promised to veto.

The 67-29 margin would override it, and two Democratic Presidential candidates, Obama and Biden, were not even there. The question now is whether another dozen House Republicans will join the 45 who broke ranks the other day.

The President who lost the popular vote by more than half a million in November 2000 but won the Supreme Court by 5-4 in December has translated that mandate into almost seven years of domination in Washington, but now servile Republicans in Congress are facing extinction next year if they persist in their fealty.

Under cover of Gen. Petraeus, they may hold out over Iraq, but denying children health coverage is quite another matter. The White House may compromise, but they have no experience at it.

Childrens do learn. Do Presidents?

Saddam Then, Now MoveOn

When our Way of Life is threatened, members of the United States Senate will stand up and be counted.

In October of 2002, the Upper Chamber voted to invade Iraq, depose Saddam Hussein and remove the threat of his Weapons of Mass Destruction by 77-23.

Five years later, the Senate did not flinch from its duty once again and voted yesterday to defend America from Advertising of General Destruction by 72-25.

The minority was populated by a dozen of the same misguided Democrats who fancied themselves candidates for a 21st century version of “Profiles in Courage” for opposing the Administration’s resolve to free the Middle East of anti-American influences back then--Senators Akaka, Bingaman, Boxer, Byrd, Durbin, Feingold, Inouye, Kennedy, Murray, Reed, Stabenow and Wyden.

President Bush set them straight at his press conference by pointing out forcefully that the MoveOn ad was a “disgusting...attack...on the U. S. military,” a virtual Pearl Harbor that “leaders in the Democrat party” failed to resist.

Some politicians never learn.

Using Generals Like Kleenex

It’s sad to see the piling-on. Beyond the infamous MoveOn ad, there are now stories about Petraeus’ penchant for ass-kissing and his presidential ambitions.

But character assassination won’t change what Bush is doing in Iraq, and impugning Petraeus is not only mean-spirited but unworthy of those who oppose the war on moral and ethical grounds.

The sighting of Colin Powell this week in a GQ interview is a reminder of how this Administration uses Generals like Kleenex to wipe their fingerprints off disastrous policies.

Powell claims he did all he could to warn Bush and Cheney off invading Iraq. Whether he did or not, Petraeus might want to take a good look at what Powell has to say about the Surge:

“Suppose I’m a battalion commander. My troops ask, ‘What do I do today, boss?’ ‘Let’s go fight the Shia militias!’ ‘What do I do tomorrow?’ ‘Let’s go fight the Sunni insurgents!’ ‘What do I do the day after tomorrow?’ ‘Let’s go chase Al Qaeda!” “What do we do the day after that?’ ‘We’re going to guard streets!’ Our kids are fantastic. But this is not sustainable. Our surge can work only with an Iraqi political and military surge.”

Petraeus might want to note that Powell is talking about a political surge there, not here.

Too Much News: Deprivation by Surfeit

A book I once wrote argued we were being stuffed with information but starved for understanding. David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker have just spent two days making the point with a ribbon on it.

After all the graphs, statistics, anecdotes and guarded generalizations, they did not, could not answer the only questions that matter: When will this war end, and is it making us any safer from terrorism?

Two of our best and brightest public servants responded with the classic waiter’s shrug, “That’s not my table.”

In the last century, social critic Lewis Mumford pointed out that, although science and technology assume constantly increasing consumption of goods and knowledge is desirable, it can lead to “deprivation by surfeit.”

With concentration on speed and productivity, Mumford wrote, “we have ignored the need for evaluation, correction, selection and social assimilation.”

Today’s journalism and politics validate his theory as clearly as do the clogging of our highways and the overwhelming of air-traffic control. We are in a hurry to get somewhere without being sure of the destination and how to get there without falling over one another.

Sorting it all out used to be called leadership, but that is the only product in short supply.

The Rise of Al-Qaeda Iraq

In the prolixity of Gen. Petraeus this week, there is a curious emphasis on the entity, “Al-Qaeda Iraq,” which, of course, did not exist until the U.S. invaded the country.

“We face a situation that is exceedingly complex,” he had written to his troops. “Al Qaeda, associated insurgent groups, and militia extremists, some supported by Iran, continue to carry out attacks.”

"Al-Qaeda is trying to open new fronts in certain locations," Petraeus told Senators today. "They've been run out of some areas...but remain a very dangerous foe and adapting foe."

