Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Petraeus Leaked Misleading Story on Pullout Plans
WASHINGTON - The political maneuvering between President Barack Obama and his top field commanders over withdrawal from Iraq has taken a sudden new turn with the leak by CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus - and a firm denial by a White House official - of an account of the Jan. 21 White House meeting suggesting that Obama had requested three different combat troop withdrawal plans with their respective associated risks, including one of 23 months.
Gen. David Petraeus with then-Senator Barack Obama after his arrival Jul. 21, 2008 at Baghdad International Airport. The Petraeus account, reported by McClatchy newspapers Feb. 5 and then by the Associated Press the following day, appears to indicate that Obama is moving away from the 16-month plan he had vowed during the campaign to implement if elected. But on closer examination, it doesn't necessarily refer to any action by Obama or to anything that happened at the Jan. 21 meeting.
The real story of the leak by Petraeus is that the most powerful figure in the U.S. military has tried to shape the media coverage of Obama and combat troop withdrawal from Iraq to advance his policy agenda - and, very likely, his personal political interests as well.
This writer became aware of Petraeus's effort to influence the coverage of Obama's unfolding policy on troop withdrawal when a military source close to the general, who insisted on anonymity, offered the Petraeus account on Feb. 4. The military officer was responding to the IPS story 'Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision' published two days earlier.
The story reported that Obama had rejected Petraeus's argument against a 16-month withdrawal option at the meeting and asked for a withdrawal plan within that time frame, and that Petraeus had been unhappy with the outcome of the meeting.
It also reported that Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and retired Army general Jack Keane, a close ally of Petraeus, had both made public statements indicating a determination to get Obama to abandon the 16-month plan.
The officer told IPS that, contrary to the story, Petraeus had been "very pleased" with the direction of the discussions. He said that there had been no decision by Obama at the meeting and no indication that Obama had a preference for one option over another.
The military source provided the following carefully worded statement: "We were specifically asked to provide projections, assumptions and risks for the accomplishment of objectives associated with 16-, 19- and 23-month drawdown options." That was exactly the sentence published by McClatchy the following day, except that "specifically" was left out.
The source also said Petraeus, Odierno and Ambassador Ryan Crocker had already reached a "unified assessment" on the three drawdown options and had forwarded them to the chain of command.
But a White House official told IPS Monday that the Petraeus account was untrue. "The assessments of the three drawdown dates were not requested by the president," said the official, who insisted on not being identified because he had not been authorized to comment on the matter. "He never said, 'Give me three drawdown plans'."
McClatchy's Nancy Youssef reported a similar account from aides to Obama. "Obama told his advisers shortly after taking office that he remained committed to the 16-month timeframe," Youssef wrote, "but asked them to present him with the pros and cons of that and other options, without specifying dates."
That suggests that the only specific plan for which Obama requested an assessment of risks was the 16-month plan, but that he agreed to look at other plans as well.
The sentence given to this writer as well as to McClatchy bore one obvious clue that the request for the assessments of three drawdown plans did not come from Obama: the sentence used the passive voice. It also failed to explicitly state that the request in question was made during the meeting with Obama.
Petraeus did not respond to a request through the intermediary to say who requested the studies and whether they had been proposed by the military commanders themselves. McClatchy's Youssef also noted that it is "unclear who came up with the idea..." of the 19- and 23-month withdrawal plans.
By implying that Obama had requested the three plans without saying so explicitly, the sentence leaked by Petraeus seems to have been calculated to create a misleading story.
One of Petraeus's objectives appears to have been to counter any perception that he is seeking to undermine Obama on Iraq policy. Petraeus wishes to remain out of the spotlight in regard to any conflict regarding withdrawal over the Iraq issue. "He has been very careful to keep a very low profile," said the military officer close to Petraeus, "because this is a new administration."
But the Petraeus leak also serves to promote the idea that Obama is moving away from his campaign pledge on a 16-month combat troop withdrawal, which has already been the dominant theme in news media coverage of the issue. That idea would also justify continued sniping by military officers at the Obama 16-month plan as too risky.
