in case you thought Patraeus was apolitical ...

[AEON]

i can agree with this.

but with the caveat that we'd have needed a different president and SecDef.

And I can agree on the SecDef....

 

[Irvine511]

and if we had a different president, we'd have a different SecDef, and if we had a different president, he'd have accepted Rumsfeld's resignation after Abu Ghraib.

it all comes back to Bush.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

The Nation

During the Q&A round at the armed services committee, Senator John Warner, the Virginia Republican who used to chair the committee and who has called for beginning a disengagement in Iraq, took a few sharp (albeit respectful) jabs at Petraeus, noting that one intelligence report after another has said that political reconciliation in Iraq could be a bridge too far. He then asked Petraeus a pointed question: "Do you feel that [Iraq war] is making America safer"?

Petraeus paused before responding. He then said: "I believe this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq."

That was, of course, a non-answer. And Warner wasn't going to let the general dodge the bullet. He repeated the question: "Does the [Iraq war] make America safer?"

Petraeus replied, "I don't know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind."

Don't know? Is it possible that the war is not making the United States safer? Petraeus went on to note that he has "taken into account" the war's impact on the U.S. military and that it's his job to recommend to the president the best course for reaching "the objectives of the policy" in Iraq. Yet he did not say that the Iraq war is essential to the national security of the United States. Warner did not press the general any further on this point. The senator's time was up.

 

[kellyahern]

^ The most important moment of the hearing. "Is this making America safer?" "I don't know". From the general in charge. Wow.

 

[Irvine511]

^ The most important moment of the hearing. "Is this making America safer?" "I don't know". From the general in charge. Wow.

so, not only has the Surge failed on the basis of the goals set by the Bush administration, but so has the entire war.

so let's watch them, again, try to shift the goalposts.

 

[yolland]

^ The most important moment of the hearing. "Is this making America safer?" "I don't know". From the general in charge. Wow.

 

[AEON]

^ The most important moment of the hearing. "Is this making America safer?" "I don't know". From the general in charge. Wow.

It is not his job to assess the entire global climate. His mission is Iraq.

 

[diamond]

Why do ppl keep picking on a guy named "Surge" here?

 

[anitram]

It is not his job to assess the entire global climate. His mission is Iraq.

Um, he was asked whether the Iraq mission is making America safer. Not whether it was making the world safer.

Surely if you believed Iraq was a threat to the US and/or harboured terrorists then you should believe that controlling the situation would at least partially increase security in the US.

 

[AEON]

Next time - please give the FULL answer:

Petraeus: "Sir, I don't know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind. What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multi-National Force in Iraq."

 

[AEON]

Surely if you believed Iraq was a threat to the US and/or harboured terrorists then you should believe that controlling the situation would at least partially increase security in the US.

Assessing threats on US soil is the job of our intelligence agencies, not the commander of the forces in Iraq.

 

[Irvine511]

Next time - please give the FULL answer:

Petraeus: "Sir, I don't know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind. What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multi-National Force in Iraq."

i don't see how this changes a thing.

he's in control of the whole opereation. surely he has to consider the big picture? surely he has to understand the philosophy behind the mission?

(also, it's kind of sad to see the STING-like insistence on a 'multi-national force')

 

[phillyfan26]

Assessing threats on US soil is the job of our intelligence agencies, not the commander of the forces in Iraq.

He's a general for God's sake!

Let's say they were fighting al-Qaeda. If someone asked him, "Is this making America safer?" He'd definitely respond, "Absolutely."

The difference is that we're not fighting al-Qaeda.

 

[AEON]

i don't see how this changes a thing.

he's in control of the whole opereation.

He's in charge of the missions in Afghanistan? The Phillipines? Malasia? Korea?

What do you mean "the whole operation?"

 

[kellyahern]

It is not his job to assess the entire global climate. His mission is Iraq.

Then what is the point of fighting in Iraq if the general (whose mission is Iraq) is not sure that fighting there is making us safer? Why are we there?

 

[AEON]

Then what is the point of fighting in Iraq if the general whose mission is Iraq is not sure if fighting there is making us safer? Why are we there?

It is not the job of the soldier to understand the entire reason he or she is being sent into battle. They are given a mission. The "why are we there" question is to be answered by those that send the soldier into battle (Congress and the President)

That being said, I am quite certain this general believes that his mission in Iraq is legal and moral. However, he is unable to draw a direct parallel between his mission and the overall safety of America because that is quite frankly WELL beyond his scope of responsibilities.

