|
but still basically support its message. Sorry, Petraeus WAS played for a stooge. I said in a recent column that bush has effectively hung yet another general out to dry.
There ARE generals who couldn't take it anymore and resigned. And some of them have come forward to speak the truth. There's something in David Petraeus that motivates him not to do that. Perhaps he's one of those who still clings to hope, against all hope, that - uh - well - er - ahem - um - well - bush COULD EVENTUALLY be right. Maybe? Huh? Maybe-maybe??? PLEEEEEZE??? Sadly, he's positioned himself as one of the last to jump off the Titanic. Unfortunately, before he jumps, he fails to notice the rope coiled around his ankle that will hold him fast. It's a shame. This gent spent many years serving his country. All that brass on his uniform means something, week-by-week, month-by-month in terms of hard experience. He did his time. And this is what he gets as a thank-you. The colin powell treatment. He probably originally looked on this as "well, maybe, just maybe, I can solve this. Maybe it's I MYSELF who will make the difference. And maybe there'll be a UFO landing on St. Patrick's Cathedral tomorrow just before afternoon rush hour. Perhaps he saw this as - well, if I toe the company line, look at the promotion I just got. Maybe he saw no other way to advance his career, and looks at his four stars on each shoulder as too important and too costly in terms of his own sweat, tears, and years, that he doesn't want to risk them.
But the fact remains, this poor bloke made a deal with the Devil. And I'm sure no one held a gun to his head and forced him to take this job. Plus, foolhardy optimism can SERIOUSLY cloud someone's objectivity and vision. We should be able to rely on someone with that much stature and impact to TELL US THE TRUTH about the whole picture, not just one itty-bitty corner of it. What he's done with this "I just hunker down and focus on my job which is accomplish the mission" is to announce how tightly his blinders are on, and how justified it is to keep them that way. It shows very limited thinking rather than expansive thinking.
You know, David Patraeus isn't living in a bubble (at least not like bush is). While he's been in Iraq, I'd expect that he's at a high enough level to hear ALL the input about how the war is going and how the surge is going in particular, and whether it's helping to make America safe. A general tends to hob-knob with other generals. A chain-of-command structure is one of very distinct strata. It's the ultimate class society. You are your rank. And you assemble with others of your rank. If your rank is general-level, you're not going to be hanging all the time with people who a) are unwilling to speak candidly to a superior officer about how THEY see the war is going and how the surge is going and whether it's making America safer; and b) well aware of what happens when someone DOES voice dissent. Someone at generals' rank hangs with the CEO levels. Other generals, colonels, ambassadors and high government officials. Folks of equal rank. THOSE people are less reluctant to be partially or totally candid. And in closed-door strategy sessions, you bet some of them will voice opposition. This guy has heard all this input, which means he should be familiar enough with the idea of a conflicting verdicts on the war, surge, and the are-we-safer question, especially considering what a POWERULLY OVERRIDING concern those verdicts are. Nobody around him is in total lockstep on this. And they can't avoid noticing the steady drumbeat of present and past colleagues who are coming out against all this. And when you have this kind of broadbased, and high-level conflicting opinion about the effectiveness of the mission of which YOU are placed in command, you damned well better take that conflicting opinion into account as you push ahead with your strategy, and have SOME clue whether you can show cause-and-effect justification. And David Petraeus is not doing that.
Lives are at stake. Ours AND those of everyone else our presence affects. Rather than hunker down with his blinder-visor in place and just carry out the strategy isolated in some sort of cone-of-silence, he absolutely should consider whether this wreckage and bloodshed he's exacerbating is having an impact. He should know the answer to such a hugely important life-and-death question - is this making America safer? And for him to say "I really don't know" - that's little more than an "I was just following orders" piece of crap.
The MoveOn.org ad did not damage him nearly as much as his own tunnel vision and misplaced loyalties have. Just why is it, I wonder, that thousands and thousands of people worked on and contributed to that ad, having been inspired by the very name "Petraeus" to jump instinctively to the phrase "Betray-us"? It wouldn't be such an automatic given if there were no reason to make that link.
And I GUARANTEE you this:
MANY on hate radio and the Dark Side would ABSOLUTELY be calling him that, nonstop, themselves for having the gall to disagree with his commander-in-chief/messiah. And they'd have a far more widespread media reach than just a single NYTimes ad - if they thought he'd realized the surge, overall, was counterproductive, in opposition to what their own precious fucking chickenhawk king asserts. They'd be first to go there. Bank on it. It's an irresistable metaphor and if our side hadn't thought it up, theirs would have. ABSOLUTELY. ESPECIALLY those many multitudes of them as media strategists and spinners and word-play specialists and other ruthless take-no-prisoners manipulators who bring us all the bumper sticker slogans that stick.
|