The General Betraeus Nickname

[kach22i]

General Betraeus.......is not a name "Moveon" made up it now looks like.

From The Sunday Times
August 19, 2007
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2284289.ece?Submitted=true

AFTER being hailed as King David, the potential saviour of Iraq, the US commander General David Petraeus is facing a backlash in advance of his report to Congress in September on the progress of America’s troop surge.

Critics, including one recently retired general, are privately calling him “General Betraeus” on the grounds that he is too ambitious to deliver a balanced report on the war.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/11/generals_of_yes.html

Posted by: Brad R. Torgersen | November 18, 2005 at 07:23 PM

I don't know GEN Petraeus personally...but when I was in the "Devil Brigade" folks called him "Colonel Betrayus". He came up with things like the "Devil button" (button your BDU collar up to the top when on jumps) and the "Devil grip" (special name for keeping your trigger finger out of the trigger well) which sounded hokey to most of the troops at the time.

Can any other All American paratroopers out there expand on my comment?

The MoveOn ad in question - for reference:
https://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html

[FrayAdjacent911]

Just a wonderful example of how the 'tolerant' left is intolerant of people who don't think the same way they do.

IN OTHER NEWS: Water is WET!!

[Nathans_Dad]

"We support the troops...except when they disagree with us."

[kach22i]

Beware of retired generals who had to compete with you, and troops once under your command. They like to take you down a notch when your lips are glued to the president's arse.

[Nathans_Dad]

So his lips are glued to the President's arse because he doesn't happen to agree with the Democrats vision of how the war is going and should be handled in the future?

Or do you have other evidence?

I'm just trying to sort out if this is another knee-jerk response on your part to someone who might have an opinion that differs from yours or if you actually have some evidence to suggest that Petraeus is biased towards the Bush administration.

[Joeaksa]

Rick,

Not worth your time trying to make sense of this (and many other posts) by Kach. He is having a "liberal moment" and just slathering everything in sight, hoping that people will latch onto something and run with it.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

So you actually believe Petraeus DOESN'T have his lips firmly on Bush's ass?

Please.

The Iraq testimony he gave was nothing but a party-line "feel-good". He's in a difficult position, I get that (and probably most people do), with a low probability of success. . . but I'd respect him more if there's been more original thought and objective analysis of the situation rather than more of the same-old, same-old.

"Continue the s(pl)urge!"
"We need more time"
"The Iraqis are becoming more self-sufficient"
"We'll start a draw-down next year (that we were going to anyway before the $urge began)"

I'm sure he's a good soldier, but he did one thing "good soldiers" do too well - he followed orders and did/said exactly what he was told to, no questions asked and no thought given.

[Joeaksa]

Jeff,

How many years experience do you have in the military?

I rest my case...

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

So you actually believe Petraeus DOESN'T have his lips firmly on Bush's ass?

Please.

The Iraq testimony he gave was nothing but a party-line "feel-good". He's in a difficult position, I get that (and probably most people do), with a low probability of success. . . but I'd respect him more if there's been more original thought and objective analysis of the situation rather than more of the same-old, same-old.

"Continue the s(pl)urge!"
"We need more time"
"The Iraqis are becoming more self-sufficient"
"We'll start a draw-down next year (that we were going to anyway before the $urge began)"

I'm sure he's a good soldier, but he did one thing "good soldiers" do too well - he followed orders and did/said exactly what he was told to, no questions asked and no thought given.

Again, any proof except for the fact that his opinion differs from yours?

Does the sword cut the other way too? Can we also discount everything Wesley Clark says? What about all the other retired generals that Kach is so fond of?

I guess they are credible because they agree with you?

[svandamme]

Originally Posted by Joeaksa

Jeff,

How many years experience do you have in the military?

