Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
American Caesar II: This Time, He Actually Has a Roman-Sounding Name
This is the speech the New York Sun's editorial board wants Gen. Petraeus to give next week.
So let me make this choice easy for you. I believe we have a good chance to drive Al Qaeda and Iran's network from Iraq and stand up in due time a functioning democracy in Baghdad. I am prepared, even eager, to command our forces in this battle -- but only on one condition: That you signal that you share my goal of victory. If you think I am mistaken and wish to continue your efforts to undermine me, then I cannot command. Absent that signal, I will resign, effective immediately, and take my case to the voters in a run for the presidency on a campaign to finish the work of winning the war and redeeming the sacrifice of so many Iraqis, allies, and our own GIs.
We don't even need to get into the whole Smedley Butler/Douglas MacArthur/jock-sniffing authoritarian right tar pit to explain why this is a silly fantasy. Petraeus actually isn't that popular. Rasmussen puts his popularity at 24 percent positive, 34 percent negative—better than Michael Moore, not as good as Valerie Plame. And voters are pretty split on whether Petraeus will tell us the unvarnished, un-spun truth about Iraq.
It's pretty entertaining: You've got a pro-war right absolutely, Yukio Mishima-devoted to its unpopular stances and an anti-war left that only ever wimps out on its popular stances. To wit.
Related: Spencer Ackerman's muscle-destroying workout with the good general-cum-godhead.
|9.6.07 @ 10:18AM|#
How about this idea Dave, read the god damned report and see if it matches the truth on the ground? Shocking idea isn't it? The bottomline is that unless Patreus tells you what you want to hear, you are going to pan him. I am not a huge Patreus fan, but the guy is on the ground and knows a little more about the situation than you or I do. God forbid anyone actually listen to what the guy has to say and make an informed judgement. No, much easier to point to some half assed poll that says he is "unpopular" as if being popular would somehow make him right.
Dave Weigel|9.6.07 @ 10:23AM|#
No, much easier to point to some half assed poll that says
he is "unpopular" as if being popular would somehow make him
right.
It is relevant to the fantasy of
Petraeus-the-presidential-candidate. Read the post.
crap-action-jackson|9.6.07 @ 10:32AM|#
General Petraeus is a great great man. We should do whatever he says.
lunchstealer|9.6.07 @ 10:34AM|#
You've got a pro-war right absolutely, Yukio Mishima-devoted
to its unpopular stances
If only they showed his true dedication to the cause.
OTTO: Ve are the Judean People's Front. Crack
suicide squad. Suicide squad! Attack!
J.P.F.: Uh! Ugh. Aggh...
OTTO: That showed 'em, huh? Oooh.
|9.6.07 @ 10:38AM|#
I hope he gives an honest report, but I can't help thinking whatever report he gives will be spun by the White House prior.
|9.6.07 @ 10:41AM|#
Hold it, Smedley Butler was the "Fighting Quaker" who wrote
WAR
IS A RACKET.
I mean the guy who wrote
It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American who pays the bills to stay out of foreign entanglements. For a very few this racket, like bootlegging and other underworld rackets, brings fancy profits, but the cost of operations is always transferred to the people - who do not profit.
could be writing speeches for Ron Paul.
Actually some of his other speeches indicate that he could have
been a running mate for Dennis Kucinich.
Yeah, he migh have won two Medals of Honor but I'm fairly
sure he doesn't belong where you've got him.
Dave Weigel|9.6.07 @ 10:44AM|#
Yeah, he migh have won two Medals of Honor but I'm fairly
sure he doesn't belong where you've got him.
I'm referring to the abortive right-wing effort to get Butler to
overthrow FDR. That's probably unclear. Probably should fix it.
|9.6.07 @ 10:48AM|#
I am prepared, even eager, to command our forces in this
battle -- but only on one condition: That you signal that you share
my goal of victory. If you think I am mistaken and wish to continue
your efforts to undermine me, then I cannot command.
Since when are general officers of the military supposed to give
"conditions" under which they will fulfill their duties? Bush
should fire Petraeus immediately if he gives a speech such as
this.
|9.6.07 @ 10:53AM|#
I'm referring to the abortive right-wing effort to get Butler to overthrow FDR.
Gotcha.
Actually I always thought Butler's political views were pretty
well-known by then.
So it really makes me wonder what those plutocrats were thinking
picking him for the job.
Rhywun|9.6.07 @ 11:24AM|#
The Sun is an even greater shill for the GOP than the Post. When I read it at all, I don't go anywhere near the editorial pages because I already know what they will contain.
|9.6.07 @ 11:28AM|#
Let's not forget, Petraeus is not only a general, but also the
"War Czar."
In one position, he can design operations, order raids, command
troops, etc. regardless of his popularity, because of his place in
the chain of command.
In the other, he is tasked with winning a war. History tells us
that such a feat is more than a matter of guns and bodies. He can
resign from one job without having to relenquish the other.
|9.6.07 @ 11:35AM|#
Looking at Rasmussen's favorable/unfavorable, the most surprising one is Pat Tillman's 18% unfavorable. Why in the hell would anybody have an unfavorable opinion of Pat Tillman?
|9.6.07 @ 11:47AM|#
Pat Tillman apparently didn't love Jesus. I'm surprised more people don't hate him for that.
Franklin Harris|9.6.07 @ 11:51AM|#
Wow. If I had a stroke and lost half of my mental faculties, I could be a New York Sun editor, too!
|9.6.07 @ 11:52AM|#
on one condition: That you signal that you share my goal of
victory.
Signal?? The hell? What kind of signal are you looking for.
Actually it would be kind of cool if the General was reading his
report before congress, and when he paused and looked up, all the
members gave him the He-Man Woman-Haters 'high sign'.
|9.6.07 @ 11:52AM|#
As usual, the military men are a hell of a lot brighter and more
able than their jock-sniffing cheerleaders back home.
General Patreus isn't going to say that we have a good chance of
accomplishing those things, because he only gave them a 1 in 4
chance of working 6 months ago, and since then, little or no
progress has been made, as the military has run out the last bit of
string.
But, as with all militarilty-ignorant fascists, it's all about
Will.
|9.6.07 @ 11:53AM|#
He didn't love Jesus and he hated Bush. Also, he was a Chomsky fan (the dude, not the lovedoll, that is).
|9.6.07 @ 11:56AM|#
Oh, and the LA Times reported last month that the "Petreaus
Report" will actually be written by the White House and there are
now rumblings that the report will be delivered by Condi and
Dr. Zaius Gen. Petraeus will only do a closed door
Congressional briefing.
|9.6.07 @ 11:58AM|#
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/15/petraeus-white-house-report/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070815-1.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0807/Republican_suggests_White_House_will_tweak_Petraeus_report.html
http://democrats.senate.gov/americaspeaks/071907_bruhns.cfm
The White House is writing the report.
|9.6.07 @ 11:58AM|#
Signal?? The hell? What kind of signal are you looking
for.
A toe tap and waving of the hands beneath the stall.
|9.6.07 @ 12:01PM|#
So if the White House is writing the report? Shades of Colin Powell's UN Speech.
|9.6.07 @ 12:02PM|#
Should Petraeus have an attendant standing next to the table to lop off his head if the report is not received favorably?
|9.6.07 @ 12:21PM|#
The GAO report, on the other hand, was not written by people
with political, personal, or ideological ties to the
administration. It was written by professional auditors who have
spent their careers analyzing the success of government
operations.
And the GAO report says this dog just ain't guh HUNT.
Whoa. I went all Fred Thompson for a second there.
|9.6.07 @ 2:28PM|#
"I believe we have a good chance to drive Al Qaeda and
Iran's network from Iraq and stand up in due time a functioning
democracy in Baghdad."
I hate to point this out, but merely having "a good chance" at
achieving something means that the odds are that you'll fail, i.e.,
failure is more likely than success.
|9.6.07 @ 2:44PM|#
John: We have reason to believe that Petraeus is incapable of
properly assessing the situation on the ground. To wit: Paul Krugman
recently unearthed an article written by Gen. Petraeus.
Petraeus published an op-ed in the Washington Post six weeks before
the 2004 election claiming that tangible progress had been made,
and that there had been "tangible progress" in Iraq, and that
"momentum has gathered in recent months."
Wrong then (and maybe just maybe selling a political viewpoint).
Why wouldn't he be wrong now (and maybe selling a political
viewpoint)?
|9.6.07 @ 4:15PM|#
I doubt a single report has come out of, or through the WH, that
wasn't edited to favor Bush's opinion.
I realized Bush had a problem with honesty when the WH edited the
EPA report to remove references to man made global warming back in
2001 or 2002. Not that I believe the global warming crowd, but the
EPA report should have been released as written. The merits or lack
thereof could have been debated afterwards.
I expect the same M.O. for the so called Petreaus report. Bush
wants things presented his way, and he's not willing to let facts
interfere.
The bottom line is Bush is not interested in presenting the whole
story.
|9.6.07 @ 4:18PM|#
Well one thing the Petraeus Report changes is that republicans
can't say "wait for the Petraeus Report" any longer.
I've got to figure some democrats are going to push for a deadline
for witdrawal, or some kind of real exit plan, as a condition of
continued funding of the war. Everyone knows the war is very
unpopular and its going to stay that way. Democrats could easily
improve their approval rating by taking a strong stand on this and
they have little to lose by doing so.
|9.6.07 @ 4:23PM|#
Of course the white house will try to spin the things and make it sound like progress is steadily being made in all or most areas, but almost nobody buys their spin any more and they can't get people to ignore the facts on the ground.
|9.6.07 @ 4:40PM|#
""but almost nobody buys their spin any more and they can't get
people to ignore the facts on the ground."""
Don't bet on it.
I'm guessing that all those Republicans that were giving Bush till
September will give him more time. What I find funny is the
benchmark spin. Almost meeting benchmarks is a form of success. If
my job gave me $10,000 to deposit into a bank, and I only deposited
$5,000. I don't think they would praise my attempt. Clearly I would
have failed my assignment.
|9.6.07 @ 4:47PM|#
"""read the god damned report and see if it matches the truth on
the ground? ""
As much as I agree with John, I have to point out that the people
that were singing that song when it looked bad are not waiting for
the report to say things are better. You only need to wait for the
report if you say things are bad, no need to wait if you praise the
efforts. I'm not sure how the White House has room for the balls on
these people, they have no problem playing the American public as
fools.
|9.6.07 @ 5:46PM|#
TrickyVic
Its true that hardcore republican loyalists are going to continue
to support Bush, almost regardless of what happens, out of sheer
party affiliation. And a handful of diehard neocons and other
assorted hawks will continue to support Bush's refusal to set a
timetable or come up with an exit plan.
But a large majority of the American public opposes Bush on Iraq
and they aren't changing their minds any time soon. People want the
troops out of combat regions of Iraq in the forseeable future, the
president is not offering that, and no amount of white house
spinning is going to change or obscure those facts.
|9.7.07 @ 5:39AM|#
Should you be name-checking an author you can't read, at all? Are you sure doing so supports your point?
|9.7.07 @ 3:14PM|#
How about this idea Dave, read the god damned report and see
if it matches the truth on the ground?
Whoops, the administration announced today that there isn't
actually going to be a written report.
Because things are going so well, I guess.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245