You must admit - this man is not an idiot. He was 5th in his class at West Point and has a PhD from Princeton - not something to ignore. He is wise to admit that his focus is Iraq.

 

[phillyfan26]

It is not the job of the soldier to understand the entire reason he or she is being sent into battle. They are given a mission. The "why are we there" question is to be answered by those that send the soldier into battle (Congress and the President)

That being said, I am quite certain this general believes that his mission in Iraq is legal and moral. However, he is unable to draw a direct parallel between his mission and the overall safety of America because that is quite frankly WELL beyond his scope of responsibilities.

You must admit - this man is not an idiot. He was 5th in his class at West Point and has a PhD from Princeton - not something to ignore. He is wise to admit that his focus is Iraq.

He is wise, which is why he didn't answer truthfully.

 

[Irvine511]

That being said, I am quite certain this general believes that his mission in Iraq is legal and moral. However, he is unable to draw a direct parallel between his mission and the overall safety of America because that is quite frankly WELL beyond his scope of responsibilities.

no it's not. it is precisely his responsibility. he's a general. his job is to conduct an operation that is going to achieve it's goals, and one of those goals that's been repeated by the president over and over -- we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here, and that's just one excuse -- is that the safety of the US is one of the reasons we are in Iraq.

but he doesn't even know if that's true. and this is *exactly* what's wrong over there. there is no mission. there are no goals. there are no strategies. there's just politics, politics, politics.

 

[AEON]

He is wise, which is why he didn't answer truthfully.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, criticized MoveOn.org Monday for taking an ad out in The New York Times criticizing Gen. David Petraeus. The general is testifying before Congress today about the situation in Iraq. (Related: Dems join GOP in slamming ad attacking Petraeus)

“I don’t like any kind of characterizations in our politics that call into question any active duty, distinguished general,” Kerry told CNN, adding “who I think under any circumstances serves with the best interests of our country.”

 

[AEON]

(also, it's kind of sad to see the STING-like insistence on a 'multi-national force')

That is his actual title: Commander of Muti-National-Force-Iraq

 

[deep]

Kerry is right

Just like McCain was right when he said the swift-boat ads were disgraceful

and anyone that would defend that ad is silly

making fun of someone's name is something you might expect in grade school

 

[kellyahern]

I think he did answer truthfully. That's what is scary about it. He really doesn't know if it makes us safer. He tried to not give an answer like that, but when Sen. Warner repeated the questions, he gave his honest opinion.

And yes, that add was stupid. I do think the general is a smart man. I do think he's doing the best he can in a bad situation that he didn't create. And that's why I think his "I don't know" answer is very telling about the whole situation we're in in Iraq.

 

[deep]

Aeon is right

I did watch quite a bit of these hearings

politicians and us members of the public can speculate


An officer can not

and if he is asked if he thinks we (the US) are safer because of the surge

he would not have the luxury of even speculating

also, it really is beyond the scope of what he has time or even the ability to speculate about


fortunately/ or unfortunately depending on how you choose to look at it

he can only answer for the task he has been given


the rest of us can speculate and draw conclusions

 

[Irvine511]

That is his actual title: Commander of Muti-National-Force-Iraq

right. it's politicized from top to bottom.

 

[deep]

let's be fair


it there are even small numbers of troops from other nations it must be called multi-national



at the same time,
to suggest or mislead to the American people that we are not bearing something like 90%? of the burden is less than honest

 

[Irvine511]

Aeon is right
and if he is asked if he thinks we (the US) are safer because of the surge

he would not have the luxury of even speculating

he wasn't asked if the surge was making us safer. he was asked if the entire mission was making us safer.

 

[deep]

I still believe that is something he can not speculate on

his job is to complete the tasks given him


and he can report on the status of those tasks

 

[Irvine511]

I still believe that is something he can not speculate on

his job is to complete the tasks given him


and he can report on the status of those tasks

hasn't the whole "lack of a big picture" been the problem here?

 

[AEON]

hasn't the whole "lack of a big picture" been the problem here?

Yes. That is exactly what I want to tell Sean Penn, Cindy Sheehan, and the lovely Code Pink women.

 

[Diemen]

Right. Because they're the ones causing the real damage to America and its reputation.