Lying Gen. Petraeus Puts Politics Ahead of Troops Says The American Conservative

General David Petraeus has been known for some time as the political pawn of the Bush administration; willingly sacrificing American troops in a vain attempt to dress up the Iraqi "surge" as some new formula that is both morally and militarily a change from the same old lies.

MoveOn was right about the man, Petraeus did betray us.

The American Conservative has a critical piece out on Petraeus by Andrew J. Bacevich, professor of history and international relations at Boston University.

It's title fits the troop-betraying Patraeus well, Sycophant Savior.

Reads Bacevich:

There is only one plausible explanation for Petraeus’s terminating a surge that has (he says) enabled coalition forces, however tentatively, to gain the upper hand. That explanation is politics—of the wrong kind. Given the current situation as Petraeus describes it, an incremental reduction in U.S. troop strength makes sense only in one regard: it serves to placate each of the various Washington constituencies that Petraeus has a political interest in pleasing.

###

CENTCOM Chief Adm. Fallon: Gen. Petraeus Is ‘An Ass-Kissing, Little Chickensh*t ... I Hate People Like That’

Via ThinkProgress:

During the Iraq war, the Central Command (CENTCOM) head — who leads U.S. operations in the entire Middle East region — and the Multinational Force Commander (MNF) have regularly testified together about the course of the war in Iraq.

Former-MNF Commander Gen. George Casey and his CENTCOM Commander Gen. John Abizaid constantly briefed Congress about the situation in Iraq and its regional effects.

In January, President Bush replaced Abizaid and Casey, who were “surge” skeptics, with Adm. William Fallon and Gen. David Petraeus. This week, Petraeus — first public hearings since taking on his new role — delivered his Iraq assessment to great media fanfare. But where was his boss, Admiral Fallon?

Inter-Press Service suggests animosity between the two might be one reason for Fallon’s absence:

Fallon told Petraeus [in March] that he considered him to be “an ass-kissing little chickensh*t” 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.

The Washington Post reported this weekend on the internal military debate, described as “Armageddon,” occurring between Petraeus and Fallon because the two men have “profoundly different views of the U.S. role in Iraq.”

Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) announced today that he will be asking Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) to call Fallon to testify on “his views on the region.” Webb decried the lack of independence in Petraeus’s reporting, observing that there are “a lot of control factors going on that haven’t been visible” from the one-sided testimony of Petraeus:

WEBB: And there’s something of a kabuki going on right now. You know, the Petraeus report was brought in. On the one hand they’re calling it independent; on the other, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, from my understanding, gave a one-hour exclusive interview to Fox News after their first day of testimony. […]

So it was a very narrow and focused two days of hearings…we need to hear from people like Admiral Fallon and others to get a sense of how the region is in play. … He was, by many accounts, questioning keeping these troop levels this high. […]

So I’m going to be recommending to Senator Levin that we get Admiral Fallon in and get his views on the region.
###

Petraeus Says U.S. Will Stay

In sum, the word from (the P.R. President) Petraeus: No end in sight.

Petraeus did testify that military objectives are being met, progress is being made, ... but troop force will not come down for years to come.

The Post paints Petraeus' testimony as follows:
The long-awaited testimony this afternoon of Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, once seen as a potential turning point in war policy, seemed more like an exercise of kicking the can down the road.


Let's hope Petraeus doesn't get injured over there in Iraq, and come home and have to deal with the VA.

###

Petraeus Will Say 'No Decision' as Americans Say 'No War'

According to the New York Times, the long-anticipated Patraeus report will say that we need to wait again to decide whether we can begin massive redeployment of American forces, bringing the bulk of the troops home.

"The top American commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, has recommended that decisions on the contentious issue of reducing the main body of the American troops in Iraq be put off for six months, American officials said Sunday," reads the NYT piece written by Michael R. Gordon.

The White House-crafted Patraeus report comes as polls show most Americans, most Iraqis and the Democratic presidential contenders are calling for withdrawal.

See the The DC Establishment vs American Public Opinion by Glenn Greenwald for an extended discussion of the anti-democratic nature of Bush's failed efforts to convince the public of its latest, new-and-improved enterprise in Iraq.

Writes Greenwald:

The Washington Establishment has spent the last several months glorifying Gen. David Petraeus, imposing the consensus that The Surge is Succeeding, and most importantly of all, ensuring that President Bush will not be compelled to withdraw troops from Iraq for the remainder of his presidency. The P.R. campaign to persuade the country that the Surge is Succeeding has been as intense and potent as any P.R. campaign since the one that justified the invasion itself. While this campaign has worked wonders with our gullible media stars and Democratic Congressional leadership, it has failed completely with the American people.

Petraeus was never going to author an intellectually honest report anyway. He was the main act of the continuing deadly dog and pony show that Bush and Co put on in Iraq, casuing 1,000s more to die for the lie that is Iraq.

The PR managers just want to be able to say next year during the campaign some version that that it (Iraq) wasn't their fault, they are bringing the (some) troops home, the politicians blew it and Bush just listened to the Generals in the field.

A strong majority of the American population is not buying the latest act, polls show.

So, Petraeus will dishonor and despoil his career, betraying his own troops and the American public for a PR stunt that won't work anyway.

MoveOn ask: General Petraeus or General Betray Us?

Bush has a way of doing that to men and women with honorable careers prior to their service under Bush; just ask US Atty Stephen Biskupic, and any number of administration personnel.

###

Report of Iraq Failure Preempts Coming White House PR Scam

Preempting White House lies, spin and anticipated efforts to classify anything embarrassing, a draft of the GAO report of "progress" in Iraq was leaked to the Washington Post.

The draft points to a determination at least among some to undercut the White House efforts to sacrifice 100s more Americans and 1,000s more Iraqis before the administration leaves Washington in disgrace.

Iraq has failed to meet all but three of 18 congressionally mandated benchmarks for political and military progress, according to a draft of a Government Accountability Office report. The document questions whether some aspects of a more positive assessment by the White House last month adequately reflected the range of views the GAO found within the administration.

The strikingly negative GAO draft, which will be delivered to Congress in final form on Tuesday, comes as the White House prepares to deliver its own new benchmark report in the second week of September, along with congressional testimony from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker. They are expected to describe significant security improvements and offer at least some promise for political reconciliation in Iraq.

The 69-page draft, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post, is still undergoing review at the Defense Department, which may ask that parts of it be classified or request changes in its conclusions.

The person who provided the draft report to The Post said it was being conveyed from a government official who feared that its pessimistic conclusions would be watered down in the final version -- as some officials have said happened with security judgments in this month's National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.

###