In a new book, 'The Gamble', to be published Tuesday, Washington Post reporter Tom Ricks confirms an earlier report that in his initial encounter with Petraeus in Baghdad last July, Obama had made no effort to hide his sharp disagreement with the general's views. Obama interrupted a lecture by Petraeus, according to Ricks, and made it clear that, as president, he would need to take a broader strategic view of the issue than that of the commander in Iraq.
Ricks, who interviewed Petraeus about the meeting, writes that Obama's remarks "likely insulted Petraeus, who justly prides himself on his ability to do just that..." That strongly implies that Petraeus expressed some irritation at Obama over the incident to Ricks.
On top of the interest of Petraeus and other senior officers in keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for as long as possible, Petraeus has personal political interests at stake in the struggle over Iraq policy. He has been widely regarded as a possible Republican Presidential candidate in 2012.
Petraeus evidently believed the White House was promoting a story that made him look like the loser at the Jan. 21 meeting. "I imagine the White House is not too happy that this information is out there," said the military source, referring to the Petraeus account he had provided to IPS.
Obama is obviously treading warily in handling Petraeus. His concern about Petraeus's political ambitions may have been a factor in the decision to bring four-star Marine Corps Gen. James Jones in as his national security adviser.
"I've been told by a couple of people that one of the reasons for Jones being chosen was to have him there as a four-star to counter Petraeus," says one Congressional source.
Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.
- Posted in
40 Comments so far
Show Allyou don't become a four star general because you "leak"....
more likely than not, petrs. was authorized to create political cover so his boss could look strong and independent --while ever so softly Obama extends the troops stay abroad without appearing like he just did... slight of hand....
everything, from stimulus to iraq, seems like it is lined up for two years from now.... when WH political capital will need to be at its zenith.
I suppose leaking's the prerogative of five star general's like Doug McArthur...
No one more fiercely ascribes to the axiom that "all's fair in love and war" than a general who aspires to become president-- or "king", we might as well now say.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Well, we'll just have to see how it all plays out. If this is a true flanking by Petraeus., and he's reprimanded or rebuked --and it holds for the long-term-- then I'm wrong about the staging of events by the Oval Office (even if there are far more historical examples of this type of maneuver occurring than there of the "MacArthur Moments")
Ironically, a prerogative is a government issued exclusive right to a person or group the rest of us peasants aren't afforded… see feudalism. But, I suspect your use of the word is more inline with the notion MacArthur and Petraeus are examples of general's doing as they please. As in, 'it is at Petraeus' discretion to do as he pleases.' Which plays into the larger assumption that there is a separation between the commander in chief and his military. Therefore, illustrating the prejudicial belief that the military leaders must be kept in check by a strong civilian leadership. Especially those generals who think they have a prerogative.
Perhaps it is more common to see a progressives give critique to military leaders than to a liberal government's civilian leaders, and therefore, it is easier for many to default to the preset response that military leaders such as MacArthur and Petreaus are always edging to overthrow or influence the direction of the nation, as opposed to serving at their President's discretion.
Actually I was using the original use of 'prerogative'; The Royal Prerogative that got King Chuck's head cut off in the 1640s for 'treason' against king Chuck. I was also being a bit sarcastic, but hey as a former sailor from the lower deck I don't like arses with egg on their hats.
The prerogative of the rulers - usually kings - is something they claim, in parliamentary systems it's the power exercised by the parliament (after the parliament had cut off the king's head when he tried to use it.)
The thing is when you have a general or a king who does what he/she pleases you end up in a situation that is quite unwanted. In Dugout's case it was a potential nuke war with China, doug was all for expanding and continuing a war to the end. Much like pety seems to want to fight in Iraq until al-Q is destroyed. Of course if you think people on this site only criticise military leaders you should have read what we've been saying about bush, harper, those idiot brit pms as well as the aussie one.
There should be, and I think generally is, a separation between the president and his generals. Most presidents - all but one I think - never wore a uniform while actually serving as president. They considered themselves to be civvies, who asked their generals to win wars for them. Presidents or kings who think they can fight their own wars with their own leadership are fools; Hitler, Tsar Nicky II, Napoleon and many others tried to lead a state and fight a war at the same time, all of them were defeated.
