Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Gen. Petraeus Goes to Media War
The morning after Gen. David Petraeus appeared in a Sunday interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" to promote the war effort, the New York Times front-paged news of its own interview with him -- reporting that the general "suggested that he would resist any large-scale or rapid withdrawal of American forces."
In fact, the general signaled that he might oppose any reduction of U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan a year from now. During the NBC interview, the Times noted, "Petraeus even appeared to leave open the possibility that he would recommend against any withdrawal of American forces next summer."
On Monday, the Washington Post also published the twisty line of the suddenly interview-hungry Petraeus, reporting that "he remains supportive of President Obama's decision to begin withdrawing troops next July, but he said it is far too soon to determine the size of the drawdown." The newspaper observed that "the general's presence in Kabul, as opposed to the U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa, could make him a far more forceful voice for attenuating the drawdown if he chooses to make that case."
"Attenuating the drawdown" means keeping the war machinery at full throttle.
Let's be clear about what's happening here. The top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, with the evident approval of the White House, has launched a fierce media blitz to cripple the policy option of any significant military withdrawal a year from now. Riding high in what is supposed to be a civilian-run military, Petraeus is engaging in strategic media operations to manipulate what should be a democratic process on matters of war and peace.
Who bears ultimate responsibility for this manipulative, anti-democratic behavior? The commander in chief.
Ominously, the Petraeus media offensive got underway just days after presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs picked a fight with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party -- a wing that has been strengthening its opposition to the war in Afghanistan.
More than four decades after President Johnson used the term "nervous Nellies" to disparage the growing number of Democrats who voiced dissent about the war in Vietnam, the Obama White House is now disparaging progressive dissenters with terms like "the professional left."
Every week, President Obama is sacrificing billions of dollars and uncounted lives in the service of what Martin Luther King Jr. called -- at a time of another horrific war effort -- "the madness of militarism." Then, as now, a Democrat in the White House augmented the momentum of the Pentagon's war train, boosting it with eagerness to appear tough and avoid Republican charges of weakness.
While history is not exactly repeating, it is rhyming. Like a dirge.
Now, as in the era of Dr. King's final years, war is escalating while the lures of silence or equivocation are widely viewed as prudent. Rationales for muting dissent keep pitching for complicity.
The immediate problem is one of political acquiescence. Right now, it's time to speak up against the efforts by a top general to stampede this country into more war. No matter who is willing to go along with the madness of militarism, we must not.
- Posted in
50 Comments so far
Show AllO'bomba is the real Betrayus. America went from "Ya wish us or ageanst us (Texan Tawk) to Betrayus. Four more years? U-Betcha!
If only the problem were this general or that president...or even this congress. But the problem is much larger than that isn't it?
I know CDers know that and wonder what's wrong with Mr Solomon. This piece seems almost childish in its naivete.
As Norman Solomon points out, the White House has been tacitly approving Petraeus's desire to keep the occupation of Afghanistan going at full throttle. Solomon is most certainly correct when he states that "now is the time to speak up" against Petraeus's actions. Unfortunately, when it came time for Solomon to speak up against the militarism of Barack Obama during the presidential campaign of 2008, he instead decided to illogically throw his support behind a warmonger like Obama. Third party and antiwar candidates, it would seem, have no friend that they can turn to that goes by the name of Norman Solomon.
The promise of Obama during the election campaign was that he would end these wars, and that he would change the culture in Washington that drove us into these wars. To call Obama militaristic and a warmonger at that time is to rewrite history to suit your prejudice. Solomon is not responsible for Obama's change of mind following his inauguration. Your attack on Solomon is mindless and not supported in reality.
"Solomon is not responsible for Obama's change of mind following his inauguration."
Many non-journalists realized that Obama's "change of mind" was really just real life replacing all the vote-seeking spin of the election cycle. That Solomon didn't pick up on the fakeness of Obama puts his journalistic credentials into question. Has he no insight whatsoever?
