[Newsbot]

<strong>Filibuster Cartoon</strong>
<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20070916" target="_blank">Into the grinder</a> (click to view)
<strong>Date: </strong> September 16, 2007

One must have some sympathy for General Petraeus. After all, his career has permanently changed. Never again will he just be \"some general.\" After his testimony to Congress on behalf of the Bush administration, justifying \"the surge\" he\'ll be forever tied to the White House in public perception. He\'s gone from simply being associated with the Iraq war to being associated with the politics of it, a sad devolution for any military man. <br> <br>Democrats will say it was his own fault, for agreeing to serve as a mouthpiece before Congress. But Republicans will blame Democratic politicians for politicizing his testimony far more than was necessary, with acidic questions and needless pot shots. <br> <br>What do you think? Post on my forum, we need some new blood. <br>

[dougoftheabaci]

I just gotta say I have no pity for the guy. He is where he is because he chose it.

Now in the post you said some might point to the Democrats and say they over-politicised the proceedings and for this Patraeus should be given a bit of slack. There's something they're forgetting. No one gets to the rank of general in the United States military without political connections.

Now, that's not to say it can't happen. In past wars it wasn't completely unheard of for an officer to fly through the ranks due completely to his own ability to command and the death of his commanders. That doesn't happen to the same degree anymore, not like it used to. Generals don't die on the battlefield. Generals aren't even near the battlefield, not anymore.

Speaking as someone who's had copious amounts of experience with the United States military, via my own personal experiences and those of my family, you realise that no one gets above colonel without having some connection to someone. In order to receive the rank of General, you need a committee of generals to commission the rank and I think it's actually made official by the US congress (or senate).

Anyway, I pity no man who brings his situation on himself and he chose his commission and he worked for it. Now he has it and any bad that comes to him because of it is his own fault, no one else's.

[Tiler]

dougoftheabaci wrote:

I just gotta say I have no pity for the guy. He is where he is because he chose it.

Now in the post you said some might point to the Democrats and say they over-politicised the proceedings and for this Patraeus should be given a bit of slack. There's something they're forgetting. No one gets to the rank of general in the United States military without political connections.

Now, that's not to say it can't happen. In past wars it wasn't completely unheard of for an officer to fly through the ranks due completely to his own ability to command and the death of his commanders. That doesn't happen to the same degree anymore, not like it used to. Generals don't die on the battlefield. Generals aren't even near the battlefield, not anymore.

Speaking as someone who's had copious amounts of experience with the United States military, via my own personal experiences and those of my family, you realise that no one gets above colonel without having some connection to someone. In order to receive the rank of General, you need a committee of generals to commission the rank and I think it's actually made official by the US congress (or senate).

Anyway, I pity no man who brings his situation on himself and he chose his commission and he worked for it. Now he has it and any bad that comes to him because of it is his own fault, no one else's.

Very interesting insight... and very showing of the dangerous, volatile balance between the military and the politicians.

It's a funny situation in the United States, that the military has always been incredibly subserviant to the politicians, with the only real attempted military coups that I can think are around the start of the nation and I think once during the Cold War. Of course, the United States is very well off by making sure that the military doesn't control the government. The only problem with the system, as you have pointed out, is that the scales have been titled so far that the generals don't even have control over the army, in many ways. It's not just that the President is the Commander in Chief, but the very way wars are fought by the United States and other western nations are in a way that keeps the war from becoming a PR issue for the Politicians, even if it means losing the war. It happened in Vietnam with the infamous tale of the M16 rifle (crappy gun that jams when looked at too hard, given to troops as to get some politicians the "monetary support" that they needed to win their elections) and in Iraq (subpar body armor that troops are required to use (no buying your own) to fulfill backroom deals, military vehicles with glaring flaws in their design, not enough troops sent, self-defeating tactics to avoid casualties and bad PR, etc.).

One wonders where the line must be drawn, and even if it's possible for a line to be drawn.

On a side note, even with low approval ratings for the courts, legislature, and president, the military is the most respected institution in the United States. I could see where a problem could arise.

[sasquatch2]

There is this old order of things:

Weopons dictate tactics----

Tactics dictate Strategy----

Strategy dictates policy----

Now it is politicians dictating not only policy, but strategy as well and sometimes dabbling in tactics.

US Generals are created by Acts of Congress.....This perhaps appropriate due to the tremendous power and influence of generals in times past.

Currently the oversight of politicians is excessive.

All too frequently politicians mistake media opion with public opinion.

[dougoftheabaci]

Quote:

All too frequently politicians mistake media opion with public opinion.

I think quite a few people make that mistake.

Though what you say about the difference between the old way and the politician's way, neither, in my opinion, would work in the current style of war we're in. Look at Vietnam, we had 100% military superiority in terms of technology, as we pretty much always do. But we still lost.

The thing about this sort of war, which even the president has finally admitted, is that it can't be won my force alone. In many cases, a lack of force can speak infinitely louder than any force.

A great example of it, which I unfortunately can't cite since it was in an article a friend of mine was talking about, was of a British squad in Afghanistan (if memory serves). The commander of the British soldiers had a strict no-fire policy. You were shot at? Only if you can clearly see the shooter and know you won't hit anyone else. Someone throw a grenade? No firing back unless, again, you can see the person who threw it and have a clear shot. Throwing stones? Cover up, don't fire, at all. Over the space of weeks the locals were very hostile. But over time they became less so, to the point of being friendly and, finally, working with the soldiers to outs instigators.

