Dead Dogs, Dead Ponies: The Petraeus Show
On Sept. 7 Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the Iraq operation, wrote a letter to U.S. troops detailing, in his words, “what I believe we have - and have not - accomplished” with the troop “surge” in Iraq. Petraeus wants to convey the Bush Administration’s message: The “surge” must continue because on the whole it’s working more than it’s failing. Is it? A mammoth report in the Times (the word count approximates the American death tally in Iraq) answered the question grimly enough. But so did Petraeus. The very words he used to convince Congress to go on with the “surge” prove the bankruptcy of the campaign. Here’s a point-by-point analysis of Petraeus’ claims:
“Up front, my sense is that we have achieved tactical momentum.” Petraeus is right, but the operative word is “tactical.” Are U.S. troops able to overwhelm the enemy in battle-by-battle situations? Of course. The tactical advantage of the most massive military in the world has never really been in question. It’s the strategic momentum that’s in question: Are troops winning hearts and minds? Not quite. Is stability maintained after troops withdraw from a “secured” neighborhood? No. Are U.S. military successes followed by political successes? No.
We are “a long way from the goal line but we do have the ball and we are driving down the field.” Petraeus is using a football metaphor in a soccer country. To Americans the war is about holding on to the ball, keeping up the offense, driving “down the field” one down after another. To Iraqi nationalists and the Iraqi insurgency, it’s more like soccer: Possession isn’t offense. Strategy is - waiting out the opponent, defending, even letting him exhaust himself through possession. The difference is exclusively who scores more. In Iraqi public opinion, Americans are playing the wrong game-and losing.
It’s about “Al-Qaeda, associated insurgent groups, and militia extremists.” Petraeus has his order wrong. In the Iraqi insurgency, al-Qaeda’s influence and foreign fighters come last. As The New York Times reported on Aug. 25, “The military says that 78 percent of attacks against the United States are now carried out by Shiites, not Sunni militants, who had caused the vast majority of the violence in the early years of the war.” Al-Qaeda in Iraq is itself reviled and considered an outsider even among most Sunnis. Petraeus is right: It’s about “militia extremists.” But most are Shiites, and they’re biding their time.
It’s Sunnis’ fault. It’s Shiites’ fault. It’s Saddam’s fault. Petraeus makes a curious statement: “All of this takes place in a climate of distrust and fear that stems from the sectarian violence that did so much damage to the fabric of Iraqi society in 2006 and into 2007, not to mention the decades of repression under Saddam’s brutal regime.” It’s as if the American-led invasion that did so much to destabilize the country, along with massive blunders by the Bush Administration in the early days of the war (fighting the war on the cheap with few troops and big firepower, disbanding the Iraqi military, the de-Baathification program) never happened. But those events precipitated the chaos and sectarian violence that followed. Petraeus is projecting a convenient blind spot.
Sectarian violence is “at considerably reduced levels from 8 months ago.” If numbers from all six months of the surge are analyzed, including those from June and July, when troop levels peaked, no progress is shown on car-bomb attacks; IED attacks broke a record by exceeding 300 in May, and again in June by nearing 400. July’s IED tally was the second-heaviest of the entire war. The monthly civilian death toll remains far higher than in 2003, 2004 and 2005.
“You have taken many of al-Qaeda’s former sanctuaries away from them.” That’s one of Petraeus’ most deceptive statements. Al-Qaeda had no foothold in Iraq before the American invasion. It’s now one of its battlegrounds. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda has strengthened and expanded its presence elsewhere. The very day Petraeus wrote his letter to troops, CIA Director Michael Hayden was warning “with high confidence that al-Qaeda’s central leadership is planning high-impact plots against the American homeland.” From where? From al-Qaeda’s reconstituted lairs in western Pakistan, where it operates with impunity.
Insurgents “continue to sustain losses that are two to three times our losses.” An irrelevant and callous statement. The American casualty rate is at its highest level in 2007. More to the point, The estimated number of insurgents keeps rising. The Brookings Institution estimated that number at 20,000 in June 2006. In August 2007, the figure was put at 70,000. And that’s just for Sunni insurgents.