I rest my case...

lol, Joe's standard off the shelf answer to anybody discussing anything to do with the military... yet he himself has never been so candid to disclose where he has been in action, it's all .. hush hush... how convenient

if Joe had his way, the military could do whatever the military wants to do, without ever being held responsible for anything that goes wrong...they could never be wrong, never deliver anything but reports that are factual and the real truth beyond a shadow of a doubt

Joe would have loved Germany in the 1939-1942 days, just follow orders blindly, whatever comes down the chain of command is just brilliant doctrine and as such not to be questioned...see where that got them, a 12 year long 1000 year reich, lol

well it's not like that, the military is just as political as politics itself
especially in the twilight zone where politics and military interlink

and if normal citizens are supposedly to stupid to understand war, and the concept of cost/effectiveness whether that be actual monetary cost, or the cost of lives or other cost, or the lack of results

then why the hell should they pay for it, let's go back to the middle ages, let the military go on their quest if they want to , have them loot and pillage whenever they need resources... perhaps that would be a better option, let the politicians that are for it, go along, put Bush and Cheney in cami's, give them an M16 and let them show the way, that's what leaders during the Crusades did , they went over there themself instead of sending over others to do the dirty work

yeah, let's just blatantly accept the words of the military generals, appointed by the chickenhawks in the whitehouse, to be true
they wouldn't dare to be biased in any of their reports now would they , why oh why , wouldn't they provide a report that makes the "commander in chief" upset...

you can look back to WW2 again, those who didn't tell Hitler what Hitler wanted to hear... see how long they were able to maintain a generals post.. not long, same difference, perhaps not as bad as then, but it goes to show that they are not to be considered "objective" just because they have a cute uniform

look at Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the joint chiefs of staff would have loved to go in guns blazing to finish the job on the ground... luckily Kennedy was more prudent.. if Joe was around in those days, Joe would have been , aah, yeah, let's invade, the JCOS has deemed it necessary so it must be the right thing to do...

your case can rest, because it doesn't have a chance of ever making it

[Hawktel]

Most of the news reports I've read indicate that things are getting somewhat better in Iraq.

(Course thats a sliding scale, Going from a 2 to a 4 on a scale of 1-10 means it still sucks)

This war isn't going to end till after we get a new administration. Why worry about it till then?

[svandamme]

it's a bit better now because there are a bit more troops
as soon as the troops leave, it's going to get worse again

and it will stay like that till everybody buggers off , and then they'll have to figure it out themselves, and then, eventually it's going to stabilise, one way or the other, be that a new Sadam, a democratic setup(yeah right) or an iran like setup

and it doesn't matter, because either one will have to sell the oil to get around
after all, the oil is what counts, it's not like anybody cares about the civilian loss of life(which has increased since the occupation), or the quality of life ( which definately did not increase since the occupation), or the human rights of anybody ( which probably is at a status quo since Sadam left: what good are human rights if you get either blown up by insurgents, or by a stray bomb from an F15 that had a "oops" moment )

[RKC]

Peggy Noonan was a speechwriter for Reagan. She writes a column for the Wall Street Journal every week. Why all Republicans (or Democrats - or heck, all Americans) don't try to emulate her thoughtfulness, I really don't know......

A Time for Grace
By PEGGY NOONAN
September 1, 2007; Page P12
What will be needed this autumn is a new bipartisan forbearance, a kind of patriotic grace. This is a great deal to hope for. The president should ask for it, and show it.

Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, will report to Congress on Sept. 11. From the latest metrics, it's clear the surge has gained some ground. It is generally supposed that Gen. Petraeus will paint a picture of recent decreases in violent incidents and increases in safety. In another world, that might be decisive: It's working, hang on.

At the same time, it's clear that what we call Iraq does not wholly share U.S. objectives. We speak of it as a unitary country, but the Kurds are understandably thinking about Kurdistan, the Sunnis see an Iraq they once controlled but that no longer exists, and the Shia -- who knows? An Iraq they theocratically and governmentally control, an Iraq given over to Iran? This division is reflected in what we call Iraq's government in Baghdad. Seen in this way, the non-latest-metrics way, the situation is bleak.

Capitol Hill doesn't want to talk about it, let alone vote on it. Lawmakers not only can't figure a good way out, they can't figure a good way through.

But we're going to have to achieve some rough consensus, because we're a great nation in an urgent endeavor. The process will begin with Gen. Petraeus's statement.

Particular atmospherics, and personal dynamics, are the backdrop to the debate. People are imperfect, and people in politics tend to be worse: "Politics is not an ennobling profession," as Bill Buckley once said. You'd better be pretty good going in, because it's not going to make you better. Politicians are individuals with a thirst for power, honors, and fame. When you think about that you want to say, "Oh dear." But of course "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

All sides in the Iraq debate need to step up, in a new way, to the characterological plate.