Apparently he has more insight than you. There was nothing to suggest that Obama would engage in a major turnaround on a number of issues once in office. Was he naive about the exigencies he would face on minor and major matters? Possibly. But other than a psychologist in daily discussions with Obama for years, in conjunction with a clairvoyant seer, no one was really in a position to predict what would happen. Barring obvious disconnects, we have to judge our candidates on what we see, what they present, and what reliable sources can tell us. Obama appeared to be the real thing, the more so since in contrast to the Bush crowd he positively glowed with the fire of our hopes. As you say, reality intruded, and the glow is gone. But to blame Solomon, to question his credentials, no, you're wrong on that. You might as well say that Glenn Beck is rational and sane, and you'd be just as accurate.
You said: "Barring obvious disconnects, we have to judge our candidates on what we see, what they present, and what reliable sources can tell us."
"Obama (Aug. 1, 2007):
I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will."
http://www.ontheissues.org/2007_FactCheck.htm
"One of the things that I think is critical, as the next president, is to make absolutely certain that we not only phase out the Iraq but we also focus on the critical battle that we have in Afghanistan and root out al Qaeda. If we do not do that, then we’re going to potentially see another attack here in the US."
2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007
"Afghanistan is an area where we should be focusing. NATO has made real contributions there. Unfortunately, because of the distraction of Iraq, we have not finished the job in terms of making certain that we are driving back the Taliban, stabilizing the Karzai government, capturing bin Laden and making sure that we’ve rooted out terrorism in that region."
Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC Apr 26, 2007
"Q: Some involved in the anti-movement have said that in 2004, 2005, 2006 Barack Obama voted to fund the war; that you were not a leader in trying to stop the war until you ran for president and had a sense of the anti-war fervor in the Democratic base. Where was the leadership?
A: I disagree with that. Throughout I was a constant critic. It is true that my preference would not be to end this war simply by cutting off funding. My preference would be for the president to recognize that we needed to change course, and that was what I continually pushed for. At the point where we realized the president was not willing to change course, I put forward a very clear timetable for when we should remove our troops. And, when that was vetoed, I then suggested that the only way to negotiate a different direction in Iraq is by not giving Bush a blank check when it comes to funding.
Q: You have changed now in your support of cutting off funding.
A: But I haven’t changed in my opposition to the war."
Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series Nov 11, 2007
Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007
Kerry Amendment to National Defense Authorization Act; Bill S.Amdt. 4442 to S. 2766 ; vote number 2006-181 on Jun 22, 2006
Yeah, I guess you missed the above.
Looks like fear mongering and promises to escalate, too.
DCH
Excellent and most relevant quotes. To use a legal phrase, the facts speak for themselves.
Except that nothing in those quotes says he intended to send in tens of thousands more troops and effectively expand the war not only in Afghanistan but also to Pakistan. He spoke more of focus rather than expansion, and I would see those quotes as able to be read ambiguously. Context of the times has to be considered. Given the wishfulness of the electorate to change the course of America's involvement there at the time, and the less-than-convincing remarks quoted (assuming the general tenor of other remarks was the same - focus, not implying expansion) it made sense to support Obama in 2008. It's not unreasonable to accept that these remarks meant to focus intensely on the specific personnel and organization involved in the September 11 attacks, as opposed to a general wider war.
What makes no sense is to crucify Solomon for Obama's wrong turns. Solomon is one of the useful voices fighting against this disastrous war now, today.
Here's something from two years ago (but of course you'll nitpick that 10,000 more soldiers isn't the same as "tens of thousands"):
Presidential candidate Barak Obama, "The Peace Candidate", supports a stronger commitment to the war in Afghanistan and has proposed "sending at least two additional combat brigades—7,000 to 10,000 troops—to Afghanistan, while deploying more Special Operations forces to the Afghan-Pakistan border. He has also proposed increasing non-military aid to Afghanistan by at least $1 billion per year." (Wall Street Journal)
http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney07062008.html
Woodrow Wilson and Lyndon Johnson, Democrats both, also painted themselves as the "Peace Candidates" and once in office practiced the fine art of "escalatio" (as Tom Lehrer put it).
