Glenn Greenwald makes a pretty good case that Gen. Petraeus's record of analysis and prognistication on Iraq is lousy:
Despite the Mandate Orthodoxy that Gen. Petraeus be treated as the Objective, Unassailably Credible Oracle for how we are doing in Iraq and whether we are winning, his track record of quite dubious claims over the last several years about the war strongly negates that view. It ought to go without saying that no military commander -- particularly in the midst of a disastrous four-year war -- is entitled to blind faith and to be placed above being questioned. It is not only proper, but critically necessary, to subject happy war claims from the military to great scrutiny.In general, military commanders do not typically pronounce their own strategies to have failed; quite the opposite. The need for skepticism here is particularly acute given that there are plenty of Generals with equally impressive military pedigrees who disagree vigorously with Petraeus. War supporters -- who are attempting now to make criticisms of Petraeus off-limits -- long disputed the claims and views of Generals Casey and Abizaid, often quite vigorously, even insultingly. The statements about war from military commanders ought to be subjected to every bit as much scrutiny and skepticism as anyone else's.
But Petraeus in particular has demonstrated that his statements merit particularly potent scrutiny. ...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
With the caveat that to get as far as he did in the military, he had to play politics in a big way, he is like Colin Powell, a good and honorable man whose reputation is forever ruined by carrying water for Bush.
Kim M
So clearly we need to return to a Rumsfeld-lite approach to dealing with insurgencies. Reduce the numbers of soldiers to barely enough and hole them up in their massive bases, only coming out every now and then. I mean, it worked so well for Rumsfeld we should do it again.
Oh, maybe we should just abandon Iraq completely, take every single soldier home. Give it all up.
Anyone get the idea that Glenn Greenwald can't help but take the opposite stance of whatever the current operation in Iraq is? Under Rumsfeld too few soldiers doing not enough, under Petreus too many soldiers doing too much. Unless he is seriously arguing that Iraq, the US, and the rest of the world would be better of if we just took every soldier home.
Indeed Glenn Greenwal in particular has demonstrated that his statements merit particularly potent scrutiny. . . .
I'm happy that Greenwald is on your read-list. He's of the left and lately has been very hard in his tone when discussing this administration, but he's also quite rigorous in his arguments and very thorough in his research. AND he is quite widely read.
My hunch is that his name will stand above many others when we look back on the maturing of the blogosphere.
Kim M:
I hope you're right. About Powell's reputation being forever ruined.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.