From the pro-war forces, the surge supporters and those who supported the Iraq invasion from the beginning, what is needed is a new modesty of approach, a willingness to admit it hasn't quite gone according to plan. A moral humility. Not meekness -- great powers aren't helped by meekness -- but maturity, a shown respect for the convictions of others.

What we often see instead, lately, is the last refuge of the adolescent: defiance. An attitude of Oh yeah? We're Lincoln, you're McClellan. We care about the troops and you don't. We care about the good Iraqis who cast their lot with us. You'd just as soon they hang from the skids of the last helicopter off the embassy roof. They have been called thuggish. Is this wholly unfair?

The antiwar forces, the surge opponents, the "I was against it from the beginning" people are, some of them, indulging in grim, and mindless, triumphalism. They show a smirk of pleasure at bad news that has been brought by the other team. Some have a terrible quaking fear that something good might happen in Iraq, that the situation might be at least to some degree redeemed. Their great interest is that Bushism be laid low and the president humiliated. They make lists of those who supported Iraq and who must be read out of polite society. Might these attitudes be called thuggish also?

Do you ever get the feeling that at this point Washington is run by two rival gangs that have a great deal in common with each other, including an essential lack of interest in the well-being of the turf on which they fight?

Not only hearts and minds are invested in a particular stand. Careers are, too. Candidates are invested in a position they took; people are dug in, caught. Every member of Congress is constrained by campaign promises: "We'll fight" or "We'll leave." The same for every opinion spouter -- every pundit, columnist, talk show host, editorialist -- all of whom have a base, all of whom pay a price for deviating from the party line, whatever the party, and whatever the line. All this freezes things. It makes immobile what should be fluid. It keeps people from thinking.

What is needed is simple maturity, a vow to look to -- to care about -- America's interests in the long term, a commitment to look at the facts as they are and try to come to conclusions. This may require in some cases a certain throwing off of preconceptions, previous statements and former stands. It would certainly require the mature ability to come to agreement with those you otherwise hate, and the guts to summon the help of, and admit you need the help of, the other side.

Without this, we remain divided, and our division does nothing to help Iraq, or ourselves.

It would be good to see the president calming the waters. Instead he ups the ante. Tuesday, speaking to the American Legion, he heightened his language. Withdrawing U.S. forces will leave the Middle East overrun by "forces of radicalism and extremism"; the region would be "dramatically transformed" in a way that could "imperil" both "the civilized world" and American security.

Forgive me, but Americans who oppose the war do not here understand the president to be saying: Precipitous withdrawal will create a vacuum that will be filled by killing that will tip the world to darkness. That's not what they hear. I think they understand him to be saying, I got you into this, I reaped the early rewards, I rubbed your noses in it, and now you have to save the situation.

His foes feel a tight-jawed bitterness. They believe it was his job not to put America in a position in which its security is imperiled; they resent his invitation to share responsibility for outcomes of decisions they opposed. And they resent it especially because he grants them nothing -- no previous wisdom, no good intent -- beyond a few stray words here and there.

And here's the problem. The president's warnings are realistic. He's right. At the end of the day we can't just up and leave Iraq. That would only make it worse. And it is not in the interests of America or the world that it be allowed to get worse.

Would it help if the president were graceful, humble, and asked for help? Why, yes. Would it help if he credited those who opposed him with not only good motives but actual wisdom? Yes. And if he tried it, it would make news. It would really, as his press aides say, break through the clutter.

I don't see how the president's supporters can summon grace from others when they so rarely show it themselves. And I don't see how anyone can think grace and generosity of spirit wouldn't help. They would. They always do in big debates. And they would provide the kind of backdrop Gen. Petraeus deserves, the kind in which his words can be heard.

[RKC]

And more from this last week.....

Just the Facts
By PEGGY NOONAN
September 15, 2007; Page W16
We are at a new point in the American experience of the Iraq war. It is also a decisive one: We have to decide, now, what to do. Stay. Go. Stay in a certain way, or at a certain size. But the mood of the moment, the mood of many Americans, is at odds with one of the demands of decision making.