There's also an interesting book from a few years ago in which the author, Jerry Hough, a professor of Political Science at Duke University, argued that:
----
…All five Republican Presidents of the postwar period had a détente policy and that all but Reagan in his first term reduced military spending. All four Democratic Presidents prior to Bill Clinton raised military spending, each quite substantially, and all had serious confrontations with the Soviet Union.
…The Republican Party found it politically useful to balance its pro-détente policy with hard-line rhetoric toward the Soviet Union and defense, while the Democratic rhetoric emphasized arms control and global cooperation. The difference between rhetoric and real policy in both parties was a stabilizing factor in foreign policy, but the reunification of Germany left both parties with rhetoric alone.
In one way or another, they (Republicans) had emphasized the themes of patriotism and nationalism while actually following a policy of détente when in office’. ‘Nationalism was central’ in their campaigns, ‘yet the Republicans had always supported détente in practice: Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and George H.W. Bush.
----
In other words, Republican rhetoric is often alarming, but partly because they project themselves as superpatriots they don't feel the need to follow up words with deeds. One can literally tabulate the extra violent deaths that occured under Truman vs. Eisenhower, Kennedy-Johnson vs. Nixon, Reagan-Bush vs. Clinton to get an idea of which party the more trigger happy—in a big way—Presidents usually come from. These are not laws of Physics, of course, but giving Obama a free pass based on his rhetoric being slightly less violent than that of McCain won't pass muster based on historic experience, let alone the fact that he was quite upfront about the escalation he had in mind.
http://www.algora.com/167/book/details.html
ricg
My criticism of Solomon, far from being mindless, is based solidly upon facts. As we know [or at least should know] Obama made it quite clear during the presidential campaign of 2008 that he had every intention of escalating the conflict in Afghanistan. To the surprise of absolutely no one who was paying attention, Barack Obama did exactly that.
Your claim that Obama somehow changed his mind following his inauguration is, to borrow from your words, simply not supported by reality. Obama did not hide the fact in the summer of 2008 that he believed that Iraq was not the war for the United States to be in while firmly believing that the priority of the United States should be to focus its attention upon the so-called "good war" in Afghanistan where Obama's 500 lb. bombs would soon be ripping apart innocent civilians.
I have Solomon's well written book War Made Easy as well as his DVD of the same title which makes it all the more puzzling why Solomon had supported another Democrat who is following in the footsteps of a president that I remember all too well and is featured in Solomon's documentary by the name of Lyndon Baines Johnson.
Why Solomon thought that the candidate who had every desire to expand the conflict in Afghanistan and whom he advocated for in 2008 would somehow change his mind after he got elected is beyond my realm of understanding.
I concur Erroll. It is beyond my realm of understanding, how anyone as intelligent as Norm Solomon could have voted and supported Obama. It just proves how good this con man is; I mean the fact that he fooled so many intelligent people just boggles the mind. He must have hypnotic powers! Because so many well meaning and intelligent people supported him with only a superficial examination of Obama, since anyone that took the time could have seen Obama for what he was: the hand picked quilsling for the MIC. But you have to hand it to this guy, he is good, I mean real good, at fooling so many people like Norm Solomon.
I suggest that you do a bit of research, since you clearly don't remember what he ACTUALLY said. he NEVER promised to get us out of Afghanistan, he instead said that he would be shifting his emphasis from Iraq TO Afghanistan. Goddamn, I HATE these wars, but I hate it when people misrepresent what was ACTUALLY said at the time. Go back, do some research, please. Find ANYWHERE that Obama said he would end Afghanistan. I'm MORE than willing to bet you won't find one.
In fact, I remember it quite well, because that was one reason I didn't WANT him as president. I would have MUCH preferred Kucinich. I would STILL prefer Kucinich. But that being said, I am not content to sit here and let you misrepresent what Obama actually said at the time. Truth STILL matters to some of us.
Fine, remain tied-up in your little world of excuses and details of the political games Obama and his hacks played to get elected.
The overall scam of the democrats has always been that they are the lessor of two evils. I take it you still believe that bull shit. Fine. Many do.