How common this is isn't something I can say, but it's a great example of how to win a war where the only way to win is with the help of the general populous.

[Das_Ganon]

I agree and the thing about American generals, is that they're only really remembered if they do well, for example: Eisenhower, Patton, Grant, etc. The thing about it is, that no one has ever heard about McClellan, and yet he was one of the more major of civil war generals. The other thing that makes these generals really known however, is the Cesar outcome, they get elected into power because they did so well and thus embeds themselves into general history in a basic 4th grade History book rather then a scholarly paper.

Give it a couple of years and he'll fade out of the media's sights.

[Guenhwyvhar]

The funny thing with generals is that they do not really do anything besides taking flak and accolades for their troops beneath them. It's all a figurehead does. And at the lofty heights of generals, they are not making decisions anymore either; they get briefed on what is going on, and then they tell other important people. Ask anyone who works in a hierarchical system of power who really pulls the strings of the organization, and guess who you find? Dollars to doughnuts, it's not the guy they put in front of the camera with the shiny medals and a lot of years on the body, but all the people who work directly with that person.

Blaming Petraeus is pointlessly cheap politics, much akin to the recent squabble over voting with a veil on. It does nothing but scratch the surface of the real issues at hand, and it deflects attention from more important news.

[SprCForr]

Generals make decisions, don't kid yourself. Yes, alot of the nitty gritty detail is passed onto the staff due to the sheer complexity of all the elements in a plan, but the ultimate decision rest with them. Does a unit CO make decisions? Of course. Who does it a Brigade level?

[dougoftheabaci]

Quote:

General says, 'Take that hill!' and it's the sergeant who makes it happen.

It's an old saying about the military and it's pretty true. Generals know, but only in the broadest terms. They dictate basic policy and give general (+5 pun) orders which are then filtered down through the ranks getting more specific.

General: "Take that town!"
Colonel: "Take the west side of that town!"
Captain: "Take that block of houses on the west side of town!"
Lieutenant: "Take that house in this block of houses on the west side of town!"
Sergeant: "Sweep around the back and come in from both sides in this house on this block on the west side of town!"
Grunt: "...Weak..."

That being said, the general knows that somewhere in the west side of town a soldier is rushing through a door of a specific house in a specific neighbourhood. He just doesn't know who or how.

[Calbeck]

*snerks*

I remember quite well that the anti-war types were practically begging Petraus to testify because they were absolutely sure he was going to present a negative report. When a top Democrat House Leader was asked what would happen if the general gave a positive report, he remarked "That would be very bad for us".

This is a classic case of Democrat/anti-war reversal: "four legs good, two legs baaaaaaad."

[Psudo]

Generals and politics have been connected since George Washington took office, possibly before. The annoying thing is the degradation of politics since that time when all sides of every issue were generally friends to today's state of partisan hatred between ideologies. A good General becoming a good President is just fine, but a good general being dragged into the congressional lion's den is disparaging. At least when everyone was similarly divided in the build-up to the cold war, there was good reason for it. The reasons now are short-sighted and silly. "He's a fascist!" "He's a commie!" "He's an anarchist!" So? I had a buddy that was an anarchist. His politics were nuts, but we got along.

[CanadianJeff]

Frankly the moment he opened his mouth he knew what he was getting into.

Feel sorry for the man or not he's made his choice. I think the most graceful thing to do is ignore the general and stick to the information presented.

Of course the media wont' do such a thing when it's such easy money to attack him. How money makes the story spin.

[Psudo]

And the information presented is...

General Petraeus wrote:

As a bottom line up front, the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met.
[. . .]
The cumulative trajectory of political, economic, and diplomatic developments in Iraq is upwards, although the slope of that line is not steep.

[Kjorteo]

Calbeck wrote:

I remember quite well that the anti-war types were practically begging Petraus to testify because they were absolutely sure he was going to present a negative report. When a top Democrat House Leader was asked what would happen if the general gave a positive report, he remarked "That would be very bad for us".

Really? Most of the circles I followed pretty called it months in advance that he was just going to get up there and say things are great and to stay the course, because that's just what anyone even remotely connected to the Bush administration does. Instead, the strategy seemed to be to focus on spreading awareness in advance that the report was going to be an all-out sham. There was even this, from a blog I sort of follow:

Quote:

Dear Mainstream Media,

Can you please stop referring to the "Petraeus Report," or at least qualify the term when you use it? It's already been widely reported (LA Times, Washington Post, NPR) that the White House will actually be writing the report. It's only Petraeus's report in the sense that he's the mouthpiece who will be delivering it. They're using him for his perceived credibility, the same way they used Colin Powell. You really ought to be smarter than to fall for this one again.

After the report was delivered:

Quote:

Recap of today's events:

A Bush administration dude in a uniform with a very serious expression told us that everything is going great in Iraq and we all have to just sit back and wait another six months.

You know, exactly what every sentient being knew was going to happen.

Now, granted, one blog doesn't exactly make for a uniform consensus on what everyone out there was saying at the time, but I personally never saw a strong suspicion that he was going to get up there and say things were going poorly. In fact, Tom Torrow even made fun of how absurd that would have been.

[dougoftheabaci]

Well, the Patraeus Report is written by Gen. Patraeus, but the White House did have editor's rights.