Big decisions require a certain spirit, a certain do or die -- the faith and wildness to roll the dice, throw 'em, watch and roll again. That's gambling, of course, not decision making, but many big decisions are to some degree a gamble. Our president must think this, for he so often doubles down. The Decider is The Gambler.


Gen. Petraeus brings some clarity to the Iraq debate.
I was thinking this week about how the mood now, among normal people and political figures, is so different from the great burst of feeling that marked the early days of the war -- the 17 days to Baghdad, the unstoppable Third Infantry Division, the dictator's statue falling. The relief that Saddam didn't use poison gas, as he had against the Kurds, that he collapsed like an old suitcase and got himself out of Dodge. There was a lot of tenderness to those days, too -- the first tears at the loss of troops, the deaths of David Bloom and Michael Kelly. Still, the war seemed all triumph, a terrible swift answer to what had been done to us on 9/11.

Then occupation, the long slog, the beginning of bitterness. They thought they could do a war on the cheap? They thought shock and awe would stun ancient enmity into amity? And the puzzlements. Sometimes you looked at the war and wondered, Is Washington's plan here that good luck began this endeavor and good luck will continue? But how can you lean so much on luck! At this point, about 18 months ago, Americans started thinking, It's strange to assume good news. Bad news happens. Those guys in Washington must never have faced a foreclosure.

The American people are not impatient, but they are practical. They have a sense of justice and duty to which appeals can be addressed; they will change themselves to better themselves; and they are very proud of their country. But they have sacrificed in Iraq. And they didn't do it to make it worse. It's not that the U.S. hasn't won quickly. It's that the people of the U.S. can't see a path to winning.

And so last week spirits on all sides and among all sorts of players were relatively low, and statements seemed less like a debate than a sigh. But great nations can't sit around sighing, and all of us know this.

At the end of last week it seemed we knew the immediate future -- the administration will get what it asked for, more time -- but had no greater sense of long-term outcomes.

In a way, David Petraeus won the day when MoveOn.org came forth with its famous "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" ad. They shot themselves in the foot and deserve to be known by their limp. Republicans enacted fury (Thank you, O political gods, for showing the low nature of our foes!), and Democrats felt it (Embarrassed again by the loons!). No one -- no normal American -- thinks a U.S. Army four-star came back from Iraq to damage our democracy by telling lies.

Gen. Petraeus's testimony was dry, full of data points and graphs. He gave the impression that everything he said was, to the best of his considerable knowledge, true. One sensed that he was not saying everything he thought.

He was earnest, unflappable, and low-key to the point of colorless. Maybe he figures things are colorful enough. I felt relief that he was not wearing his heart on his sleeve or talking about our guys and gals. It was very Joe Friday: Just the facts, ma'am.

He clearly had a point of view, and it was, not surprisingly, in line with the administration's. But I think the appearance of independence and straight dealing that was necessary to his credibility was lessened by the White House's attempts to associate itself with him in the weeks leading up to his appearance.

The level of sophistication and seriousness shown by Sens. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain and Chris Dodd was equal to the moment, and seemed to me patriotic. They were probing, occasionally strict, always respectful. At one point Gen. Petraeus was asked by Sen. John Warner if Iraq has made America safer and said, "Sir, I don't know actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind." Later, invited to expand on this by Sen. Evan Bayh, he said he'd been surprised by Mr. Warner's question and added that "we have very, very clear, very serious national interests" in Iraq.

That of course is the great question. History will answer it.

An unspoken part of the larger story is that Gen. Petraeus backed up the argument that our troops have been stretched painfully thin, and the postsurge presence cannot, practically, be maintained. Thus a seeming illogic in the general's presentation: For the first time in years we're making progress, therefore we should reduce troop levels to the same point at which we made no progress.

In seeming to stand pat and at the same time lower temperatures by bowing to public pressure and reducing troop levels, the administration has made a virtue of necessity. This was not unshrewd.

As for the president's speech on Thursday night, it managed to seem both wooden and manipulative, which is a feat. For days conservative commentators had warned that the president should leave the week where it was, and not put on it his distinctive stamp. They were right. He said "the character of our people" is being revealed as we choose whether to back the Iraq endeavor. He said he would "explain" recent events there. He said the mission "will evolve." It will. It has.