But the ugly truth is, despite what this loser said or didn't say he would do is irrelevant. What does matter is that he can say and defend any position he'd like, now. He could rally the American people to stop this madness, but he doesn't. What he does indeed do is call for more war and carnage, and keeps raiding the treasury to carry it out.
That makes him, if not a liar (for your sake), a cold, calculating murderer and guilty of crimes against humanity. With your support of him, that makes you guilty of the same, albeit not directly. No futher f*cking "research" is needed for that.
He, and this loose-cannon of a general, should be tried for treason and sentenced accordingly.
"Truth" my ass.
As for Kucinich, I guess that means you like your murderers short, and prone to throw their best supporters under buses.
Methinks you are arguing with the wrong person, as you've inverted the obvious intent of WJM's comments. Pssssst…he agrees with you!
Obama had no "change of mind". He was just a liar from the beginning.
And what might you call this man Obama? A nice, warm & fuzzy human being?
No, he's a cold bloodied murder, along with his congress.
Its you that severely needs a reality check.
Exactly and right on target moonpie!
Solomon writes: "Right now, it's time to speak up against the efforts by a top general to stampede this country into more war."
But Solomon fails to understand that it's not the general we need to "speak up against," it's the general's boss, and his name, in case Solomon does not know it, is Mr. Obama.
All Obama has to do is say (and he pulls this all the time) is that he is taking advice and basing his strategy on what the military commanders are telling him.
So every time Petraeus promotes the war, or says we need more troops, or we need to be there longer HE is equally to blame as Obama.
It doesn't matter if he has pressure to say this or that.
He could make a difference.
He owns the deaths just as Obama owns the deaths and Congress owns the deaths, and all those corporations making profits on the war own the deaths.
GWBush cherry picked the generals till he found some that would start an unneeded war. I don't see why a President can't cherry pick a general to get us out of this war now!
Don't attack Petraeus because he is only the mouthpiece of the White House. A few days ago, during a TV interview, Petraeus stated that he is only one of the President's military advisers and that policies are made by the President. Since Mr. Obama has not distanced himself from Petraeus' statement this is White House policy. As usual Mr. Obama cowardly hides behind Petraeus. He lets him make "unpleasant" statements instead of himself making them.
Obama is a shameless shill of the corporate business ruling elite. Obama is an empty suit from Harvard.
Good Grief.
I think attacking Petraeus as a war mongering psycho sociopath mass murdering conniving propagandist thug is quite relevant to this issue.
Beginning in Korea in 1950 and continuing through the early 1970s during the Vietnam War the warmongers in Amerikkka used the "Domino Theory" as the reason to wage war against evil communism in Southeast Asia. Now the warmongers have simply changed communism to terrorism in its fanatical wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Really, though, both Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan have never been about halting the spread of of communism/terrorism (fill in the blank). It has always been about feeding the ravenous military industrial complex which has grown like a virus since World War II.
What used to be contained in the defense industry has now spread to the media/entertainment industries.
War is good for bidness; invest your sons and daughters.
Petraeus is keeping Iran in mind not wanting to reduce force levels too much in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran. Obama's feckless leadership forces him to keep his options open. Netanyahu does not want to waste the opportunity to bomb Iran while American forces are in the region. Obama's weakness forces others to lead. It's all ugly.
A central point here is that a military officer of the general staff should not be making the rounds of media shows to promote his views of the conflict with which his superiors have charged him. His job is to keep his mouth shut and carry out the orders of his superiors. If he disagrees, he is obligated to either proceed to carry out the orders to best of his ability, period,or if he finds he cannot do that, then he should resign his commission or his command or both. For Petraeus to make the rounds of talk shows to push a public relations drive for a particular view of how to conduct the war is unseemly at best and raises questions of his loyalties.
On the surface Petraeus is publicly disagreeing with the civilian administration's stated goal of withdrawing from Afghanistan beginning in July 2011 (far too late, in my opinion). If that were true, he should go the way of MacChrystal. That he is not being chastised by the administration says that the civilian government has no intention of withdrawing significant numbers of troops, and that would seem to be the case here. Petraeus has compromised his military standing and mission, and the administration has sold out its prerogatives to operate as a civilian control of the military.
