"As has been clear for months, the White House has increasingly incorporated media and communications strategies into the highest levels of the U.S. military command in Iraq. Just last month, the White House moved one of Bush's own aides into the position of Chief Spokesman for the U.S. military in Iraq, and the military's claims about Iraq have increasingly matched White House political aims. The rhetoric from all top military commanders, including Petraeus-one could say especially him-reflects White House talking points without deviation.
Especially now that it has become clear that this Grand September Report will occur, putting the comments of Gen. Petraeus into their proper perspective is imperative, as is treating them realistically, with the understanding that he has a history of making almost uniformly optimistic claims about Iraq, even when the reality in Iraq was anything but encouraging.
On every issue in the Hewitt interview-from "Iran-Al Qaeda cooperation" to accusations against Syria for sending in foreign fighters (with no mention of Saudi Arabia) and the primacy of Al Qaeda as the threat in Iraq-Petraeus recites highly political propositions in complete harmony with the White House and neoconservatives. Petreaus is a highly political figure, plainly cognizant of the need to sell his war to the American public, and his statements,
consequently, are highly political as well. That is not unusual for a military commander.
But to listen to the media references to Gen. Petraeus, one would think that he is the sole figure who resides above the political realm, the sole source for objective and credible accounts of what is happening "on the ground" in Iraq.
Like most of what our government and its media has claimed over the last four years with regard to Iraq, that is pure caricature, actually just rank fiction."
At the presentation today Petraeus and Crocker successfully avoided answering what is being accomplished and when can we expect our troops returning? They would only talk about their own specific areas and regularly avoided any non-rope-a-dope misinformation. Petraeus offered a reduction of perhaps 30,000 troops by the spring of 2008 as if it was a huge compromise. That is the total that they must be at due to tours of duty ending.
Back to the Late Edition article Blitzer states "There was a story in The Washington Post today, above the fold, Page One, reporting on a dispute that has developed over these past few months between General David Petraeus, the top
U.S. military commander in Iraq, and Admiral William Fallon, who's in charge of the Central Command. Technically, he's General Petraeus's boss.
Let me read a line from that story: "His efforts offended Petraeus's team," referring to Admiral Fallon, "which saw them as unwelcome intrusion on their own long-term planning. The profoundly different views of the U.S. role in Iraq only exacerbated the schism between the two men."
I know you say it's not unusual-because you served at the highest levels of the U.S. military-for two four-star officers to disagree. But in this particular case, Admiral Fallon is saying you've got to start withdrawing for a couple reasons: To reduce the footprint in Iraq but also because there are other missions that could be undermined if the U.S. Army, for example, doesn't have enough troops. How serious of a problem is this?
Former supreme commander of NATO, General George Joulwan answered Wolf with "First of all, we must understand the president is the commander in chief. He will get input from not only Fallon and Petraeus but others as well. He will balance all of this. And if it's done right, he will get a variety of options here.
But he must make that decision. But it is not unusual for two four-stars to have different views on what should be done. I think they're close on most of the issues."
Petraeus is ignoring his direct boss to be W's stooge. In addition to the Late Edition comments regarding the troop reduction that actually isn't-there is a Slate article and the infamous MoveOn.org article of today that also illustrates that point!
Where are Petraeus and Crocker speaking tonight? They are scheduled to appear in a prime-time interview with Brit Hume on Fox News Monday night. Think they'll get any softballs lobbed at them? It will be the same as the Hewitt interview!
Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., questioned whether Petraeus' testimony was written by political operatives. "We need to get out of Iraq, for that country's sake and for our own," Lantos said.
The general came under personal attack Monday by the anti-war group MoveOn.org, who took out an ad in The New York Times on Monday, referring to Petraeus as "General Betray-us."
"Cooking the books for the White House," charged the ad.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