One felt at the end of the week that Iraq will continue as a long and ongoing story, that it is unlikely that we will find a perfect moment to leave, that it will always be too soon, the situation too delicate. It will always seem a place perched on a precipice over a canyon.

One sensed too that Iraq will in fact be issue No. 1 to be faced by the next president, whoever he or she is. That individual, in January 2009, will likely be faced by mischief makers of all stripes throughout the capital, with a question that is an artificial construct. "Did he see the mission through?" Or "Did he lose Iraq?" The latter would be most unjust, because we never had Iraq. We haven't found it, in spite of our best efforts, because the people of Iraq never found it. And it was their nation to find. This seemed clearer than ever this week, which was part of the reason for the sighing.

[Rick Lee]

I read in a magazine yesterday that Bush did not even call Petraeus before his Hill appearance and only met with him a few days afterwards. The article also said Bush's tv address was written and approved before Petraeus's Hill appearance. I'm sure the Dems would have tried to make hay of it, had any cameras captured Petraeus visiting the WH before he went to the Hill. So, how was his testimony WH spin? Why weren't the Dems able to capitalize on his appearance? They seemed to slouch away. Hillary Clinton didn't even make eye contact with him, but rather read from notes. Plenty of others just made speeches and then asked one or two questions. Seems to me, this would have been a great chance to engage the general in some hard hard debate or questions, none of which they did. Why?

[frogger]

Didn't they meet in Iraq days before the testimony on the Hill?

[Rick Lee]

That could be. I never thought of that. But the article I read said Bush was caught off guard when a reporter at a WH luncheon (before his tv address) asked him if he had considered scrapping the speech, since he didn't know what Petraeus was going to say. Surely, one of Bush's advisers must have thought of that, no? And since polling after Bush's tv speech clearly shows he did not bolster support for the surge, it seems to me he and Petraeus were not really working together on this.

[Tobra]

Peggy Noonan has a firm grasp on the obvious. When those walking the halls of power start acting like mature adults the world will be a better place.

Petraeus was not treated fairly. He has earned more respect than he was shown. He was called a liar, among other things. I would not have been able to answer with the aplomb he showed, but I could never spend 30 years in the military either, not good enough at following orders.

[Superman]

I thought it was interesting that a supposedly liberal media focused a lot of negative time and attention that day (the day of Petraeus' speech) to the title of a Moveon article. On any momentous topic, there will be thousands of articles published. Dozens will be funny. Dozens will be hateful and inappropriate. Why then, did a liberal media stop and focus negative attention on this one article so frequently that anyone watching the news that day would know at least as much about the article as about the General's speech?

Betraeus. BFD. This sort of "news" can be showcased at any time. Why?

FWIW, I have a great deal of respect for the military. A great deal of respect for General Petraeus. His agenda of consistently tracking reliable performance numbers and carefully evaluating them shows a level of managerial acumen we have not seen before from this "administration." Ever.

Frankly, the notion that his speech could be expected to paint a supportive (of the surge and the "president's" agenda) picture of our achievements in Iraq is pretty darned basic. If you asked me for a report of my office's performance over the last xxx period of time, what would you expect me to present? Sheesh!

We've got an "administration" that has shown its willingness to twist and misrepresent information to deliberately deceive citizens. And now you expect a General under that command to deliver a report that makes a positive assessment of a political problem it probably understands poorly.

That's the problem, guys. Just as we erroneously think of the drug abuse problem in America as a "crime" problem, similarly, we erroneously talk about the situation in Iraq as being a military one. It is not. It is not the job of the military (or at least, I hope it is not tasked with this) to resolve political conflict. That would be the job of the White House, if that office were functional. Which it is not.

[Nathans_Dad]

It seems to me that whether you agree with the surge is one thing, but you cannot deny that the surge has shown progress. I saw on the news today that the Pentagon has said that violence in Iraq is at it's lowest level since 2006. I certainly haven't heard the daily reports of suicide bombings, etc.

Argue with whether we should be in Iraq at all, but to say the surge isn't working just isn't in line with the facts.