President Petraeus? Iraqi Official Recalls the Day US General Revealed Ambition
The US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, expressed long-term interest in running for the US presidency when he was stationed in Baghdad, according to a senior Iraqi official who knew him at that time.
Sabah Khadim, then a senior adviser at Iraq’s Interior Ministry, says General Petraeus discussed with him his ambition when the general was head of training and recruitment of the Iraqi army in 2004-05.
“I asked him if he was planning to run in 2008 and he said, ‘No, that would be too soon’,” Mr Khadim, who now lives in London, said.
General Petraeus has a reputation in the US Army for being a man of great ambition. If he succeeds in reversing America’s apparent failure in Iraq, he would be a natural candidate for the White House in the presidential election in 2012.
His able defence of the “surge” in US troop numbers in Iraq as a success before Congress this week has made him the best-known soldier in America. An articulate, intelligent and energetic man, he has always shown skill in managing the media.
But General Petraeus’s open interest in the presidency may lead critics to suggest that his own political ambitions have influenced him in putting an optimistic gloss on the US military position in Iraq .
Mr Khadim was a senior adviser in the Iraqi Interior Ministry in 2004-05 when Iyad Allawi was prime minister.
“My office was in the Adnan Palace in the Green Zone, which was close to General Petraeus’s office,” Mr Khadim recalls. He had meetings with the general because the Interior Ministry was involved in vetting the loyalty of Iraqis recruited as army officers. Mr Khadim was critical of the general’s choice of Iraqis to work with him.
For a soldier whose military abilities and experience are so lauded by the White House, General Petraeus has had a surprisingly controversial career in Iraq. His critics hold him at least partly responsible for three debacles: the capture of Mosul by the insurgents in 2004; the failure to train an effective Iraqi army and the theft of the entire Iraqi arms procurement budget in 2004-05.
General Petraeus went to Iraq during the invasion of 2003 as commander of the 101st Airborne Division and had not previously seen combat. He first became prominent when the 101st was based in Mosul, in northern Iraq, where he pursued a more conciliatory line toward former Baathists and Iraqi army officers than the stated US policy.
His efforts were deemed successful. When the 101st left in February 2004, it had lost only 60 troops in combat and accidents. General Petraeus had built up the local police by recruiting officers who had previously worked for Saddam Hussein’s security apparatus.
Although Mosul remained quiet for some months after, the US suffered one of its worse setbacks of the war in November 2004 when insurgents captured most of the city. The 7,000 police recruited by General Petraeus either changed sides or went home. Thirty police stations were captured, 11,000 assault rifles were lost and $41m (£20m) worth of military equipment disappeared. Iraqi army units abandoned their bases.
The general’s next job was to oversee the training of a new Iraqi army. As head of the Multinational Security Transition Command, General Petraeus claimed that his efforts were proving successful. In an article in The Washington Post in September 2004, he wrote: “Training is on track and increasing in capacity. Infrastructure is being repaired. Command and control structures and institutions are being re-established.” This optimism turned out be misleading; three years later the Iraqi army is notoriously ineffective and corrupt.
General Petraeus was in charge of the Security Transition Command at the time that the Iraqi procurement budget of $1.2bn was stolen. “It is possibly one of the largest thefts in history,” Iraq’s Finance Minister, Ali Allawi, said. “Huge amounts of money disappeared. In return we got nothing but scraps of metal.”
Mr Khadim is sceptical that the “surge” is working. Commenting on the US military alliance with the Sunni tribes in Anbar province, he said: “They will take your money, but when the money runs out they will change sides again.”
© 2007 The Independent
“Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (Centcom), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad in 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.”
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/II14Ak02.html
You tell me, can a General Asskisser become a President Asskisser? Or President Asskisser II, if it becomes technically possible to connect Cheney’s ass to computer?
The first time I saw him, I said to myself, “Now, there’s a guy who knows how to spell ‘Shinseki.’”
Looks like he is miming “Help, I’m stuck in an invisible box”
Oebi wan, you know the right answer. With a general ass as president it leaves plenty room for any successor asskisser to generally succeed in their, ‘arms for guns’ funded, campaign to become the CIC Ass.
No one who wants the job of president should be allowed to run for office. All political peach positions should be assigned by lottery.
We need to ask all aspiring politicos how much they plan to steal or accept as bribes while in office: we should pay them that amount up front and then let them get on with the People’s business.
Of course he’s an ass-kisser. That’s the reason he got all his stars! President? Not with that haircut.
Let’s see:
> Democrats elected him to get (their) “facts” from Iraq, not the real truth
> Democrats mandated he report back to them, as he did
> Democrats hated his facts so they attack the one they voted for both personally and professionally.
Ah, the New Democrats!
http://wheresyourbrain.blogspot.com/
“General Petraeus’s open interest in the presidency may lead critics to suggest that his own political ambitions have influenced him in putting an optimistic gloss on the US military position in Iraq.”
Critics might at that. In fact I am suggesting it right now.
Up to now it has always puzzled me why employers like someone with ambition to go up the corporate ladder. But now I can see that someone with ambition is someone they can manipulate very easily. Take Hillary Clinton for example.
Julius Caesar was an ambitious soldier, look what happened to him—but he took the Roman Republic with him.
General betraeus…Thats what I would Call him..
Asskisser. Dismissed!
To Justadog: Do you get the rest of your facts from Rush
or the “No spin zone” of Bill.
Where in the F**k do they come up with these guys??? Can we line them up on the wall with the rest that deserve a quick 9 in the head? Time’s comin’. And I ain’t smiling. My kids, and theirs, are going to have foot the bil for this insanity! Send me the bill now!!! I’ve got the payment!
“If he succeeds in reversing America’s apparent failure in Iraq, he would be a natural candidate for the White House in the presidential election in 2012.”
Personally, I suspect that Junior has finally realized Iraq is a lost cause, and he’s just dumped the fault/responsibility into Petraeus’ lap. Come 2012, Petraeus will have trouble winning an election for dogcatcher. Meanwhile, the war criminal will be enjoying his retirement on his ranch in Texas with a clear conscience.
“General Petraeus went to Iraq during the invasion of 2003 as commander of the 101st Airborne Division and had not previously seen combat.”
Does having smelled combat, at whatever distance, make you eligible for promotion to General?
Arse licker indeed.
“If he (Petraeus) succeeds in reversing America’s apparent failure in Iraq, he would be a natural candidate for the White House in the presidential election in 2012.”
Well, I guess we won’t have to be concerned about casting a vote for him.
“If he (Petraeus) succeeds in reversing America’s apparent failure in Iraq, he would be a natural candidate for the White House”
And the Democrats would probably not be elected for anything for several decades.
To “decrepittex” above who asked “To Justadog: Do you get the rest of your facts from Rush or the “No spin zone” of Bill.”
Answer: I don’t listen to either, and I really almost hate No Spin Bill. If you were to check out my site you’d see links to facts come from sources all over the world - none of which are fox news.
To know the facts does not mean one is aligned with any group left or right - it just means one has the facts, not just one sided opinion.
I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats, and both sides are brain dead in my opinion. Just happens Democrats are more so (except for maybe Joe Lieberman - which you probably hate).