EVEN BEFORE Gen. David Petraeus made his report to Congress, several things had already become clear.
The report is not a soldier’s unvarnished assessment of the situation in Iraq. Petraeus made his report first to the White House, which then made its own additions and deletions. So the report is Petraeus’ evaluation of the situation on the ground, filtered through the preconceptions and expectations of the president and his staff.
It was clear before the report was made that Petraeus was going to recommend continuing the surge. He was expected to argue that increased military force provides the only possibility of eventually reaching a level of stability that would allow the Iraqis to take primary responsibility for their own security.
From a standpoint of military practicality, Petraeus is right. The only hope now for a good outcome in Iraq is the presence of enough U.S. troops to protect the fragile government and allow, finally, the training of a loyal and reliable Iraqi army and police force. But that is only a hope. There is no guarantee of success.
Continuing the surge would place a great strain on the U.S. military. By next spring, it could become necessary to revive the military draft to provide the troops needed to maintain strength in Iraq and still meet other military challenges around the world.
Iraq is now in the middle of a full-blown civil war, pitting Sunni against Shiia. The United States has no vested interest in that war except in stopping it. That places U.S. soldiers in a crossfire between the warring factions. Complicating matters is the continuing — and perhaps increasing — involvement of al-Qaida in Iraq. Al-Qaida’s main target is American and British troops. The terrorist organization is taking good advantage of the civil war, which holds those troops in place, where they are vulnerable to attack.
If the surge continues, the level of violence is not likely to be greatly reduced in the next few months. If troop levels are reduced soon — either massively, as some members of Congress are suggesting, or in small increments, as the president recently said he intends to do — the situation in Iraq is nowhere near a point at which the central government could maintain control.
There is no simple or painless answer in Iraq. The killing is likely to continue for years to come. The closest parallel to this political and religious civil war in the recent past is the fighting in Northern Ireland, which was, in many ways, a much simpler war than Iraq’s. Still, it took decades of combined military force and diplomacy — and the exhaustion and disillusionment of the warring factions — to finally produce peace.
Secretary of State Colin Powell warned the nation years ago of the “Pottery Barn rule” in invading Iraq. “You break it, you buy it.”
The question facing Americans now is this: Is there a point at which the United States will decide it has paid enough for its misadventure in Iraq, or will it continue to feel a moral responsibility to not only pay the ever-increasing price, but to mend the country as well?
treetrunk (anonymous) says...
You are a liar and you are misinforming the public. You did not listen to the general's opening statement. NO BODY SAW HIS REPORT BEFORE HE GAVE IT TO CONGRESS!!!. If I owned this newspaper your false statement would not have been allowed in print. It did appear, so shame on you and the Gazette. I'll bet White turned over in his grave on this article. You are entitled to your opinion, but, get the facts right and report them correctly. Just a question; when did reporters stop reporting the truth and making up stories?
September 11, 2007 at 6:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Renegade (anonymous) says...
Clearly you didn't pay attention to the General's opening statements Mr. Kelley, or you would have known that he said that "no one" had read his report, or approved it. (are you saying he is a liar?)
Tree Trunk called you a liar, and normally I would think that was an insulting remark, but, unfortunately you called the General the same thing.
Watching Congress make their remarks, and ask questions of the General, only reassures me that we need to have "Term Limits " for "everyone" in Washington. If our President can only serve for 8 years, that's as long as our Congress should be able to serve, as well. They get old and senile, and set in their ways.
It takes a lot of nerve to accuse the people of Iraq of not knowing what they are doing, and not being able to "get it together" when our own Politicians in Washington are guilty of the same thing. We want to give Iraq "months" to do what it has taken us years to try to do, and we still can't get it right.
I know we are in trouble when the Polls by the BBC and ABC News, are quoted as Gospel by our Politicians. Ridiculous!!!!!
Mr. Kelley, you have a lot of articles in the Gazette, but, your opinions have lost a lot of credibility for me.
When I say I appreciate what General Petraeus, and our Military are doing in Iraq, I mean it....and I don't have to add a .....BUT....to it, like some of our Politicians, in Washington, and our Media, have been doing.
