Asking the right question to Petraeus.
By on Sep 9th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Asking the right question to Petraeus.
CBS Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer said this morning that one of the lessons we learned from Vietnam “is that we were asking the wrong question” to our generals. “When we have to ask, are we winning? we’re probably losing. Victory is always obvious,” he said.
Let me preempt that question to General Petraeus. We haven’t lost this war, but we’re not winning it. We’re hanging on. Victory would be obvious. Iraqi families would be strolling the streets of Baghdad, and Osama bin Laden would be walking out of a cave somewhere with his hands up.
Instead of that question, let’s hope the general will be asked what we so often forgot during Vietnam: Is this worth the cost in lives and money?
Watch it:
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
“Is this worth the cost in lives and money?”
If you ask the wingnuts the answer will be “yes.” But then, they aren’t paying for it, so it’s like OPM. Now, though, we have ‘nutters who think that extends to our soldiers’ lives.
September 9th, 2007 at 12:49 pmwell said sir
September 9th, 2007 at 12:50 pmFreedom aint cheap. Do you want another 9/11?
September 9th, 2007 at 12:56 pmPetraeus: “its going doubleplusgood!!!”
September 9th, 2007 at 12:56 pmStarted out that we would be greeted with flowers and the oil would pay for it all. Now we have to defend Deficit spending and poor people’s kids dieing for squat (installing some thug as a figurehead). “FREEDOMS ON THE MARCH”. What a miserable sad depressing load of crap.
September 9th, 2007 at 12:57 pm#3: Freedom aint cheap. Do you want another 9/11?
Is this intended as a serious comment? Or a joke? I suspect the latter, but it’s a little hard to tell.
September 9th, 2007 at 12:57 pmNo, instead of another f***ing 9/11 we’ll get world war three.Helluva job, redneck.
September 9th, 2007 at 1:04 pmFreedom aint cheap. Do you want another 9/11?
Comment by redneck, redstate — September 9, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
I’m betting it didn’t cost you anything.
September 9th, 2007 at 1:06 pmFreedom aint cheap. Do you want another 9/11?
Comment by redneck, redstate
If he had to actually pay for this with a tax increase, he’s whistle a different tune.
September 9th, 2007 at 1:08 pmFreedom aint cheap. Do you want another 9/11?
Comment by redneck, redstate — September 9, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
Lol.
Ok inbredstate. I’m calling you on it.
Explain how fighting Sunni Muslims in Iraq, keeps Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaida who are in Pakistan, from attacking the US.
I’d love to hear this one.
September 9th, 2007 at 1:09 pmAt least we’re getting coverage of the question at all. Considering the corporate dominance in America of the media that is a suprise.
September 9th, 2007 at 1:10 pmMore important than the questions asked of Petreaus will be the counter-arguments offered by Congress and other concerned citizens to the White House’s relentless warmongering. From a psychological perspective, it’s important to ask how and why their warmongering seems to “work†so well. I try to address those questions in a 10-minute online video entitled “Resisting the Drums of War,†which describes how the appeals of warmongers often target our personal and collective concerns about issues of vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. I apply this framework to the Bush administration’s war in Iraq—and its possible plans for an attack on Iran. It’s available for viewing a href=”http://www.eidelsonconsulting.com/videos.php”>HERE.
September 9th, 2007 at 1:12 pmMore important than the questions asked of Petreaus will be the counter-arguments offered by Congress and other concerned citizens to the White House’s relentless warmongering. From a psychological perspective, it’s important to ask how and why their warmongering seems to “work†so well. I try to address those questions in a 10-minute online video entitled “Resisting the Drums of War,†which describes how the appeals of warmongers often target our personal and collective concerns about issues of vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. I apply this framework to the Bush administration’s war in Iraq—and its possible plans for an attack on Iran. It’s available for viewing HERE.
September 9th, 2007 at 1:14 pm> Do you want another 9/11?
Creating more terrorists by killing thousands of women and children and having those images spattered all over the world media is going to make another 9-11 less likely???
Yeah, and ask the righttards how many american lives is it worth to give the Iraqis the freedom to democratically transform into a government like Iran and they will tell you “as many as it takes”
I mean, after all, like Upright Cleft suggested, we can always bomb them more if they dont elect the sort of governmetn we like…
September 9th, 2007 at 1:14 pmberkeley breathed has a wonderful opus cartoon up in salon featuring bush and petraeus…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
September 9th, 2007 at 1:16 pmWhat Schieffer said could be seen as a Walter Cronkite moment when Cronkite said essentially that the Vietnam War was lost for the U.S. But Bush is so stubborn it will not matter to him what anyone says or how many American lives are needlessly lost. With those 14 military bases in Iraq, it would seem the last thing Bush would want is to lose control of the oil supply in Iraq and a [belligerent] military presence in the Middle East.
September 9th, 2007 at 1:17 pmI think the only way to answer this one is to first answer another one. What would have happened had we not gone into Iraq?
That calls for a lot of conjecture, but I think one can safely say:
Saddam would have continued to be contained.
Intelligence already showed us, far in advance of the decision to go in, that there were no WMD, and the president knew that.
Without the Iraq distraction and a real commitment to defeating AQ, al Qaeda would have been defeated in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we likely would not see Osama on our televisions today.
Our children and grandchildren wouldn’t be facing a lifetime of debt repayment.
Our fractured military wouldn’t be struggling to meet challenges not yet presented.
More, much more, I’m sure.
September 9th, 2007 at 1:19 pm“Freedom aint cheap. Do you want another 9/11?”
Comment by redneck, redstate
No it ain’t.. Freedom’s downright profitable for it’s low taxed corporate supporters.
On the other hand, redneck.. if you were to inlist..