Finally, here’s a Petraeus unplugged, in his own words: “There are reasons for optimism…. Equipment is being delivered. Training is on track and increasing in capacity. Infrastructure is being repaired. Command and control structures and institutions are being reestablished. Most important, Iraqi security forces are in the fight. Progress has also been made in police training. … Considerable progress is also being made in the reconstruction and refurbishing of infrastructure for Iraq’s security forces…. Momentum has gathered in recent months. With strong Iraqi leaders out front and with continued coalition — and now NATO — support, this trend will continue.” And when did he speak those words? Three years ago, in a Sept. 26, 2004 OpEd for the Washington Post. Petraeus, of course, used that “momentum” word again in his most recent letters to troops. Some momentum.
Petraeus isn’t analyzing Iraq. He’s not even addressing his troops. He’s spinning the political balance in the United States at President Bush’s behest, with a report written line by line by White House schemers hopped up on Oval Office hubris and caffeine from some coffee shop on Pennsylvania Avenue. Keep that in mind as you watch Petraeus invent a new lease on folly - and Congress yet again buy in.
Pierre Tristam is a News-Journal editorial writer. Reach him at ptristam@att.net or through his personal Web site at www.pierretristam.com .
© 2007 Pierre Tristam
“Up front, my sense is that we have achieved tactical momentum.”
Momentum is uni-directional, but the occupiers face multifaceted opposition. Momentum IN WHICH DIRECTION, against WHOM? But military-bureaucratic glosses always sound very impressive to congressfolk and the dimmer section of the populace.
The Cardinals had ‘momentum’ in Monday night’s game against the 49ers with three minutes on the clock, and lost; in a place without a clock and no goalposts, in which ‘benchmarks’ are not ‘marks’ of any kind, and where violent death is measured by using accounting methods all-too-familiar to Bushcriminals . . .
All the justifications for this bloody enterprise have fallen by the wayside.
It continues for domestic political reasons. The Republicans don’t want to lose the war and the Democrats want to hang the war around the Republican nominee in 2008. Neither of these reasons is worth one more drop of American or Iraqi blood. Shameful.
We have been betrayed by our Representatives of both parties and their hands are drenched in blood.
Cindy Sheehan for Congress.
What is most interesting about all this Petraeus hype is that the Congress of the United States of America has abdicated its role in making public policy to the Executive. What on earth do supposed representatives of “the people” care about the tinpot ravings of a mere Army General?
Congressional surrender to the Bush Cheney junta and its lack of decisive action to end the illegal occupation in favor of timid, craven and truly repulsive pandering to the precious words of a military/political lackey of the Bush dictatorship is despicable.
This is not about “the troops” who are only doing what troops are supposed to do — follow orders and destroy life and property. Is is about who represents the citizens of this country and it is clear now that it is not the Congress but a military-business alliance with no public oversight whatsoever.
David Petraeus’ views are of zero importance. Congress should cut off all funding for the occupation and then proceed to cut the Defense budget by at least 75%.
As I listen to the “update” to Congress, I’m struck by two things: First is the sheer amount of posturing by the pols on both sides - the calls for this from one side and that from the other side. The other is how the chamber emptied after each senator had bloviated. This is one of the biggest deals going for our nation, and most senators have skedaddled after posturing and making their political points, not willing to stick around to hear all of the testimony by Petraeus and Crocker.
We’re not idiots, so let’s stop acting as if we are. We do not have a representative government. Well, we do, but it does not represent the people - it represents the military/industrial complex as Eisenhower warned. These non-representatives cannot be counted on to help us. It’s up to us as individuals. We must start from where we are, each doing and being what we want to see in the future.
God speed.
Awaken,
I don’t think we can expect much from Congress until Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are replaced by progressives, and the chances of that in the short-term are slim and none.
Agree with cutting the defense budget though, but I would make it a cut of 90 percent, which I believe would still make it the highest defense budget in the world.
What the media are now showing in small bits , here and there…
Protesters, using, and then losing their right to free speech.
And at the end of all this, Petraeus will be able to invoke the old war crimes mantra ‘I was only following orders.’
It’s the Itchy and Scratchy Show, except more violent
“It’s as if the American-led invasion that did so much to destabilize the country, along with massive blunders by the Bush Administration in the early days of the war… … never happened.”
Excellent piece Professor but I am puzzled by the ommission once again of something else that seems to have been completely forgotten. In the ‘91 Gulf War we bombed Iraq back into a pre-industrialization shambles. Hand-picked “ordinary ” U.S. troops that are allowed to speak to influence U.S. opinion always say something like “and we also have to deal with the decades of neglect to infrastructure by the Hussein regime…”
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. It is apparent you are not able to get your mug on MSM unless you are willing to lie.