September 11, 2007 at 8:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
I watched the hearings for most of the afternoon and came away with the following conclusion. David Patraeus and Ryan Crocker are men of honor and integrity. I listened carefully to what they and each of the senators had to say. I'm heartened that there are men like them who are willing to risk their lives on our behalf in Iraq and elsewhere. I'm also saddened that many of the senators (Boxer, Byrd, etc.) would stoop to character assasination to advance a political agenda. I'm also saddened that Patrick Kelley and the Gazette would stoop to the same level.
One of the sad lessons in the aftermath of 9-11 is that while there are some who are willing to give their lives, there are also some who are willing to use the hearings as an opportunity to advance journalism goals or political careers, knowing full well that those they villify are bound by honor to defend them.
The other sad truth I see in this is that if the chips were ever really down and our backs were truly against the wall we couldn't count on many of our political leaders or editorial page editors to stand with us. They'd report on the unfolding events; they'd criticize them. But they wouldn't help. Better that someone else bleed and die to preserve their rights above every one else's. I believe it's because they really don't understand the principle of "duty, honor, country."
In publishing this veiled piece of defamation, the Gazette has dishonored the principles of the profession men like David Patraeus, Ryan Crocker, and the thousands of men and women serving in Iraq tonight are honor and duty bound to protect. They are willing to give their lives to protect and preserve what Lincoln called the earth's "best hope." while some of our elected representatives and editorial page editors repay them with character assasination.
This is all very revealing. I'm seeing first hand who are and who are not people of honor in this equation.
I want everyone associated with the Emporia Gazette to feel the deepest sense of outrage I have at what they've done and for them to feel the deepest sense of shame for the unprincipled way in which they've violated the reciprocal obligation they should have to those who protect them.
September 11, 2007 at 8:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BabblingBrooke (anonymous) says...
I agree with Treetrunk, Renegade and Netloafer. How could anyone wake up to the Memorial of 9/11 and listen to General Patraeus and Ryan Cocker, and not feel proud to be an American, and proud of our Military, and the job they are doing in Iraq?
Six years ago we watched, stunned, as the Twin Towers imploded before our eyes. Today we watched and listened to our Senators say that we need to leave a country that we are helping to fight for the Democracy and Freedom we enjoy in our country. What happens to that Country after we leave, is of no concern to them.
It's embarrasing to see our Representatives trying to make themselves look good by saying that they support the troops, and appreciate what General Patraeus and Ryan Cocker are doing, but, they question their motives in their reports. I too heard the General say that they were HIS words - no one elses.
After seeing the disgusting words that were headlined in the media today referring to "General Patraeus and General Betray Us" I think we need to question the motives and credibility of more Journalists.
Thank you to our Military for making us proud. To the family of the young man that was killed in Iraq this week, I am so sorry for your loss, and I honor your son.
September 11, 2007 at 10:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
Netloafer, et al;
Sunday night I spent about three hours reading material that was purported to be synopses and text from Gen Petraeus' upcoming presentation to Congress. This came from all over the web and it turned out to be pretty much correct in its claims to accuracy. Some supposedly came from Petraeus's staff, other parts were from Pentagon leaks, and yet other parts were supposedly from remarks made by Petraeus, himself. Either those writers were astonishingly prescient or they had good information. Because it is almost always possible to find such information prior to the actual release of it, I have no doubt in my mind but that they had good info.
Petraeus did state that the report was his and that he could answer for it, personally. I believe him. But for anyone to think that he did not discuss the contents of the report extensively with people at the Pentagon and the White House is naive if only because it just does not work that way. Petraeus' CINC is the President. It is his job, in part, to coordinate his statements with his boss. This is not something that just Bush does, it is something that presidents do, and for good reason.
The messages coming out of the White House the last few days also mirror what Petraeus said to Congress. There is no coincidence in that. There is also nothing wrong with it, either.
Gen Petraeus is one of the finest officers in our military and his opinions are to be respected. I think Mr Kelley did that but also disagreed.
We must take the information provided by Petraeus, Crocker, the Pentagon and White House. We must also take information from polls, other military officers, diplomats, politicians, and knowledgeable people. And then we must, as Mr Kelley says, consider it in light of deciding what we should do.
Some of Petraeus' data is being questioned, too, and not just by liberal organizations. For instance, Iraqis who were killed by shooting them in the back of the head were counted as political killings but those killed by being shot elsewhere were "criminal" killings and not counted for the purposes of this report. That is just stupid and Petraeus was wrong to allow it to be part of his report.
