How Dangerous Can One General Be?

It seems the Bush administration prefers that we get our information from people sitting behind a desk in Washington rather than from our military commanders in field. What other explanation can their be for the Whitehouse's attempt at preventing General Petraeus's briefing from being made public? It appears to be a rather transparent attempt (and luckily it appears to be a failed one) by the administration to makes sure that the American public hears just what the administration wants them to hear.

It is interesting that the Bush administration freely ignores their commanders in the field when it is expedient to do so politically and isn't beyond removing those who speak truth to power. How ironic that the whitehouse started whining about how politicians shouldn't be second guessing our commanders in the field as soon as the legislature made a few timorous moves towards providing an exit from the vicious circle of foreign policy failure in which the Bush administration has us trapped. Too bad the irony is completely overshadowed by the real-life tragedy that is Iraq for so many American and even more Iraqi families.

I am under no illusion, General Petraeus is not a wholly objective observer. I sincerely hope that the man we have leading our troops in Iraq honestly feels he can accomplish something worthwhile with the American lives the Bush administration has chosen to spend --our troops deserve nothing less. What really concerns me is that the Bush administration seems to fear that General Petraeus has the integrity to not subordinate his opinions entirely to the needs of their political rhetoric. If that is their reason for not wanting him to testify publicly then our troops don't have the Commander in Chief they deserve.

•  My only problem with Petreaus...

  is that suddenly he's the ONE to get this done.

  But how many other generals have we had who were "the best" and were the only ones to get this done, too?  I guess the ONE only relates to the general telling BushCo what they want to hear.

  I read today that there will be troop withdrawals - and I laughed my a** off....they will withdraw the 20,000+ they put in from the surge, keep the remaining hundred and a half and take bows for drawing down our troops.

  I said that was the game last January.  I wish I had been wrong.

  by ShaShaMae on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 12:45:10 PM PDT

  •  he is not a MacArthur, or even an Eisenhower

    he was Rumsfelds pick  what does that tell you?

    by testvet6778 on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 01:07:56 PM PDT

•  for purposes of tagging

  it's David Petraeus. Whom I don't particularly trust.  Yesterday morning, David Huber wrote an informative diary about him:

  The hype over Petraeus has been bouncing around the echo chamber from the time Bush nominated him to replace George W. Casey as commander of Multi-National Force-Iraq.  Tales of his previous command tours in Iraq make him sound like a latter day cross pollination of Erwin Rommel and Lawrence of Arabia.  He is generally credited for having created the so-called "surge" strategy and many claim that he "wrote the book" on counterinsurgency.  Petraeus's detractors accuse him of overstating his accomplishments, and it's fair to say that Petraeus's proponents overstate his accomplishments as well.  

  Petraeus was not the architect of the surge strategy.  That dubious honor belongs to former West Point lecturer Fred Kagan and retired Army General Jack Keane.  Kagan and Keane prepared the "Plan for Success in Iraq" for the American Enterprise Institute, the neoconservative think tank and parent organization of the now infamous Project for the New American Century.

  "The book on counter-insurgency" Petraeus is said to have written is the Army field manual FM 3-24.  Trust me on this one: three and four star generals don't write field manuals.  Light colonels and majors and sergeants write them.

  /snip

  As long as I'm shamelessly pimping - or maybe rescuing - his diary:

  Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired) writes from Virginia Beach, Virginia.  Read his commentaries at ePluribus Media and Pen and Sword.  Jeff's novel Bathtub Admirals (Kunati Books, ISBN: 9781601640192) will be available March 1, 2008.  

  by CalifSherry on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 12:54:17 PM PDT

•  General Petraeus gives the good and the bad now

  LTG Odierno is a fast tracked ass kisser destined for greatness if the next President is a republican "war" president, if not he may be in trouble,  he is a cheerleader for "surging" even more troops and is the Commander that decided all Iraqi men aged 14-75 were to be considered "combatants" and to arrest everyone  when he was the Comnader of the 4th Inf Div  he created most of the problems in Al Anbar Province

  he should be retired not getting his third star  he's dangerous

  by testvet6778 on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 01:06:23 PM PDT

•  Petraeus has a rep for being a soldier's soldier.

  As I have noted before, he took a bullet in Somalia, and has a strong love for his men.   I suspect that, even though he is willing to put them in harms way in order to accomplish his mission, he will not hesitate to say that the mission can't be accomplished if he believes that their sacrifice is not worth the candle.  Even though Bush is fighting putting him in the hot seat (before Congress), Petraeus will find a way to get that message out, through other channels.   That's my read

  by SpamNunn on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 01:39:23 PM PDT

  •  hard to spin

    I suspect this is why the Bush administration wants to limit the public exposure general Petraeus gets; it will be hard for them to spin it they way they want if there is too much truth to it.

    by sam storm on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 04:53:01 PM PDT