Support the Generals

I imagine people who woke up on Eastern time have already gone through most of the BS in Joe Lieberman's Washington Post op-ed, but let's note his characterization here of congressional liberals: "Rather than supporting Gen. Petraeus, they are threatening to strip him of the troops he says he needs and sabotage his strategy." You see. It's not the president's policy Democrats aren't supporting, it's General Petraeus' policy!

This is something we've seen for months now and it really rankles. It's a weird way of turning civil-military relations on its head, and then kind of spinning it around. Petraeus is a general. He's supposed to follow orders from the country's civilian leadership. If Bush outlines a policy, Petraeus is supposed to carry it out. The fact that Petraeus is backing it, however, doesn't then become an additional reason for further elements of the national political leadership to also back it. "Look, the general I put in charge because he was willing to defend my policy publicly is defending my policy" isn't an independent basis for thinking the president's policy is sound. What's more, it's bizarre to see discredited figures like President of the United States George W. Bush, Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Senator Joe Lieberman, etc. all hiding behind the skirts of a subordinate to try to make it appear that this is something other than a policy that was outlined by them and that they are in charge of implementing.

4/26/07 10:50AM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

No, that's not right. Presidents do not create military strategy; Generals do. President may approve the strategy that they Generals create, but that's about it.

Matthew is misleading us when he uses the word "policy". That's not what Lieberman wrote. He wrote "strategy", not "policy".

Posted by: Al on April 26, 2007 11:12 AM

It would be "bizarre" if it weren't simply business as usual.

"Now in these dread latter days of the old violent beloved U.S.A. and of the Christ-forgetting Christ-haunted death-dealing Western world I came to myself in a grove of young pines and the question came to me: has it happened at last?"

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on April 26, 2007 11:15 AM

"This is something we've seen for months now and it really rankles."

Months? Try years. Try many years.

Try since early 2003 when they set what was (at that time) a personal best in chutzpah by firing Shinseki for saying that more troops were needed, and then responded to folks asking why more troops weren't needed by saying that the generals didn't want them and that they listened to the generals, not politicians.

Seriously, variants of this stratagem have been part of this WH's standard rhetorical repertoire for many, many years. It's older than "cut and run". It's older than "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here".

Posted by: Petey on April 26, 2007 11:17 AM

Let's see. The overall policy is decided on by the political leadership. The political leadership says to the military, "Develop a strategy and a set of tactics to implement this policy." The strategy is then, I would assume, approved by thepolitical leadership: "Yes, this should work."

As Brad deLong keeps saying, "The Cossacks work for the Tsar."

Posted by: Donald A. Coffin on April 26, 2007 11:18 AM

"President may approve the strategy that they Generals create, but that's about it."

The buck stops at the WH, Al. There's an actual reason why the office has the description of CiC.

And this President, like any other, picks the generals who will give him the strategy he wants.

Posted by: Petey on April 26, 2007 11:19 AM

Between Lieberman and Broder, today's WaPo op-ed section has almost reached cosmological levels of wankery. It's like they're striving for a bullshit singularity or something.

It's really strange. There's no shortage of really insightful and informed political and foreign policy observers available out there: Andrew Bacevich, 'Kingdaddy' over at Arms and Influence, Gregory Djerejian, MY at this joint, Mark Schmitt, dozens of others. Yet the major news outlets continue to publish thoroughly predictable and forgettable tripe from mediocrities who can't even write especially well. Are they trying to make themselves laughingstocks?

Sorry for being off-topic. Then again, responding to Smokin' Joe's pompous bullshit isn't anything I have the stomach for.

Posted by: sglover on April 26, 2007 11:21 AM

This seems to have permeated the ranks for Republicans pols and pundits fully. I guess they got a full briefing (as did Lieberman) because I hear this formulation a lot. This is how message discipline looks and they do it really well even with such a ludicrously poor hand.

At least the republican wordsmiths know that Bush is so reviled that calling anything "Bush's plan" is a death knell. This formulation gets around that a little bit, and that's the only reason it's used. It has no value beyond keeping a few percent of the american population from saying "lets get out of Iraq now, dammit."

It won't work for too long but Bush is playinng for a few extra days or weeks in many areas right now. We'll see a lot of this kind of crap I'm sure.

Posted by: blatherskite on April 26, 2007 11:22 AM

Presidents do not create military strategy; Generals do.

