The Blue Voice

«Home | Next: There's a reason this video has gotten 3,185,875 ...»

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Criticizing Petraeus

I was planning to post about the Republicans now-deeply ingrained treason-baiting tendencies. Which is what I plan to call it until I come across a better word. "Redbaiting" is what it was called back when Joe McCarthy and Pat McCarran did it. But since the Red Evil Empire of the Soviet Union no longer exists, and since red stands for Republicans now anyway in the US, "redbaiting" just doesn't describe it any more.

But then I saw this report from Gareth Porter, so I'll come back to my original idea later: Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the Surge by Gareth Porter Inter Press Service 09/12/07.

At the Congressional hearing where our Saviour-General David Petraeus was testifying this week, Republicans made a big show of being shocked, shocked that MoveOn.org was running an ad criticizing Petraeus and questioning his credibility.

According to Porter's report, MoveOn.org wasn't alone in criticizing the Saviour-General:

In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.

Now whether or not you think, as Joan Walsh put it, that the MoveOn.org ad "was marred ... by the right-baiting play on Petraeus as "Betray us", calling him "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" strikes me as even less reverential.

Porter continues:

The policy context of Fallon's extraordinarily abrasive treatment of his subordinate was Petraeus's agreement in February to serve as front man for the George W. Bush administration's effort to sell its policy of increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq to Congress. ...

Fallon was strongly opposed to Petraeus's role as pitch man for the surge policy in Iraq adopted by Bush in December as putting his own interests ahead of a sound military posture in the Middle East and Southwest Asia - the area for which Fallon's CENTCOM is responsible.

The CENTCOM commander believed the United States should be withdrawing troops from Iraq urgently, largely because he saw greater dangers elsewhere in the region. "He is very focused on Pakistan," said a source familiar with Fallon's thinking, "and trying to maintain a difficult status quo with Iran."

I also found this encouraging:

One of Fallon's first moves upon taking command of CENTCOM was to order his subordinates to avoid the term "long war" - a phrase Bush and Secretary of Defence Robert M. Gates had used to describe the fight against terrorism.

Fallon was signaling his unhappiness with the policy of U.S. occupation of Iraq for an indeterminate period. Military sources explained that Fallon was concerned that the concept of a long war would alienate Middle East publics by suggesting that U.S. troops would remain in the region indefinitely.

I always thought that "the Long War" was a kind of Orwellian propaganda name.

And Porter reports:

Fallon acquired a reputation for a willingness to stand up to powerful figures during his tenure as commander in chief of the Pacific Command from February 2005 to March 2007. He pushed hard for a conciliatory line toward and China, which put him in conflict with senior military and civilian officials with a vested interest in pointing to China as a future rival and threat.

He demonstrated his independence from the White House when he refused in February to go along with a proposal to send a third naval carrier task force to the Persian Gulf, as reported by IPS in May. Fallon questioned the military necessity for the move, which would have signaled to Iran a readiness to go to war. Fallon also privately vowed that there would be no war against Iran on his watch, implying that he would quit rather than accept such a policy. (my emphasis)

Wow!

His article also references other news reports:

Among Top Officials, 'Surge' Has Sparked Dissent, Infighting By Peter Baker, et al Washington Post 09/09/07.

U.S. Command Shortens Life of ‘Long War’ as a Reference by Michael Gordon New York Times 04/24/07. (Note: Gordon shared a byline with Judith Miller's on some of her most notorious WMD-in-Iraq articles, so his reporting always has to be taken with caution.)

General Is Front Man For Bush's Iraq Plan by Peter Baker Washington Post 02/07/07. This article reports on an incident that Porter indicates was one action that Admiral Fallon particularly disliked:

"I've been selling Petraeus to anybody who would listen," said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who terms the Bush troop increase the "Petraeus Doctrine" and fetched senators off the floor to meet the general in McConnell's office. "He's the General Grant of the surge. He's our last best chance as a military commander to bring about a change on the ground." ...

Graham said he grabbed Petraeus last week and had him wait in McConnell's office while he ushered in senators to see the general.

Porter describes this arrangement in particular as "a highly unusual political role for an officer who had not yet taken command of a war".

Huckleberry Graham's February comment also reminds me of why his "questions" were so blatantly cheerleading.

Tags: gareth porter, iraq war, petraeus

posted at 1:11:00 AM by Bruce Miller

| +Save/Share | |