Screaming Penguin - Source Does Matter

General Petraeus or General Betray Us?

I think the Democrats better back the hell up (well, technically MoveOn, not the Dems in general, but the association is clear unless there is a widespread denouncement). Calling General Petraeus "General Betray Us," is way over the line, and likely will backfire. And, it's a rip off of Harry Shearer with no attribution (Harry's use was a joke BTW).

There are many reasons to question the US motives over going to war with Iraq in the first place. I am no friend of the Bush administration on that front. The run up to the war was atrocious, completely fed on lies and manipulation, but those atrocities should not be held against the military, nor against General Petraeus.

Petraeus is very well respected, and in fact pioneered some of the counterinsurgency techniques that have actually worked in Iraq (along with being one of the writers of the recent new Army field manual on that same topic, something he championed when the Army did not want to hear it). Here again, none of the tactics that have worked seem like a revelation to anyone that has read anything at all about counterinsurgency tactics: treat the people with respect - even prisoners, "unity of effort", live among the people, go in light with a small footprint not with heavy force, killing is not effective, the people are the prize not the territory, etc - but they are a change for the US military, nonetheless.

The Army COIN school, arguably started far too late (1996), teaches these tactics now, and Petraeus recognized them long before that school was started, and put them to work in the field.

Petraeus is not perfect (his assessment of the Iraqi Security Forces he was in charge of training has been criticized), but he is a very capable military leader that has shown proven results, results that even the Iraqi people seem to have responded to. Bashing him may not be the best course of action for the Democrats - especially BEFORE his final report is even available (give him a chance to call it like it is first, then respond).

Regardless of how you might feel about how and why the US got into Iraq, the reality now is that we are there - and only recently have we even begun to try to actually fight an "insurgency."

His highly anticipated "surge" report will likely conclude that the surge works to quell sectarian violence, and will recommend we keep it up. Though, it will probably be more focused on dealing with sectarian violence, as opposed to insurgent terrorists. As much as I was against going into Iraq in the first place, and though I have absolutely zero trust for the Bush administration, I think at this point we have to trust the military, and I respect Petraeus. Let's listen to, and scrutinize, what he has to say, but let's not ignore him just because he happens to be stuck with President Bush.

I often disagree with the tactics of MoveOn (and the substantiation for this one is pathetic), but this really goes out to them AND other Dems trying to dismiss the report before it happens - be careful there. I don't think the anti-war, anti-Bush sentiment in the general public extends to making fun of well respected generals. Petraeus is no Zinni, but he is also no Franks.