Hey everyone -- I've solved the mystery of "Al" -- he's zombie Douglas MacArthur! It was this position that got MacArthur fired from command of UN forces in Korea in 1951.

Posted by: Ryan on April 26, 2007 11:26 AM

Political deference to the sainted troops and their purported "needs" goes a lot further back than that. Among other things, it's a card that defense contractors have routinely and successfully played to justify all sorts of outlandish "needs" -- because "the troops" deserve nothing but the very, very, very best, right?

Posted by: sglover on April 26, 2007 11:28 AM

When the power elite rolls out pure bullshit, it's actually a way of signalling how powerful they are. It doesn't make them laughingstocks. The message is: you'll take my bullshit and like it!

Posted by: MQ on April 26, 2007 11:29 AM

Try since early 2003 when they set what was (at that time) a personal best in chutzpah by firing Shinseki for saying that more troops were needed

This, of course, is completely false, since Shinseki was "fired" (in reality, the name of his successor, to take over after Shinseki's term ended, was floated) before Shinseki said anything about more troops. But reality has a well know Republican bias.

Posted by: Al on April 26, 2007 11:35 AM

I find it just as irritating every time Bush talks about "listening to the commanders" -- yeah; after dismissing any commander who doesn't toe the line. What's happened recently in DOJ has been happening in the Pentagon for years.

I hope lots of people saw the Bill Moyers show last night; it, too, was thematically consistent with this: people who all agree on a policy upfront are placed in various positions, then used to reinforce one another's point of view. Reality truly becomes extraneous to a constantly echoed set of misrepresentations.

Posted by: demtom on April 26, 2007 11:39 AM

Re "When the power elite rolls out pure bullshit, it's actually a way of signalling how powerful they are"
------
True. Poor Bill Moyers gave a blistering indictment last night of all the big media whores -- showed in detail how they helped George Bush lie us into a needless war that has cost us 3000 lives. But at the end of his show, he had to acknowledge that most of the usual suspects -- Williams Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, etc etc are still employed.

What Moyers didn't look at are the monied interests paying for all this propaganda -- and how all the media whores will retire far richer than they would have if they had pursued "the truth" or "the national interest".

Mr Truth and Mr National Interest don't pay shit. They don't give out high paying sinecures, wealthy grants or university endowments. Nor do the families of those dead soldiers.

Posted by: Don Williams on April 26, 2007 11:43 AM

"This, of course, is completely false, since Shinseki was "fired" (in reality, the name of his successor, to take over after Shinseki's term ended, was floated) before Shinseki said anything about more troops."

I realized after I'd posted that you'd complain about me using the word "fired". And on that precise point, you're entirely correct.

But unless my memory is really faulty here, you've got the chronology of events wrong.

Posted by: Petey on April 26, 2007 11:46 AM

The fact that Petraeus is backing it, however, doesn't then become an additional reason for further elements of the national political leadership to also back it.

Literally, this is true. But the complication to MY's argument would appear to be that Petraeus has claimed he will let it be known once he comes to believe the surge is a failure; that he has not yet done so gives at least superficial reason to believe the president's policy can work (more than the president's own rhetoric would provide) insofar as Petraeus has a more informed perspective on the matter. That he may think there's a chance of some kind of success obviously doesn't mean he's right, however, or that his reasons for confidence don't need to be examined. But just as they shouldn't be accepted blithely, nor should they be preemptively rejected.

Posted by: rathor2 on April 26, 2007 11:52 AM

I've already signed the Blue Dog Pledge

http:www.bluedogdemocrats.us

My options are open.

Posted by: Nathan G. on April 26, 2007 11:57 AM

But unless my memory is really faulty here, you've got the chronology of events wrong.

The leak about his successor was 4/02. His testimony about troops strength needed for Iraq was 2/03.

Posted by: Al on April 26, 2007 12:01 PM

This is rather a pattern with these guys. Bill Moyers went into it on his special--the Administration would leak stories on WMDs to the NY Times and other outlets, and then go on TV talk shows and say, "did you see what the NY Times discovered about Weapons of Mass Destruction?" You can't cite stories you planted as independent corroboration of your position! CHUTZPAH!

And once you start firing the generals who don't agree with you, you CANNOT use the remaining generals' agreement as independent confirmation of your policy.

It's the President's policy. He fired all the Generals who disagreed with it. So, it's not the Generals' policy, it's the President's policy. DUH.