Accuracy is critically important. Everyone is guilty of pushing their own points of view to the credible edge right now because this is such an emotively charged issue. When found guilty of going over that edge of credibility, their perspective is damaged. Petraeus must be very careful about doing that.
CAF
September 11, 2007 at 10:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
CAFEmporia
Folks can parse what Patrick Kelley said however they want, but when you wade through the rhetorical dancing he was attacking his character. He was doing it for his own partisan purposes.
The same held true in the hearings yesterday. To a man, or woman, the senators thanked him for his service. Then, a good number of the Democrats proceeded to shred his character (Boxer,Byrd, et all). They did so very carefully, very skilfully, knowing that the general is quite popular with his troops and the American people. In essence, they were saying some things up front for media consumption and then in essence calling him the scum of the earth..
I believe he discussed the report with the White House and the Pentagon, but I don't believe that he changed the report to reflect administration thinking. The report was, and is, his!
I spent a good deal of my professional life doing analysis and presentations for executive level consumption. I always, as a matter of protocol, gave everyone involved an advance copy of what I was to present. I did so because the right thing to do was to give those involved an opportunity to be ready to present their case if questions ever arose from what I was reporting. In every case I did this I never had a request from anyone in executive management to change what I was reporting to suit their needs.
I use that as an example of what really happens in this type of situation. General Patraeus is a far more honorable man than I, and I'm certain that he would not cook the books.
I have no doubt that both sides in this issue want to tell their story to the American people. In that regard there is a question I believe needs to be answered - who is acting honestly and honorably?
The important question that flows from that is whether or not to continue the surge. The general wants to continue. The Democrats want to pull the plug. The general (and Ryan Crocker as well) has testified that withdrawing from Iraq would bring on a strategic and humanitarian disaster. I think what many Democrats want is defeat in Iraq, but they know that a precipitous withdrawal would leave the blood on their hands. They want a clean, implication free defeat and that just isn't possible. That troubles them, as well it should.
In his testimony General Patraeus said emphatically that the report was his, that it was not a White House product. The reason that some attacked him was that they didn't like the implications of what he had to say.
If the Congress had no intention of considering the Patraeus report or listening to his testimony they'd have been much better off to have not allowed it to begin with.
September 12, 2007 at 6:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
CAFEmporia
You said the general should be careful about going over the edige of credibility. Does that same standard apply to the Congress? Does it apply to Patrick Kelley.
As you can tell, I'm damned angry about this. I'm tired of the moveon.org mentality that's afoot in this country. It can be the overt, ugly kind like the disgusting ad placed in the New York Times, or it can be the kindler, gentler version printed in the Gazette or other media outlets, but it still makes me angry.
The intent seems clear to me. The message being brought has troubling implications, so the Democrats have embarked on a clumsy attempt at character assasination, done as only lawyers can do.
I've cast my lot with the good general. He's a man of honor and integrity. If it came down to it, I'd leave my porch light on for him. I'd consider him an honored guest in my home. I can't say the same for some senators or journalists in this country.
September 12, 2007 at 6:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
The following from Michael Goodwin published in today's New York Daily News sums up how I feel about the way David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker were treated by some of our legislators and a good number of journalists:
"For Democrats, the hearings were a disaster. They don't have the votes to force a withdrawal and many were left sputtering mad over their inability to get a usable quote out of Petraeus or Ambassador Ryan Crocker that would allow them to declare defeat for Bush's strategy. Never before has it been so clear that some - Ted Kennedy, for example - are putting partisanship ahead of country."
"Indeed, their performance was so shockingly awful that I am inclined to believe charges that some Democrats actually hope we lose. Up to now, I've always viewed such charges as rancid partisanship that demonized legitimate differences. Now I'm not so sure."
"My distress began with a smear on Petraeus from Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), who declared his testimony not credible - before Petraeus had even spoken! Far worse was the scandalous newspaper ad by MoveOn.org that shouted "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" There is a special place in hell for such vile people."
I stand by my first comments. The Gazette should be ashamed of the way it used the hearings as an opportunity to slander a good and faithful public servant. Patrick Kelley, and the Gazette, have done a great disservice to the noble profession that employs them, the same profession that David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker are doing their utmost to protect thousands of miles from home.
