|
0
Nerd-Its
|
|
General Petraeus Meets General Disarray
If you watched Gen. Petraeus testimony before Congress yesterday, among other things (e.g. broken microphone and a steady stream of unwelcome protesters), you probably noticed the frequent mention made of an ad in the NY Times which attacked the Iraq commander as "General Betray Us." Heckled by the audience, Gen. Petraeus during the briefing was called on repeatedly to defend the non-partisan nature of his report, asserting that it was an "independent testimony" and one which the White House had not seen beforehand. Despite his statements to the contrary, a sense of mistrust certainly remains. Though distancing himself from the MoveOn.org ad, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), for example, said yesterday that there is some truth to the allegation that Gen. Petraeus is "cooking-the-books" in order to create a rosier picture of the progress in Iraq. One must wonder then - has the U.S. military become a simple tool of partisan politics, i.e. the legitimate objects of political attack, or is the American Left cannibalizing one of its own national institutions?
Star This to Save in Your Profile 
Add a Comment (4)
Email This
Message Author
Statistics
Thread parent sort order:
Thread verbosity:
RSS
Belasarius by PowerPointSamurai :: NR7 :: Show
I refer you to my post yesterday on this topic comparing GEN Petreaus to Belasarius and my concerns about the further deterioration of the civil-military relationship.
I wonder if Congress comprehends the danger here. I know for a fact that GEN Petreaus harped all the time about the importance of an impartial, non-partisan military. I also know he bemoaned the fact that the vast majority of the US military identifies ideologically with the Republican Party. He understands the danger in this and I truly believe he is doing the best he can to remain impartial, professional, and non-partisan and give the best professional advice and view he can. He served under many different administrations, and his most recent promotion and appointment as the MNF-I commander was confirmed by the now Democratically led Senate. The officer corps is repeatedly inculcated with the importance of that aspect of the civil-military relationship. What happens if officers really do start leaning one way and their advice really does become politically biased? What if Generals start using their power for one party or the other?
Lets look at this from the other side because the cause/effect relationship runs both ways. Let's say one party treats him with utter contempt and the other goes out of its way to welcome and praise him. Even if he came in with a totally non-partisan point of view, wouldn't that incline him and all future officers appearing there to lean to where they are appreciated? Do some of these members of Congress perhaps think they could be actually causing the problem they imply exists? Do the Democrats not realize that GEN Petreaus is their commander as much as he is for the Republicans, and is beholden to them (and given the job in the first place by them)? Why tear down or drive away your own man?
I say that after what I saw yesterday, the civil-military relationship needs major repairs. I think those repairs really need to start in the political system, and in the meantime, general officers need to continue to have the courage to maintain their integrity in the face of crazy, adverse conditions in the political system because their country and their soldiers need them to.