Still nobody talking about OIL. Two full days of hearings and everybody is dancing around the big elephant in the room. Bush and Cheney are there to get the OIL and we aren’t leaving until we get it; no matter how many of our troups get sacrificed on their alter, or how many more thousands of Iraqis die.
Tactical. Strategic. I can take it up another level. Geostrategic.
While we sink further into the quicksand, still eyeing the mirage of victory in Iraq, what other opportunities/crises around the world are we ignoring?
Zimbabwe for one. A wonderful people whose one-party government has looted the country and represses dissent and opposition with bully boys.
Which country has more refugees than Iraq? Which country is de-industrializing and whose economy is shrinking, even though not at war?
Even the Republic of South Africa is beginning to be destabilized by all the Zim refugees, and the RSA, my friends, is the linchpin of southern Africa in an area where whites and blacks are trying to make a living together and get past the colonial/apartheid legacy.
But we’re stuck in Iraq and all our attention, money, blood goes there in an effort to build a sand castle of imperial fantasy that won’t last once the tide inevitably changes.
Dog and dead pony shows are strictly for the rubes. Anyone who buys this act is a total moron.
Could a mild mannered White House General be spreading ugly lies and slow death again ?
Escalation of the Vietnam conflict began with presidential lies backed by Pentagon lies, leading to a devastating stalemate financed with debt followed by inflation with the nation left divided and demoralized. But, the corporate masters of war cashed in then as now by prolonging the carnage and war crimes.
One very rare and honest General in American history was Smedley Butler who confessed at the end of a remarkable career:
“My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military.”
“I spent 33 years in the Marines. Most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism.”
“Still nobody talking about OIL.”
Actually, oil was mentioned. Not sure whether it was Petraeus or Crocker, but it was mentioned vis-a-vis U.S. interests in the region. Apparently, none of the Senators picked up on it. Let’s see if anyone in the media does.
Oh, Petraeus also thanked the Senate Armed Services Committee (the second hearing of the day) for the work they have done in securing foreign arms sales.
So, Gen. Petraeus, the commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, admitted that we’re there in no small part for the oil and thanked the committee responsible for arms sales headed by a Democrat, Carl Levin.
I just can’t figger out why we’re always at war. D’oh!
Is this football game in Florida? ‘Cause there is a gaping sinkhole in Petraeus’s logic. In his photos, he looks… insincere, or something (granted, don’t watch TV, maybe he comes across better). Like a big puppet dangling above a precipice…
Obviously, the bush-nesia virus has not been contained as of yet. Gen P forgot all about the missing billions, the missing hundreds of thousands of weapons, the missing 2 million refugees, the missing electricity, the missing clean water, the missing doctors, and the missing 150,000 troops who’ve filed claims with the VA so far. Mercenaries? What mercenaries?
Doesn’t he have a family he should be spending more time with?
awaken has the business/military alliance right but at this point they own congress also. and to point out the obvious, pursuit of american interests abroad is a bipartisan endeavour-oil being the interest in iraq. and, as great an idea it is to see the military budget slashed, it is helping to prop up the economy so i don’t think it will happen any time soon.
in agreement with kivals also in that don’t look to progressives being elected anytime soon either.
What a farce this report was, just like the “surge” is a complete hoax. Now they’re claiming they’re going to withdraw troops when they’re going to end up with the same number as before the surge! And for what? So they can keep up this criminal occupation forever!
small price to pay for all that progress, huh frank….sarcastic. not sure if his family would benefit from additional quality time.
Robert Gates hasn’t been mentioned enough in these General Betrayus articles. Remember, Gates was a CIA director appointed under King George I. So the DoD at higher levels primarily ought to be viewed through a political, not military, lens.
Under ordinary circumstances, this is a good thing — good that our military answers to civilian leadership. But when the top-ranking politicians lack reason, common sense, ethics, etc. the whole system breaks down. On the one hand, some might argue that we’d better off if a military junta overthrew Bush. On the other, some might argue that a political junta ought to do the job. If America is the only country in which fascism was voted in, perhaps we can vote it out? It doesn’t appear to be that simple, though, since among the first things they’ve appeared to have done is erect barriers to democracy (Diebold, MSM under their thumbs, etc.)