September 12, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
netloafer,
Please, chill. You are taking umbrage because you think a man you admire is being questioned and insulted. Keep in mind that, as commander of forces in Iraq, Petraeus becomes a symbol and a figurehead for a huge organization.
There is no doubt that some of the data he presented was incorrect or, at least, was generated by methods which are highly questionable. I doubt that many people think he, himself, came up with those numbers. However, he is the one who spoke them and used them to support his own recommendations.
These hearings were not a disaster for anyone, I think. There are not the votes to end this war, but the hearings did not do that, it was already the case. Democrats are split on the questions about what to do as are Republicans.
I believe Petraeus when he said that nobody saw his report before he delivered it. However, I do not believe there was anything "factual" in that report which was not vetted first by the Pentagon and the White House. When Petraeus delivered his recommendations for the future, I sincerely believe those were in fact his personal views. I also believe that, were his personal views inconsistent with the President's, he would have been relieved of command and someone else would have been appointed.
When it comes to opinions, our general officers speak best only after they retire. While on active duty they are responsible for carrying out the orders and, to some lesser extent, representing the views of their Commander in Chief, the President. Their oath of office constrains them from pitting themselves against the President's policies or desires unless those become unconstitutional.
To criticize Petraeus's recommendations for prosecuting the war in Iraq is a way of criticizing the Bush administration's policies. To personalize such discussion is to lose objectivity.
With that understanding, I think that Mr Kelley's editorial was not unreasonable and that his conclusions were a valid opinion, whether or not you or I agree. I do not think that he assaulted the integrity or honor of General Petraeus, the individual.
Rather than discuss the merits of what was said, we are discussing the rights of each of us to express our own opinions. You criticize MoveOn dot org's methodology, for instance, ignoring the Swift Boat Veterans' grotesque strategies. It would be easy for me to feel insulted by some of what you said here. I won't do that; you and I have had intelligent disagreements on these pages and I don't think that is what you meant.
But I see no point in discussing how insulted we feel. I would prefer discussing what our nation should actually do next.
C A French
September 12, 2007 at 11:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
netloafer, regarding Patrick Kelley and Congress, you said, and I quote, "He was doing it for his own partisan purposes."
What, specifically, were you doing when you wrote your last three posts? Opening minds? Spreading "the Good Word"? Or just writing for your own partisan purposes?
Melissa
September 12, 2007 at 11:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
My primary purpose was to defend General Petraeus. Not that he needs my defense. He's a man of honor and integrity. But, I do take umbrage when people attack his integrity.
This is what Patrick Kelley said:
"The report is not a soldier’s unvarnished assessment of the situation in Iraq. Petraeus made his report first to the White House, which then made its own additions and deletions. So the report is Petraeus’ evaluation of the situation on the ground, filtered through the preconceptions and expectations of the president and his staff."
This is what General Petraeus had to say to Congress:
"At the outset, I would like to note that this is my testimony. Although I have briefed my assessment and recommendations to my chain of command, I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by, nor shared with, anyone in the Pentagon, the White House, or Congress."
I'll leave it to this forum's readers to sort out who is truthful in what they've said.
I'm not too concerned about whether or not I open anyone's mind. I think people know where I stand. That's enough for me.
While I no doubt have partisan purposes in my communication, the posts I've made here had one purpose - to call the Gazette to task for the way in which they attempted to villify a good man. Whatever one's feelings are about Iraq, I'd like to think there'd be enough decency to listen to an honorable man without calling him a liar before he's ever uttered a word of testimony.
I was young when the Army-Mccarthy hearings took place. It was a shameful episode. I well remember the words of Mr. Welch to Senator McCarthy, who had used his position of power to engage in political attacks, destroying the lives of some good people. "Have you no sense of decency...Have you no sense of shame?"
I believe that decency should have been the standard for this good man. I don't believe he deserved the hatchet treatment he got from the Congress, moveon.org, or the Emporia Gazette.
My faith has little to do with this matter. I'm not ashamed of it, but I don't see this as an opportunity of evangelism or "spreading the Good Word."