All good points. There are degrees of insubordination; MacArthur's desire to go nuclear-a-mano with China is quite different to wanting to continue an occupation in a destroyed country.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
In regard to thinking progressives only criticize generals on CD… I would argue when Admiral Fallon contested Bush's surge policy and Iran war plans back in Spring 2007, he was raised up as hero leader among top brass. All but a few comments called for his swift removal. Rarely were negative comparisons to previous dissention issued. Instead, he was praised for his willingness to challenge his President. Unprecedented, said some. Today's Petraeus is called MacArthur. Obama wins a default link as Truman. So many draw the same conclusion is all just by chance?
Nonetheless, it is routinely refreshing to find someone like yourself, willing to go into historical examples here on the boards. And I did understand you were being sarcastic, but couldn’t discern the direction of your quip.
As far as civ v mil leadership and divisions of power, I was attempting to illustrate more often than not, top brass are there because they play team ball very well . I just don’t understand why so many are willing to quickly attack Petraeus while offering a reprieve to his boss –who I still believe will be in Iraq just as Petraeus motioned. The political power Obama gains by rebuking Petraeus is notable. I tend to see it through a political lens and how it all serves the Oval Office's agenda --rather than strengthen a General's aspirations. In my opinion of political history, a general is as expendable as a foot soldier.
Perhaps the following article below and the above article show a certain pattern and may be of interest to you. Both are written by the same author. Both carry a certain thematic scenario, while reinforcing marked differences. Or do they?
nice chatting....
Dissenting Views Made Fallon's Fall Inevitable
by Gareth Porter
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/12/7627
I can't believe I didn't comment on that article... I did remember the event, ah well can't pontificate on every subject, right? I'm not so sure that the top most rank of the brass hats did really like what he had to say, perhaps those who were colonals and below did, but not most generals. I could be very wrong, of course.
'Today's Petraeus is called MacArthur. Obama wins a default link as Truman. So many draw the same conclusion is all just by chance?'
Part of that is the memory that Truman was a decent leader, not perfect, but better than bush - is that really hard? - to continue the thought tho, Petraeus is no MacArthur. MacA had many more years of public fighting success than did petra, I don't recall hearing anything about the later general that would compare to the career that MacA had. MacA was an able leader in the first WW, he went on to suppress a bonus march in the early thirties, and then WWII. Petraeus' military career has no major war or combat actions (that includes what's going on in Iraq, fighting a country that has no industrial capacity isn't a war it's a colonial action)
' The political power Obama gains by rebuking Petraeus is notable. I tend to see it through a political lens and how it all serves the Oval Office's agenda --rather than strengthen a General's aspirations. In my opinion of political history, a general is as expendable as a foot soldier.'
From the article, it doesn't look as tho Obama has rebuked Petraeus. Perhaps in private, but not publically. I don't agree with your opinion that a general is as expendable as a foot soldier. There are many more available people to serve as fodder than as generals at any time in any country. Had Stalin not shot so many generals in the late thirties, Hitler would have had much greater difficulty in invading the USSR in 41. In the earlier war had Haig not been in charge of the British forces after the Somme debacle, a good many lives might not have been lost. Then again, had it not been for Haig's work in the spring of 1918 that war might have been lost.
One thing is certain, on the civvie jobs if you pulled what Petraeus is said to have pulled (it's all rumors at this point I think, no proof that the General actually did leak anything) you'd be fired. In the case of keeping the generals that bush had in charge of Iraq, Afghanistan and whatnot, it might be much more prudent for Obama to get rid of them on the principle that they've been so slavishly loyal to the bush admin's way of acting. Then again I think I've just recomended that Obama act as Stalin did, without putting a bullet in the heads of his generals... (grin)
Once again the Washington press is caught in the act of being stenographers rather than journalists. What scares the press the most is the growing realization and anger resulting from same, that they are not any source of reliable information or understanding but so many gossips who believe and report anything they are told as long as it is new, new, new, and they arew first, first, first with the scoop.