If Obama is using Petraeus as his sock puppet, then he is overtly politicizing the military and that is a path we must not go down (which is not to say there is no political involvement by military elements, but it must not become a policy of the civilian government).
In all, there is plenty of betrayal and selling out to go around for a number of years. It is a shame that American soldiers and innocent Afghanis must suffer and die for a useless, thoughtless, ill-conceived, and wasteful war that exists for little reason other than to satisfy egos in Washington.
The reason this war exists is threefold.
One, it is a resource war, facilitated by the red-flag event called 9/11.
Two, it enriches the bloody war machine profiteers
Three, dovetailing with Two, the war provides a money drain that provides fodder for the "fiscal conservatives" both Democratic and Republican, that want privatization of everything from State and National Parks, to trash removal, to water.
With cruelty and wrecking havoc on little people in the "third world" as being just a bonus for these monsters of war, including Oilbomber.
There is no defense for Petraeus. He and Obama got together and decided they would blame Bush. Blaming Bush is the philosophy that defines this presidency. Sure Bush was hideous, but Obama is WORSE!
The Petraeus interview that aired yesterday was unbelievable.
We are supposed to believe that he was so busy in Iraq he didn't notice that Afghanistan was mismanaged. Also that only exactly 18 months ago, we finally got a good strategy in Afghanistan, including things like paying former terrorists to be on your side and the VERY creative--send more troops strategy.
The puppet Petraeus will say anything.
Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is the definition of treason.
The punishment for treason is death under the law.
Treason is a reviled crime, because it is betrayal.
Obama and Petraeus have betrayed the American spirit.
betrayus IS a blood drenched puppet, controlled by the masters of war, yet fascist amerika continues on with the slaughter, the collapse of the empire IS at hand !
"Right now, it's time to speak up against the efforts by a top general to stampede this country into more war."
The time to have spoken up was during the nomination process for president.
Remember, Norm, you were a big supporter of Obama and helped get Obama nominated for president.
It used to be that once someone showed their lack of judgement they would shut up because they had shame.
Aren't you ashamed, yet?
good grief.
Many posters on CD have apologized and said they were ashamed and apologized for being hoodwinked by voting and supporting Obomba, but not Norm. He needs to post a mea culpa.
It seems no end to the deadly lies and propaganda by mass murderer obomber and his war criminal lackeys. Yet resistance to the fascist empire is the test and the solucion !
Those who know the TRUTH must resist the empire non-violently at all levels, in all ways ! Knowing that the TRUTH WILL TRIUMPH and bring PEACE !
tioche, Mexico
We can leave when AIPAC gives us permission to leave - which is somewhere between never or when this country is sucked dry.
Remember the USS Liberty.
De-Countrify Israel Now and force Zionists to pay Reparations.
Norman Solomon is right on the mark here, and history is repeating. The first draft of history is journalism and as Solomon pointed out in his documentary called "War Made Easy" the Washington Post never retracted their false account of the Gulf of Tonkin as that would have meant they would have had to retract the following coverage which was based on the pack of lies about the Gulf of Tonkin. He didn't say the Washington Post lied, but I do and will.
AD
Between Petraeus and Obama, a typical partisan thinker will think that the general still has Bush residue. But a full look at the record of Petreaus will show that even when he was rooting for pulling out of Iraq or Afghanistan that Obama decided to do the same thing Bush/Mccain would do, stay the course just to keep the war machine alive. Regardless of whether Petraeaus decides to promote wars or back away from them, the president is the Commander In Chief who makes the decision in the end. This article is framing Petraeus as the culprit pulling Obama's strings. I am no fan of this general but he does not deserve the blame for Bush's or Obama's horrible decisions.
I am no fan of this general but he does not deserve the blame for Bush's or Obama's horrible decisions.
Yes, he does. If he thought these wars of aggression were the criminal enterprises that they are, he could have been morally responsible and quit the army rather than be a part of these crimes. Besides, Obama is merely another totally replaceable corrupt politician with no knowledge of military goings-on. It is, in fact, ambitious careerist scum like Petraeus who tell him what to do.