Posted by: anonymous on April 26, 2007 12:12 PM

LIEberman's analysis is just another manifestation of his Israel uber alles world view, nothing more, nothing less. Iraq is just a way of keeping U.S. forces nearby as an insurance policy.

Posted by: kafka on April 26, 2007 12:58 PM

Re kafka

"LIEberman's analysis is just another manifestation of his Israel uber alles world view, nothing more, nothing less."

Typical of the type of smears the Israel bashers of the world like to engage in. In fact, far from Senator Lieberman being Israel uber alles, he is far too accommodating to the Palestinians, as he support a two state solution for Palestine. The Palestinian state is in Amman!

Posted by: SLC on April 26, 2007 01:22 PM

And don't forget, the Joint Chiefs and Gen. Odom were unanimously against the surge. Bush shopped around until he found a general who would agree with him, and gave him a fourth star.

Posted by: grytpype on April 26, 2007 02:04 PM

A similar issue that really bugs me is when politicians or media people say something to the effect that "we asked some soldiers and *they* are completely ok with the policies of the president." Well, it's not the troops' job to question the mission given to them, that is *our* job.

Posted by: stand on April 26, 2007 02:08 PM

I don't pay taxes as an act of patronage to the military- they answer to me and my elected representatives. I am the boss. Their job is to protect me in the way that I and the rest of the electorate see fit. I'm not in business to subsidize their experiments and adventures for their own sake. I wouldn't want to live in a place where taxes are collected and spent at the military's discretion- even if I already do.

Posted by: Dan on April 26, 2007 02:19 PM

"Well, it's not the troops' job to question the mission given to them, that is *our* job."

This is rather a good point. One would hope we wouldn't expect loyal soldiers to be forced to mutiny in order for common citizens to say "hey, this war plan sucks. You've been fighting Iraq longer than WWII, and not only have we failed to win, but things are actually getting WORSE every day."

Apparently, though, the Bush Administration thinks nobody should say a word until the soldiers themselves are in open revolt.

This seems like a rather bad governing approach. I mean, in a Democracy.

Posted by: anonymous on April 26, 2007 02:30 PM

F###ing Dems...if only they had supported General Shineseki at the start.

Posted by: della Rovere on April 26, 2007 02:52 PM

Rumsfeld knocked Shinseki's stature down because Shinseki resisted Rumsfeld's plans to reduce the size of the army. Then, after Shinseki's testimony he got even less popular with Rumsfeld and his people.

I think Rumsfeld & company were right that Shinseki should have listened to his civilian superiors, however Rumsfeld's decision was exactly in the wrong direction.

At any rate, the Bushies never hid behind Shinseki, the problem is that they're using circular logic to hide behind Petraeus.

Posted by: American Citizen on April 26, 2007 02:57 PM

Again, the habitual lying yglesias demonstrates is shocking in its brazeness. He quotes lieberman and then actually lies about what he said in the very next sentence.

Posted by: pimp hand strikes! on April 26, 2007 06:15 PM

"I think Rumsfeld & company were right that Shinseki should have listened to his civilian superiors, however Rumsfeld's decision was exactly in the wrong direction."

I don't think Rumsfeld had much choice. The boy-king said "This war now, with this Army, and no hassles or compromises or political obstructions." Rumsfeld was like, constrained.

Posted by: bob mcmanus on April 26, 2007 06:34 PM

resim
adult bomba resim video
adult clip resim video
adult resim
akrep resim
alti etek gizli resim
amator liseli resim videolar
asena resim
ataturk ile ilgili resim
ataturkun resim
bebek resim
bedava cep resim
bedava erotik resim
bedava porno resim
bedava resim
chucky resim
ciplak resim
ciplak resim turbanli
dizdar resim zeynep
ensest resim
erotik resim
erotik resim com
erotik resim galerisi
etek alti liseli resim
frikik resim
frikikler resim
gaffur resim
got liseli resim
guzel resim
hareketli resim
komik resim
lise resim
liseli kiz resim
liseli resim
manken resim
manzara resim
mp3 resim video
msn resim
porno resim
reaksiyon resim yetenek
resim boyama
resim galeri
resim galerileri
resim gelerisi
resim indir
resim kursu
resim sanati
resim somut
resim teknikleri
resim turbanli
resim upload
resim video
seks resim
sex resim
sibel can resim
soyut resim
teknik resim
turbanli resim
turk_porno_resim