Poet
Isn't Obama the CinC?
These actions are signs of rank insubordination.
Obama's a wuss unless he dumps these guys. Bush dumped generals who didn't listen to him.
But I could be wrong !
Another anonymous source. I hate rumors.
What realistic reactions to this article. Kudos to everyone so far.
Gen. Betray-us should be fired for this.
Right on, madcow! I second this emotion.
I do, too. Remember that Harry Truman fired MacArthur for repeated insubordination and this is not the first time Petraeus has engaged in self-promoting politicking in defiance of the constitutional fact that he is subordinate to the president and is outside politics. In fact, he should be shipped off to Guantanamo; they know about banana republics and military presidents in Cuba.
Rainborowe
Oh, darn. I was hoping I'd be the first to mention that Dugout Doug incident...
Now there's something we can agree on. I'm pretty sure that there are better folks out there who can replace him. Unfortunately, the only qualification is that the general is a pro-war shill which Betrayus is.
How about those bush got rid of because they didn't agree with him to replace this traitor to his commander in chief?
I'm in. Betrayal of military plans in the middle of a war is generally good for a court-martial. In this case, just fire the guy.
My faint hopes for the new administration is dwindling rapidly. Herr General Betraeus is doing his usual. Obama is widening the war in Afghanistan, a statement that we will strike with impunity into Pakistan (apparently because we can), more posturing and threats against Iran, more bailout of the gambling addicts that run the banks and gamble on Wall Street, lip service, but no activity to help those who have been "Bushed" into poverty, and worst of all a cabinet made up of the wheeler-dealers who created much of this mess, with virtually none of the people that stood up and presented ideas to cure our ills, economic and environmental, being invited to participate at all.
I greatly fear that We the People have gone from being "Bushwhacked," to being powerless subjects of the new "Obamanation." I'm in my seventies and oh, do I miss a nation guided and governed by the Constitution and common sense!
minitrue - I'm in my seventies also, and I've been wondering if our nation actually ever was governed by the Constitution and common sense, although I have to admit it did feel pretty good way back there as compared to the last thirty or so years. I lost my "virginity" in regard to our government with the Gary Powers U-2 incident.
I've been thinking my blank reaction to Obama from the start may have been a premonition that he wouldn't have a chance at this job because the fix has been in for decades.
Hey, no fair ! I'm young and I feel like a loser now that you two mentioned this. If Obama does screw up by 2012 though, give me Sarah Palin so us young guys can watch that cutie and not have to go to war ! I'd have to hope my wife doesn't mind me watching Palin all the time on week nights.
Peter Pike - Sorry about that. By the way, I wouldn't count on the wife not minding you watching Palin all the time if I were you. I think a lot of women switched to Obama because their men were watching her so much, and listening very little.
wilmoor,
You're correct about my wife. I talked to her after I wrote this and asked her. She gave me a thrashing and warned me that everyday she caught me glued to the TV because of Palin she would do the same. My wife is nice and beautiful in addition to being surprisingly bold and tough so I think I learned my lesson.
I totally agree with the above...Common Sense, the Rule of Law, the Ethics Committee, the Accountability office, all apparently gone with the wind. The Money Changers rule and the governing elite obey. Something in the way our government is run reminds me of the Huns raping and plundering entire countrysides, villages, farms and even cities. It is now close to being a clean sweep and all of the little wealth that is left will have vanished into the netherworld of greed. I am also in my seventies and I fail to understand the concept of a CEO getting millions in bonus' for bankrupting their companies. Common sense would dictate that anyone whose performance brought his company to the edge of ruin would have been run out of town, tarred and feathered, but that was the Good Old Days.
The military-industrial complex! There you have it. That's all you need to know. It's the answer to the question of who rules...
Dr Wu, the last of the big-time thinkers
The way Petraeus is going, replacing him with Arnold Schwarzenegger, aka "THE TERMINATOR", Bugs Bunny, Duck Dodgers, or even Mickey Mouse would make no difference ! We ain't getting out of Iraq anyway for the next 10 or even 100 years anyway !