Finally, I doubt that there is any room for reasoned discussion about the war in Iraq right now. We've moved way past that point in this country. As I said in one of my earlier posts, I've cast my lot with General Petraeus. I trust him. I believe him to be a man of honor. That does not mean that he couldn't be wrong in his assesment of Iraq. But, when he's called a liar before he even says a word, there is something terribly wrong, in my estimation, with the state of politics and civility in this country.
September 12, 2007 at 12:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
netloafer;
I agree with you that there is something terribly wrong with the state of politics and civility in this country. That has always been the case, though. You may also be right that we as a group and a nation have moved past the point of reasoned discussion on questions of Iraq, but I do not think so. The vast majority of us, regardless of political suasion, hope for a good outcome there.
I can respect your point of view on this matter though I do not agree that what has taken place is all that bad. I, too, think very highly of Gen Petraeus and hope his career continues to advance to the benefit of us all. The problems in Iraq are not just military, though, and much of what needs to be accomplished is beyond Petraeus special skills.
Do keep in mind that Mr Kelley, in his editorial acknowledged that: "From a standpoint of military practicality, Petraeus is right." My reading of the editorial was that Kelley questioned the other aspects of our strategies. Perhaps I simply read my own questions into it and thus deemphasize what you found offensive. The problem with having such biases is that we are often unaware of them.
Regardless, I hope that you and I and others will continue to discuss what each of us thinks should be done in Iraq and in other areas of governance. That we often disagree should provide knowledge of how to make a second approach to understanding.
CAF
September 12, 2007 at 12:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
CAFEmporia
I agree. The choices we had to make getting into Iraq were agonizing. I recall listening to the congressional debate back then. I remember listening to good men like Paul Wellstone on one side of the issue and Lindsey Graham on the other. The debate was spirited, but it was also civil.
I also agree that we need to focus on where the country should be going from here. I believe the general was making his case. One of the questions Senator Graham had for him was right to the point. He asked what the general would call his best case scenario if we continued the surge. Then he asked what the worst case scenario would be if we left. There are implications to each. If we stay we'll continue to spend $9BB a month and incur, based on current statisitical data, 60-70 American deaths per month. That's a high price. The cost of abandonment in his estimation was a humanitarian and strategic disaster. He then asked the general, who has a son who just graduated from paratroop school, who will undoutbedly serve in Iraq or Afghanistan, if he believed the cost of staying would be worth it. General Petraues answered, Yes."
I understand that the congress has a heavy burden. I pray that they and the administration lead us to to a good outcome in Iraq. I do not believe that villifying a good public servant advances us toward an acceptable answer for Iraq. Calling the messenger a liar is not a good place to begin.
I believe that credibility is paramount here. I also belive that the general has gained my confidence. Sadly, I find that men like Patrick Kelley and others who've attacked his character have become much smaller in my eyes.
September 12, 2007 at 1:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
Netloafer;
Thank you for the comments. I'm sorry you feel as strongly as you do about how Gen Petraeus has been treated, but I understand, too, where you are coming from.
Sadly, he is now a political figure, not just a military man. That often goes badly and I, too, hate it when someone who is really good at being a general gets sucked into or puts themselves into politics and is then castigated or even destroyed for political reasons. I also remember Colin Powell addressing the UN in Feb '03. The consequences of that will resonate and bruise generals in political positions from now on. David Petraeus is in such a position and, no matter how good a guy he may be or what position he takes, he is going to get bruised.
In today's news reports, some of the details of what he suggests are coming out. For instance, he again said he should not have answered Senator Hagel's (R-NB) question asking whether or not our actions in Iraq are improving or hurting the safety of America the way he did. He said he did not know, that he hadn't really thought it through. His anwser seemed obviously true and heartfelt. His regret and attempts to change his answer seem very politically motivated. However you look at it, you have to disbelieve one or the other of his statements now. He shot himself in the foot.
Also, he spoke of the "drawdown" as taking us from 20 to 15 brigades which were assumed to have meant returning us to about 130,000 troops. That is apparently not the case. Military spokespeople are saying that it depends upon the size of the brigades being discussed and that is not decided. ("It depends on what the definition of 'is' is.") In other words, the probability is, the number of troops left in Iraq will be higher than what was implied. Was Petraeus being coy with us with his vague answers? Letting us believe he meant something different than he knew he was saying, is that a lie? The White House is saying that what he meant was different yet and the president is presumed to be saying tonight that Petraeus meant it all depends on what happens and how we feel about it in a year or so whether we'll leave troop levels at one number or another.