I remember that Petraeaus came in as a Bush yes-man after the previous general was politically forced out. But we might as well be stuck with him because even if we had someone like Van Jones or Jane Fonda in place of Petreaus, nothing would change. Crowsnest nailed it on the mark that Petreaus is nothing more than a perfect military curtain for presidents like Bush and Obama to hide behind. With the way this system is set up, a strong majority could vote against these wars and we'd still be stuck there given the way politicians and other government officials do business behind the scenes with no regards to what the public really wants. I have seen this before and so have many of my friends who worked in a lot of government departments and agencies. I apologize for my skepticism but the odds of seeing any light at the end of the tunnel as far as getting this nation out of war in the foreseeable future are slim to none.
"Who bears ultimate responsibility for this manipulative, anti-democratic behavior? The commander in chief."
Not really.
Obama represents the energy corporations that plan to run pipelines across Afghanistan to market Central Asian oil and natural gas throughout Asia.
Why nearly every "progressive" writer publishing in America today fails to cover the Pipelineistan issue is beyond me. They could not possibly be that stupid.
Perhaps they would have trouble getting their books published if they told the whole truth.
Betrayus and all the other "top brass" of the mic are nothing but violence addicted, yet they cower in their expensive offices, massive yachts and sprawling estates. Violent cowards = shameless bullies.
Men! - stand up and grab your crotches. There. You have just explained much of U.S. foreign policy without uttering a word.
And just to think, Michael Jackson started that fad.
"And when we come back, some closing thoughts from me on this trip to Afghanistan, after these brief messages."
(Announcements)
MR. GREGORY: "I'm a whore."
There. Look at all the space he could have saved.
I admit that my scrutiny of Candidate Obama became progressively limited, because his post-primary rush to castle behind his right rook was so gagworthy that I couldn't watch him afterwards without risking the dry heaves.
Still, even I knew that Obama was no "anti-war" candidate; he straightforwardly championed Afghanistan as a good war worth fighting well.
BUT, an important factor in the public discourse during the campaign seems to have slipped between the cracks. It ought to have been obvious that Obama was an enthusiastic prospective warmonger, in accordance with Team Obama's conventional political calculus of "electability"; the candidate freely flashed his twirling War Boner like a champion drum major to win support from the quivering sheeple.
All the while, though, enthralled liberal-lite, progressive Obama disciples diligently softened and obscured this truth by invoking the tendentious and intellectually bankrupt "inside-politics" excuse that Obama "had" to Run Right in order to appease the vast bloc of fearful and reactionary voters once called the "Silent Majority".
Thus, as the comments threads at CD during the interminable campaign amply verify, those who correctly denounced Obama's pro-war attitude and policies were continuously counter-denounced by Sensible Realists for failing to temper this "purist" critique with a grain of salt.
The Obama enthusiasts may not have been particularly enthusiastic about Obama's warmongering tendencies, but they constantly attempted to play off their importance as being based on the exigencies of the moment, i.e. that Team Obama was in Campaign Mode.
They used this same tactic to "explain away" Obama's FISA vote, tapdancing around single-payer health care, and overweening support for the original Bankster Bailouts.
Two years later, the dwindling band of Obama apologists still occasionally resort to arguing that critics must have been ignorant, seriously misinformed, or deluded into believing that Obama is against war and predatory corporate capitalism, or a champion of civil liberties.
What they forget, or are unwilling to admit, is that their own disinformational cheerleading was foreseen and manipulated by Team Obama's award-winning marketing minions to guarantee the election of a Blur for All Seasons.
Petraeus and OBOMBA don't want to draw down troops in Afghan until the Summer of 2012, so both can use that as some glittery, campaign ad for a prize both desire:
The White House.
The US won't get out of Afghanistan or Iraq until we collapse financially from fighting all these wars and the way things look, that might not be that far off in the future.
Shouldn't the title accurately read:
Gen. Petraeus Goes To Media Whore