Petraeus should be summarily fired, the same way Harry Truman fired Douglas MacArthur. And make it a very public dismissal . . . then he can run for whatever he damn well pleases . . . and never get off the ground . . . just like Macarthur.
Petraeus was a shameless toady to George W. Bush. How can this bootlicker ever be a credible commander under President Obama? Get him out of there!
This could well turn out to be similar to General Douglas MacArthur's meeting with President Harry S Truman. David might just 'fade away' like Dougout Doug.
There are degrees of insubordination; MacArthur's desire to go nuclear-a-mano with China is quite different to wanting to continue an occupation in a destroyed country.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
It doesn't matter. Sixteen months is way too frickin long to withdraw from an illegal action like the attack on Iraq.
So, let's not get distracted by some Bush toady like Betrayus.
Get out, now!
-TIA
Pan
What do we have here?? HMMMMM
Loyalty Oath to the Constitution and the Commander in Chief HMMM...Then there is the "SELF" Appointed Praetorian Guards who have different Adjenda`s and are Clever and know best. Don`t exist ? They have always existed! Thats why the founding fathers set up the checks and balances A LA Aron Burr HMMM types.
What do we have here as in 7 Days in May, do they serve the Prsident or there PARTY?
The Great McArther was as close to being a Caesar as you could get ; He loved his country but was not above being a dictator and serving his Aristocratic PARTY aginst the people as he saw fit ,quite eager was he to run down Veterans who had served their country..
Bush set the tone and they used fear and a compliant media to distort the constitution for their own ends also playing the military to become a 5th arm with the media of enforcement against congress and the people.
To Honor Serve and Protect not become the Masters of the People.
To Damn much Politics played by this bunch and they have done a hatchet job on many of their own and protected themselves and prosecuted the lower ranks .
Time to replace them with Honorable Men.
I promise you that you could take away 70% of your military spending and personnel and you would be a safer people in a safer country.
Ray Berthiaume
Wow! Just imagine what we could do with the money we would save! We could have one-payer universal health care and free higher education for those who qualified.
Bring America Back !!!! Atta Boy, General Betrayus, you're doin' a
heckofa job over there===See ya at the Super Bowl, you military minded
Surge Goat !!!
The arrogance and short-sightedness of a pretended squabble between a pretend president, after a pretend election, in a pretence of a democracy that couldn't find its way to back out of an enormously mistaken, failed, illegal war, and desasterous occupation, is mind boggling. If this had anything to do with Iraq the central criteria for timing a successful withdrawal, one would expect, would be all about what can be agreed with Iraqi Prime Minister and Iraqi generals, based on the government chosen by the Iraqi people. The failure or success of the withdrawal is surely not a matter of an internal power struggle between the executives of the civilian administration and military operations inside America, and if it is, not only have you as a country lost sight of any pretence of a mission which makes a mockery of actual or pretended policy, but also as a country America has lost any grasp of the difference between your own myth and reality. This is power for power's sake lost in delusion, but killing people arround the world. Same think killed Rome.
The fact that internal power squabbles between the primadonas in the self serving military elite and the civil executive, which is in effect just a shop front for a totally corrupt Military Financial Political Mafia, is played out as gossip in the press, and that the Pentagon spends millions on "PR" and invented news, must make some people who believe they live in a democracy at least wonder. Or if not, have they really lost the ability to think for themselves all together?
Fire Petraeus!
Promote him into an impotent position.
The DIA is as rogue as the CIA. The Pentagon's disinfo-propoganda apparatus got a shot in the arm under Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. Our news was practically live feed from Goebbels for the last eight years. This isn't surprising at all.
Privatization, unlimited funds, zero oversite, no accounting... it's Oliver North's wet dream. The entire establishment is politicized beyond redemption.
Fire Petraeus? MacArthur moment?
Even if Obama was "all that," he's a cherry cheesecake under glass.
Don't hold your breath. Keep being as annoying as hell. I know you all drive me bat-shit, and I am pretty much on YOUR side. You must be like fingernails on a chalkboard at the Pentagon.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool." - PNAC, Rebuilding America's Defenses, p. 60