No kidding, netloafer, I think the Pentagon and the White House are doing more to damage the credibility of Gen Petraeus than are the Democrats. I think the Democrats are feeling like he is gaming us all when we sincerely want to truly understand the situation so good decisions can be made about what to do now.
I think he needs to go talk to Colin Powell. The first thing he should ask is, "What the hell have I done to myself?"
September 13, 2007 at 11:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
CAFEmporia
The general was testifying because it was a congressional requirement, not because he'd put himself in that position. I'm not naive enough to believe that the Democrats ever expected things to get better in Iraq, nor am I naive enough to believe that they even wanted that. With the surge producing results, the only thing they had left was to cleverly attack his character.
I sense that you're taking a bit of pleasure from this character assasination ("What the hell have I done to myself?"). You're really enjoying this, aren't you? Let me make this clear. The general hasn't done anything to himself. Politicians have. All he's done is faithfully serve his country. I guess this is the kind of thanks he gets from them.
Getting bruised comes with the territory. The good general can handle that. He's serving in harm's way; he knows all about that. But I don't believe that villifying him comes with the territory. I take it that you do.
I take it that you're now saying the general was lying.
I take it that you believe that our complete, immediate withdrawal from Iraq will make America safer. I believe that's an exceedingly dangerous conclusion, but I suspect that's a majority view in this country.
As I've said before, history will judge our actions in Iraq. It will judge the President, General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker, the Congress, you, and me. When it comes to that I'm much more willing to cast my fate with the good general than I am with our congress or you. I believe that that's a difficult path, frought with difficulty and uncertainty. But, it is the path of honor.
September 13, 2007 at 3:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
Netloafer,
I believe that what you believe is incorrect - part of it, anyway. Yes, I do use humor to soften the pain I feel about some situations and I do feel a good deal of pain in this. It broke my heart when it became clear that Colin Powell had been used to speak things not true to gain support for this Administration to invade Iraq. He was and is, I believe, an honorable man, but he spoke lies and insisted upon being believed.
As I have said before, I do not believe we should withdraw all of our troops and I addressed that posting to you. Are you calling me a liar now? Are you saying that you know better what I believe than I do, myself?
And you are absolutely wrong that General Petraeus did not choose to accept this position knowing full well that it could lead to a political role. That was a choice he made to accept the assignment, just as many others have done before. He has shown himself to be a brilliant military strategist and leader. I wish he had stuck with that.
I do wish that Petraeus had not accepted such a high profile which was thrust upon him by President Bush only because Petraeus had and still has a much higher approval rating that does Bush.
No, I do not think he was lying except in the way Powell lied. Everything I have read about Petraeus indicates he would not do that. But he is dealing in difficult, often arbitrary questions on behalf of an administration which is infamous for its political spin and, yes, for outright lying. Petraeus has accepted a political role within this administration and he therefore gets some of the taint.
Yesterday, Petraeus granted 22 interviews with various news media. That was choice, not a part of the duties of a general field officer. So, too, was the way he has presented himself to the public and to Congress. This does not damage his reputation as a military leader with me, but I am not happy about it because I know that most people will not be able to separate the roles he is playing. If he is poor at one, most people will fail to recognize how good he is at the other.
Finally, when it comes to "honor", I recall reading histories of the Civil War in which countless Confederate soldiers spoke of fighting for "honor", and one of those honorable things they fought for was the right to own other people. They were completely wrong about what honor meant and yet they were willing to die for it. I hope that what you think of as honor is not sullied and tainted, too.
September 13, 2007 at 5:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
CAFEmporia
You can twist the concept of honor however you want, but I think you know what I meant when I wrote of it. I would have considered it a great honor to give my life as part of the liberation of Americans held in bondage had I lived during those times. I grew up in the shadow of Tremont Temple, where great men and women like Frederick Douglas, William Lloyd Garrison, Harriet Beecher Stowe called forcefully for the nation to eliminate the scourge of slavery. I spent a good number of my formative years engaged in the civil rights movement. I considered the precepts of the movment sacred then, and still do today. There may be a lot of things in life I don't know about, but I do know about the meaning of honor. If my conviction is something that can be sullied or tainted in such a cavalier way, then I gladly accept the epithet.