There is an echo here of Bush’s argument that we’re fighting the people there who attacked us here, which would be convincing if there had been the slightest link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda before we created the chaos that invited them to come from our great ally, Saudi Arabia, and start car-bombing our troops.

Petraeus’ emphasis on Al-Qaeda Iraq, balanced by not-quite-equal time to extremists from Iran, may be non-political, but it plays neatly into the two remaining objectives of the Bush-Cheney Administration, staying in Iraq and preparing to fight Iran.

Too bad that Congressmen didn’t ask Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker about self-fulfilling prophecies.

Eisenhower to Petraeus

Fifty five years ago, an American general who had won his war and was running for President, had some advice that Gen. David Petraeus and his Commander-in-Chief should take to heart today. “Fanaticism,” Eisenhower said, quoting the philosopher George Santayana, “consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.”

After election, Eisenhower gave his Cabinet members copies of “The True Believer” by Eric Hoffer, then a best-seller.

“We have perhaps a natural fear of ends,” Hoffer wrote. “We would rather be always on the way than arrive. Given the means, we hang on to them and often forget the ends.”

Before Hoffer died, Ronald Reagan gave him the Medal of Freedom. Today’s Republicans and those who serve them may want to take another look at what their party icons of the past century admired so much.

Our Fortune Tellers: Petraeus & bin Laden

Does the word “impotent” ring a bell? While George Bush boasts about “kicking ass” in Iraq during his Australian stay, Americans and their Congress are in a state of suspense awaiting word from one of our own generals and a man who lives in a cave.

Today’s New York Times reflects the waiting-for-Petraeus bind with an anonymously sourced story that relies on “White House officials” and “a senior military officer” to tells us “Petraeus, Seeing Gains in Iraq as Fragile, Is Wary of Cuts” while columnist Paul Krugman predicts:

“Democrats will look at Gen. Petraeus’s uniform and medals and fall into their usual cringe. They won’t ask hard questions out of fear that someone might accuse them of attacking the military. After the testimony, they’ll desperately try to get Republicans to agree to a resolution that politely asks President Bush to maybe, possibly, withdraw some troops, if he feels like it.”

If the Washington spin is not enough to make us feel queasy, there are anonymous sources in the Middle East to promote a 9/11 anniversary TV special that promises a "soon, God willing, video message by the Lion Sheik Osama bin laden, may God protect him."

In the promo, the Lion Sheik appears to have had a makeover, complete with beard dye job, by an Al Qaeda stylist.

When he appears in Washington, Gen. Petraeus will no doubt be his usual trim self and his message more reassuring than bin Laden’s, but the bottom line will be essentially the same: Our safety and peace of mind depend largely on ragged zealots in a part of the world where the richest, most powerful nation in history does not control events.

When Bush gets back from bragging Down Under, maybe he can explain how that happened, but don’t hold your already bated breath.

Petraeus and Crocker: No Slam Dunk

After phony patriotism failed, the last refuge of the Bush Administration in Iraq has been competence, replacing robot generals and servile ambassadors with two men of substance, David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker.

For months, Bush has kept Congress from taking action to start stopping the war by hiding behind Petraeus’ September progress report. Now, worried about what the General and Crocker will say, the Administration is trying to have them testify in private while Condoleeza Rice and Robert Gates do the public cheer-leading.

No dice, the Democrats answer. "Americans deserve an even-handed assessment of conditions in Iraq,“ House Democratic Chairman Rahm Emanuel declared, not “a snapshot from the same people who told us the mission was accomplished and the insurgency was in its last throes."

Administration’s worries are reflected in what the straight-talking Petraeus told reporters yesterday: "We know that the surge has to come to an end. I think everyone understands that, by about a year or so from now, we've got to be a good bit smaller than we are right now.”

Five years ago, Crocker was one of the authors of a State Department memo on the pitfalls of an attack. Based on long experience in Iraq, Crocker warned that an invasion could "unleash long-repressed sectarian and ethnic tensions" and that “the Sunni minority would not easily relinquish power, and that powerful neighbors such as Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia would try to move in to influence events."

If you’re still trying to sell that war, you don’t want Petraeus and Crocker to do the pitching. You need a toady like George Tenet out there to predict a slam dunk.