“Nos balles sont pour nos propres generaux” — l’Internationale
Didn’t Petraeus look like one of those idiot Weimariner dogs dressed up on a calendar? John Warner today, a happy tool of the militarist state, asked Doggy David whether he thought the US was safer as a consequence of what was being done in Iraq. Doggy David sat all blinky at the senator like a canine who didn’t recognize a command — and then Ambassador Crock-of-Execrement repeated the performance.
The banality of evil, playing from now through . . . well, till the revolution.
The Sunni’s hated the Americans for occupying their country and pushing them from power. They fought us hard for 4 years but got tired of allying with Al-Qaeda and their oppressive ways, so they turned toward the only one who could help them get rid Al-Qaeda, the US. We are glad to have the cooperation of the Sunni’s in pushing Al-Qaeda to other parts of the country to fight later. Things are a little better today in one part of the country because the Sunni’s needed help killing Al-Qaeda, at least in the daytime (they probably shoot at Americans at night because they still want us out).
But, you know thru all of that, I don’t see how “The Surge” has precipitated these events. Are we to think that the Sunni’s got so scared at the though of 30,000 more Americans they changed sides and got on board with us? Once Al-Qaeda is out are we to think we’re all going to have a big party?
Looks like General BerayUs couldn’t even hold on to his own “balls”, and turned out to be another Bush’s sissy.
Over and over, “…following orders.” Viet Nam taught the bushits absolutely nothing. Their stupidity, overweening ambition, greed, lust… all have destroyed, destroyed, destroyed, with only the most vague promise of “It will get better.”
Noam Chomsky, and others, predicted this disaster by studying what happened in Central America. No one listened then, no one listens now.
I am nearing the end of my life, and very glad of it. I pity you poor bastards “left behind.”
Prediction: Petraeus and Crocker will retire and disappear very soon, and probably after Bush blames them for all sorts of real and imagined failures. Should they have the intelligence of a golf ball, they have already started their books, lecture circuits, and all, “…to fill the coffers.”
What a wonderful time to be a Cynic!
There was little doubt that General Petraeus would promote the White House’s warmongering agenda in his testimony. Somewhat less certain is how members of Congress will now respond to it. From a psychological perspective, warmongering often “works” because we fail to confront it with cogent and uncompromising counter-arguments. Such resistance is especially difficult when the warmongers target our core concerns about personal and collective vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. I apply this analysis to the Bush administration’s war in Iraq—and its possible plans for an attack on Iran—in a 10-minute online video entitled “Resisting the Drums of War.” The video examines ten warmongering appeals and counterarguments against them. It’s available for viewing HERE.
I remember the show 20-20, had a program about Vietnam late 70’s. Don’t remember who was on it, but the politician blamed the military for the “lose” and for keeping us there. The friends I was with in the D&P bar at the time, were like myself, Viet Vets. We were pissed too say the least, and talked about going to Washington and ripping some political heads. Always remember: The Military/Servicemen and Women ONLY do what the politicians dictate/allow. When this giant blunder is over, a few years later some political hack will again blame the military for the lose and keeping us there! Don’t let that happen, contact that person and jump down his/her throat! Support the troops- but question the leaders.
God, I miss Sam Rayburn.
In my own simple mindedness, it suddenly struck me that the Shrubs reason for an attack on a sovereign country–other than our own–must be equally as simple. In retrospect, I remember reading that Sadam had threatened to change his oil revenues to the Euro system, something that would cause great stress on our economy (so I hear although my simple mind prevents me from knowing this). Also, being a pawn of Daddy Shrub and other Presidents since his puppet regime was created by US politicians, he probably had a very swelled head as most bruts do. The Shrub, with his cowboy mentality and the fear of being outdone by a common dictator, probably became very afraid that Sadam was going make a pact with Asama and make him look like a fool by turning the tables on him. With that said, he did what all bullies do, he lashed out without engaging his myopic brain, with lies and stupid actions. Once the action was taken, he realized that if we didn’t “win” the battle the oil that was very important to this country would be controlled by “terrorists” and he would be blamed for it. One thing I have realized in all my years on this planet is that presidents are just people and most of the time make decisions the same as us “simple minded” people do. Can anyone understand what it would mean to Bush’s legacy if after striking back at a puppet regime, Osama ended up setting the price for our oil? What an embarrassment for Bush!!!!!
As for the 2008 election– why vote for anyone other than a Repub.– let them clean up their own mess– I for one don’t think it will make any difference and they probably won’t rig the election this time around anyway because it is a pattern they have set to make the mess for capital gain then let the Dems try to fix it.