It is true that someone in that type of role is sometimes cast in political situations. But saying that does not mean that those questioning him have the right to villify him. They can question the strategy and tactics all they like. They can disagree with it. They can, and should, ask hard questions. But they have absolutely no right to attack his integrity because they don't like the message he's bringing.
September 14, 2007 at 5:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
Netloafer;
Davy Crocket was my childhood hero. Remember him? He was a pretty big guy back in the 50’s. His motto was, “Be sure you’re right, then go ahead.” I thought that was absolutely great and I adopted it for myself, too. I vividly remember Fess Parker, hired by Disney to portray Davy, telling his band of Tennesseans that they were going to Texas for honor. It was the honorable thing to do. In fact, that is one of the reasons Crocket did not run for Congress again but instead took off for Texas.
Later, as an adult, I revisited all that. By that time, I knew that being sure one was right was a very iffy proposition. There are all kinds of things factoring unknown into that equation. I also realized that, at the Alamo, Davy and his men were insurgents, not patriots, as we were told when we were children. They became patriots only because the Americans who went to Texas were able to beat off the Mexican army. Were we to draw an analogy between the Texans and what is happening in Iraq, the American Texans would play the role of the foreign terrorists / insurgents. NOTE: I am NOT saying the Texans were terrorists attacking civilians, only that they were foreigners inciting violence against the government there.
I do not think that you are a dishonorable man: quite the contrary. What I said was cautionary. Be careful of sacrifices for the sake of “honor”. Sometimes, that can be deceptive.
I think that, in the case of Iraq, what we do next should absolutely be not about honor. It should be based upon logic, and there is very little about logic that is being discussed in this context. We should decide definite goals – which has not yet happened – and we should decide the definitive steps required to achieve those goals. Then we should decide whether they can be achieved and whether the costs involved are equivalent. To do it for honor: no. That requires emotional values as logical equivalents, and that is false. We have had quite enough falseness from government recently. It is time to do what is right, not what feels good.
I will be gone for a couple weeks, so any lack of response from me is simply because I’m not around.
CAF
September 14, 2007 at 9:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
CAFEmporia
I believe that logic and honor both apply. I too have passed from childhood to adulthood. As the Book says, I've learned as best I could to put away childish things.
I never was a big fan of Davy Crockett. My heroes were men like John F Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Alan Shepard, Ted Williams, and the Boston Red Sox. The only one that comes close to Mssr. Crocket is the Sox. My emotions told me that I could replace Jimmy Piersall as their center fielder. Logic and lack of talent taught me otherwise.
I think there's some truth in what you say. Sacrifice solely for honor can be deceptive. But, you know well from having read my comment threads that honor isn't the only thing I stake my beliefs on.
Logic, too, can be deceptive. I can take an A-form proposition, for example, and prove (wrongly) that my cat is actually a dog because it has four legs.
You're absolutely wrong about there not being definitve steps in Iraq. They're there, it's just that you and the Democrats disagree with them. Both General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker layed out a plan for the next year, including troop drawdowns. Beyond that, they could not. I suppose it would have been easy for them to do that, but I believe they were being honest and honorable.
I well remember the fall of Saigon in 1975. Nixon and Kissinger had called our withdrawl "peace with honor." As I watched the boat people desperately floating in the South China Sea, the Khmer Rouge brutalize and murder over one-third of Cambodia's population, as I read of the political re-indocrination and suppression of those unloyal to the revolution (particularly Christians), I couldn't fit it into my definition of either peace or honor.
In the early months of World War II it was far from certain that we could win. Thing were grim. Where logic could easily have failed, honor, duty, morality filled the gaps. It was the glue that held us together. In 1943 and 1944 President Roosevelt began speaking of the inevitable victory. Even at those times it was far from certain. The Axis military machines were indeed formidable. Victory meant sacrifice and, tragically, death.
I would to God that we could find a way to negotiate an honorable and logically viable solution to Iraq and the wider war on terror. Perhaps the Democratic Party and its supporters have some superior wisdom in this regard, perhaps they can negotiate us into peace, but I doubt it. The only plan I hear from that side is withdrawal.
September 14, 2007 at 10:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )