General Petraeus or General Out of the Way, Gus?

David Weigel | September 19, 2007

After all the bickering, the radio ads, the Freedom's Watching, the Moving On.org, Gen. David Petraeus's testimony turned out to be a bust.

A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday found essentially no shift in views on whether U.S. forces are likely to win the war — two-thirds predict they won't — and if the United States should set a firm timetable to remove troops.

In the days before Petraeus' appearances and President Bush's speech to the nation last week, 60% supported setting a timetable for withdrawal and sticking to it "regardless of what is going on in Iraq at the time." Now 59% do.

No poll shows any huge movement on war opinion. Pew shows a five-point bump among people who think the war is going "well" or "fairly well." But that bump consists almost entirely of Republicans. Not that their opinions don't matter, but the Republicans need to win hearts and minds outsideof their party if they don't want the war to bring them low next year.

If you want to see a poll that shows actual movement, check out John Sununu's comeback in New Hampshire, from 28 points down to 5 points down.

Comments

New World Dan|9.19.07 @ 9:16AM|#

The only way Patraeus' testimony would have changed anything is if he had called the surge a failure and recommended an immediate withdrawal. There have been a lot of pro-war ads running lately also.

In any event, we won the war. The absurd exercise in nationbuilding has been a failure. Ultimately, I think, the Iraqi people will get the government that they want and deserve. I will not be too surprised if it kind of resembles their old governement.

|9.19.07 @ 9:23AM|#

I was worried about those new polls, but then I asked around on FreeRepublic and found out they were all lies. Any more polls saying the same thing will also be lies. Oh, when will the MSM stop lying?

|9.19.07 @ 9:24AM|#

I doesn't matter how many people want us out of Iraq. Since the Democrats differ from Republicans in rhetoric only, there's nothing to be done about it. People can march in the streets shouting and waiving their signs all they want, it doesn't make the slightest difference.

|9.19.07 @ 9:33AM|#

Did anyone actually watch this guy's testimony?

Most people made up their minds a long time ago and are now thinking about their halloween costumes.

New World Dan|9.19.07 @ 9:38AM|#

I read a summary of his testimony. Basicly it reads as follows: "What I'm doing is working. Stick with me and we'll slowly start drawing the troop levels down."

|9.19.07 @ 9:41AM|#

General Petraeus was buried by Wide Stance Larry.

|9.19.07 @ 9:52AM|#

The only thing interesting about Petraeus is when the republicans turn on him like a pack of jackals to save their own hides, just like they've done to every other minor functionary selected solely on the ability and willingness to do exactly what he's been told. The surge has already turned from "the presiden't plan for success" to "general petraeus' failed plan"...it shouldn't take long with the elections coming

Not A Pirate|9.19.07 @ 10:18AM|#

The surge has already turned from "the presiden't plan for success" to "general petraeus' failed plan"

I guess that depends on how you define "failed". All objective evidence indicates that things are better since the surge began. And it isn't over. Saying it's a failure is dishonest.

|9.19.07 @ 10:20AM|#

"but the Republicans need to win hearts and minds outsideof their party if they don't want the war to bring them low next year."

Interesting comment. I am sure you remember when the folks at National Review and across the the party were arguing that such comments were pandering and loser whinning. After all, "they" had won the election, there was no reason to consult with the "loyal (crossout opposition replace with-) traitors".

Probably one of the most damaging political theories I had ever read.

Although folks are probably right, the Latin Named General was probably chosen as much for his ability to rim his bosses as his proper placement as a fall guy.

Fluffy|9.19.07 @ 10:22AM|#

I think Jack is right. Petraeus will eventually end up on the pile of guys whose good names were destroyed because they made one bad decision: they tried to help W out. He can keep Colin Powell company.

Bush is just feeding these guys into the fire one at a time, to keep himself warm through the dark night of his presidency's second term. I guess we shouldn't be surprised, since he treats the troops the same way.

|9.19.07 @ 10:23AM|#

That headline is unpatriotic, and emboldens our enemies, and America's new Doorman, Johnny McCain, should throw David out of the country himself.

|9.19.07 @ 10:36AM|#

I think Jack is right. Petraeus will eventually end up on the pile of guys whose good names were destroyed because they made one bad decision: they tried to help W out. He can keep Colin Powell company.

Bush is just feeding these guys into the fire one at a time, to keep himself warm through the dark night of his presidency's second term. I guess we shouldn't be surprised, since he treats the troops the same way.

You act as if Patraeus had no choice in the matter. What does he stand to gain if he knows that the whole thing's a waste of time? Why would he bother to take the assignment if he knew it had no chance and would just drag him down?

It's not like it matters anyway. As the poll cited indicates people have already made up their minds. And the administration has so little credibilty anymore there isn't a person alive they could put up to testify that would change anyone's minds one way or the other.

JBinMO|9.19.07 @ 10:38AM|#

Pertaeus is different than the other generals. He "wrote the book" on counterinsurgency strategies so he has a little more than the others invested.

Peder|9.19.07 @ 10:43AM|#

Johnny, can you provide a link to the National Review stuff? I don't remember that at all though I do agree that it's crazy talk.

|9.19.07 @ 10:46AM|#

I suspect Petraeus' plan will eventually work, but too slowly for most. People are tired.

The thing is, even with some degree of security, it seems that Iraqis are more interested in shooting themselves in the foot than buying in to any form of government.

|9.19.07 @ 10:58AM|#

JB, the problem is that he wrote the book, then signed onto a surge plan that doesn't follow it. The counterinsurgency guidelines he designed say we'd need 500,000 troops to pacify Iraq. one really has to wonder why he took the damn job in the first place--time will tell whether it was opportunism and ambition or foolish, foolish loyalty.

Jason, "slowly" means his plan literally can not work. We can't maintain the surge troop levels past march or april without extending tours of duty again. A plan that, by definition, takes more resources than you have available is also by definition a failure before it even gets off the drawing board. Don't blame this on "war fatigue"

Greg|9.19.07 @ 11:00AM|#

This may be a bit off-topic, but I still can't get over Bush's speech about what decisions a "free Iraq" will make. I've always been under the impression that a country that is free makes its own choices as to who its allies are and such, not the president of the worlds biggest superpower.

That is, of course, unless Bush is secretly an Iraqi.

Fluffy|9.19.07 @ 11:19AM|#

With regard to the question of why Petraeus took the assignment, there is a certain type of military mind that simultaneously believes:


1. When given a difficult order to execute, try to rise to the occasion and git 'er done.

2. When morale lags, accentuate the positive to buck the laggards up.

These can be admirable characteristics, when facing a problem that only requires determination for the goal to be achieved. In those situations, #1 makes you a "can-do guy", and #2 makes you a "true leader".

Unfortunately, in different strategic circumstances - say, where a problem is intractable and a complete strategic withdrawal and re-evaluation is in order - #1 makes you a "Yes man" and #2 makes you a "dumbass who gets men killed for no reason".

|9.19.07 @ 11:28AM|#

Patraeus's testimony didn't sway anyone because it only repeated the same news we've been getting from Iraq for years, on which everyone's opinions are already based: the troops in the field produce tactical accomplishments, those tactical successes don't translate to the strategic or political successes they were supposed to produce.

This was the case on Capture the Airport Day. And Thunder Run Day. And Statue Toppling Day. And Capture Saddam Day. And Purple Finger Day. And Kill Zarqawi Day. And Recapture Falluja Day. And pretty much every other day of the war.

It doesn't matter how great the plumbers are, and how well they install that pipe. It's still not going to improve my house's heat efficiency, because that's not what installing plumbing does.

|9.19.07 @ 11:32AM|#

Greg,

I noticed the President's pronunciation: "FreeIraq," as it was one word.

Like a brand name. Like Wheat Thins. It doesn't actually mean the wheat was thin.

FreeIraq is the brand name given to the goal of an Iraq that is under the control of a pro-American government. The word Free in regards to Iraq just means American Satellite State.

joe\'s thorn|9.19.07 @ 11:53AM|#

Like Wheat Thins. It doesn't actually mean the wheat was thin.

It does mean that, actually. They're thin and crispy and delicious. Just as Rice Crispies are crispy. Not the rice they're made from. The product itself. South Korea has a pro-American government as well. Are they an "American Satellite State"?

|9.19.07 @ 12:03PM|#

All American sattellite states are pro-American

does not mean

All Pro-American governments are satellite states.

The UK, for example. Or Brazil.

JBinMO|9.19.07 @ 12:17PM|#

"It doesn't matter how great the plumbers are, and how well they install that pipe. It's still not going to improve my house's heat efficiency, because that's not what installing plumbing does."

Well than what the hell has he been charging me for?

|9.19.07 @ 12:25PM|#

"Petraeus is different than the other generals. He 'wrote the book' on counterinsurgency strategies so he has a little more than the others invested."

Kinda makes one wonder why he wasn't put in charge 4 1/2 years ago.

Greg|9.19.07 @ 12:40PM|#

There is something to be said for the fact that Bush wanted democracy in Iraq and he got it. If he doesn't like the outcome, he should have thought of that before he decided Iraq neededa democratically elected government.

|9.19.07 @ 12:43PM|#

""Like Wheat Thins. It doesn't actually mean the wheat was thin.

It does mean that, actually."""

Define thin.
That is the problem. The definition changes every month. America is getting tired of resting their believe on a definition only to hear from the President that's not what he meant. You will never get the citizenry behind you for any length of time unless you can quality what you're doing and mean it. You show you mean it by sticking to it.


"""I guess that depends on how you define "failed". All objective evidence indicates that things are better since the surge began."""

Failed is not a subjective word. Use the dictionary if you need. When people play the subjective game, it's really the goal that is the subject. The success, or lack thereof, depends on what one calls "the goal" of the surge, which was to provide stability for government reconciliation. By that goal, one may argue success if you believe we provided stability. That view is short lived if the government does not reconcile. It may provide a short term success, but it will be a failure if the Iraqi government can not live up to it's part of the goal. However, I would say that the fact no one wants to leave the green zone without their Blackwater paramilitary escorts sheds light on how "stable" Baghdad really is.

As for Petraeus "writing" the book on counterinsurgency warfare. That's bullshit. I recommend reading "CounterInsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice" by David Galula. It was written in 1964.

|9.19.07 @ 12:55PM|#

jack:

If we weren't tired and we had seen signs of progress over the last year or two, I'm willing to bet we could come up with the resources. We have a lot of resources, just not the will to deploy them.

Also, don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing that we are quitters and we should stay the course and all that. I'm saying we hit on the strategy most likely to succeed, at least in the dimension of security, too late in the game.

|9.19.07 @ 1:17PM|#

The importance of the war as claimed by Bush is not backed up by the amount of resources deployed by Bush.

|9.19.07 @ 1:17PM|#

"A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday found essentially no shift in views on whether U.S. forces are likely to win the war - two-thirds predict they won't - and if the United States should set a firm timetable to remove troops."

Here's what David fails to grasp: What the American people think doesn't matter. And what David thinks, matters even less.

Warmongering Lunatic|9.19.07 @ 1:40PM|#

"Republicans need to win hearts and minds outside of their party if they don't want the war to bring them low next year."

Right, because as we can see from history, doves win Presidential elections during unpopular wars. I mean, there was the election of . . . um.

Well. Actually, it looks like every single wartime presidential election in U.S. history was won by the more hawkish candidate, with the exception of 1964, where it was merely won by the war-starting incumbent.

|9.19.07 @ 1:46PM|#

I guess that depends on how you define "failed". All objective evidence indicates that things are better since the surge began. And it isn't over. Saying it's a failure is dishonest.

Failure: When every six months you say "just give me another six months and things will turn around", but years later they still haven't turned around.

When the patient is battling massive gangrene infection, you can't honestly say "things are better" just because he managed to heal a cold sore.

|9.19.07 @ 1:53PM|#

Lunatic,

Every single wartime election in this country's history involved an incumbent.

You know what? Nevermind that. You are totally right, the Republicans should run as the Iraq War Party and do everything they can do to take all the credit for its success for themselves. That will totally bring about a Republican victory in 2008.

|9.19.07 @ 2:27PM|#

another: "It doesn't matter how great the plumbers are, and how well they install that pipe. It's still not going to improve my house's heat efficiency, because that's not what installing plumbing does."

JBinMO: "Well than what the hell has he been charging me for?"

Let's just say that the plumber's wife has a nice new fur coat, his daughter is going to an expensive private college, and his idiot nephew finally has an extremely high-paying job as 'plumber's assistant'. Which is pretty good, considering that his nephew is in prison in the next state over.

|9.19.07 @ 2:36PM|#

Pain, about Petraeus taking the job: "You act as if Patraeus had no choice in the matter. What does he stand to gain if he knows that the whole thing's a waste of time? Why would he bother to take the assignment if he knew it had no chance and would just drag him down?"

I think that you mean 'you act as if Petraeus hd a choice in the matter'. And, as a matter of fact, he did. He could always (a) put in his retirement papers, go on a nice pension and get a cushy military-industrial position, or (b) tell Bush that he would not lie or BS anybody for the job (and then get told to put in his retirement papers,...).

The obvious things that Petraeus gained are (a) a promotion - he started this war with two stars, he now has four; (b) command - he started in command of one division in Iraq, he's now in command of all Army forces in Iraq; (c) service to the regime - 'kicking the can down the road' for the rest of Bush's term of office might be very handsomely rewarded.

Add to that that he might have an ego big enough to think that he can win this war/desperately hope to avoid a US defeat in this war.

|9.19.07 @ 3:02PM|#

Maybe Patreaus enjoys a challenge.

|9.19.07 @ 3:38PM|#

Maybe Patreaus enjoys a challenge

That's a safe bet.

|9.19.07 @ 4:19PM|#

I think some of you misunderstood my point (or I wrote it badly). Regardless of what Patreaus's motivation's are, he had a reason for taking the job. The Bush admin. didn't force him to do it in some way. In the end he made the choice, so don't act like he was just some helpless guy Bush through at the mob.

Eric Dondero|9.20.07 @ 7:28AM|#

All these Leftwing polls are skewed. They do not measure the Pro-War on Islamo-Fascism voters who oppose the War because they believe Bush is not fighting it hard enough.

We see a hint of this in some of the numbers that suggest a slight increase in Republican support for Bush and the War in the last week or so.

It's funny, how Reason skeptics and others never mention the Conservatives and Pro-War libertarians who would answer "no" to support for the War, because they don't believe it's being fought hard enough, and in enough places.

So as a result, one is led to assume that all those who answer "no" to "Do you support the War" are naturally Anti-War.

|9.20.07 @ 10:07AM|#

Eric Dondero: There's no poll anywhere that asks people whether the war is being fought hard enough?