BTW, 9/11 happened on BushCo’s watch, so I wouldn’t be surprised.
hog
September 9th, 2007 at 1:21 pmComment by redneck, redstate
& that is why your ass is needed @ the recruiting office, toot sweet.
September 9th, 2007 at 1:21 pmFreedom isn’t cheap…..evidently neither is theocracy. The cost in blood and wealth to install a christo theocracy here in USA and a Shia threocracy in Iraq has indeed cost plenty.
September 9th, 2007 at 1:21 pmWe are facing the same kind of situation in Iraq that Britain faced during the American Revolution. The British won some battle and lost some, but they could not defeat the American Revolutionaries. But the American Revolutionaries could not militarily defeat the British forces either. After the surrender at Yorktown the British still had many more troops in New York than surrendered at Yorktown, and they could easily have sent more reinforcements. But after Yorktown the Tories in Parliament were defeated by the Whigs who decided that the cost of holding on to the colonies exceeded the benefit and decided to cut Britains losses by withdrawing. Similarly it is going to require the victory of a Democratic President with the guts to cut our losses to get us out of a war whose costs far exceed any gains from staying. (It is not clear that Hillary would be such a President.) This war will continue to go on as long as Bush is President.
September 9th, 2007 at 1:24 pmThis war will continue to go on as long as Bush is President.
Comment by CaptainVideo
That, Sir, is a given.
September 9th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
The commentary carries a bit more weight because it is coming from a Texas Republican.
September 9th, 2007 at 1:37 pmWell Redneckstate?
Where’s the explanation?
How does us fighting and killing Iraqi’s, keep Osama Bin Ladens Al Quaida, which is in PAKISTAN, from attacking the US?
Come on. I’m all ears.
September 9th, 2007 at 1:57 pmRIGHT ON! He has it figured out.
Unfortunately, Bush already knows we are not winning. He just want’s to use patreaus to spin the loss into a victory.
You watch, in the end bush will get a percentage of the american population to believe that the “surge” was a success, and then he’ll start pulling troops out, decalaring it was a successful war. And that percentage of americans will vote for the next republican president.
sad…
September 9th, 2007 at 2:04 pmI have another question; what is the goal in Iraq? I mean really; If it were political reconciliation the State Department should have become a much larger presence in Bagdad and Condi would be spending weeks at a time in the Greene zone.
I think, no matter what, the end result is going to be the worlds largest embassy guarded by 100,000 marines, controlling the worlds second largest oil reserves until the oil runs out.
September 9th, 2007 at 3:26 pmCost in lives and money?? This isn’t about balancing a cash drawer, this is about extending freedom and civilization. I for one am tired of hearing retired generals, family members of soldiers and the liberal media trying to undercut our progress. We have the soldiers there, they know how to do the job and they will stay there until their commander-in-chief decides they are needed elsewhere. We are not going to finish the work we started after 9/11 if we give up now. It’s time we all supported our President.
September 9th, 2007 at 3:42 pmInstead of that question, let’s hope the general will be asked what we so often forgot during Vietnam: Is this worth the cost in lives and money?
Well, the main rationale (or excuse) that Shrub uses in keeping our troops over there is that so many have already died. Let’s just keep them all over there so those who’ve already died won’t have died “in vain”. And every additional serviceperson who dies just adds to those who mustn’t have died “in vain”.
September 9th, 2007 at 3:44 pmI just hope all those people who knew Shrub during his National Guard jaunt and have kept their silence over what he was really doing and where he really was can live with themselves after this nightmare is finally done. (More importantly, I hope those who consider themselves real Christians are able to go to their deathbeds with a full and clear conscience because their afterlives are going to be spent in a most unpleasant location. The only consolation I get from the real Christians is that Protestant teachings DON’T allow for deathbed confessions as a kind of “get out of Hell free” card; I know the Roman Catholic teaching isn’t quite like that either, but you’re at least given a chance to avoid the worst tortures of the damned.)
Meant to add to the above post:
*Yes, I’m aware of the correct Dan Ackroyd quote to Jane Curtin on the GOOD “Saturday Night Live” Weekend Update bit. I just wasn’t sure it would pass ThinkProgress’s screens.
September 9th, 2007 at 3:57 pmI’m serious about my question. What does killing Iraqi Sunni Muslims have to do with keeping Osama Bin Laden and Alquaida in Pakistan from attacking the US?
How does that work exactly? Are they too busy watching the war in Iraq on TV to attack us or something?
Please someone explain the reasoning behind the claim that the war in Iraq keeps Alquaida in Pakistan from attacking us.
September 9th, 2007 at 4:25 pm#25-
“The soldiers know how to do the job”. You sound as if you received your talking points from the mouths of Walt Rostow and McGeorge Bundy, key figures in the LBJ administration. Extending freedom and civilization? Those words ring very hollow considering that the vast majority of Iraqis justifiably want the U.S. to stop occupying and brutalizing its citizens. You decry any talk about the “cost in lives and money.” Again, those words were heard forty years ago during the Vietnam era and ended up costing this country close to 60,000 American lives, all dying, just like in Iraq, for a lost cause.
September 9th, 2007 at 4:42 pmIt is amazing how far the left will go to take the emphasis away from where it rightly belongs, namely, on the Global War on Terror.
So I am, especially when all they have are manipulative arguments designed to scare the Leftist base.
It’s like the far-left fringe has forgotten that the US Military is superior to all others!
Real Americans do, but you’ll never see one of these anti-American Leftists admit that the President of the United States knows more about these matters than their beloved Olby or Chomsky!!!
You lefties make me sick…
September 9th, 2007 at 5:05 pmmy question for petraeus would be “what drug were you taking when you said this in October 2004“:
“MCINTYRE: There’s a big dispute, Paula, about whether the Pentagon is overstating the number of Iraqis that are truly combat ready. But the general who’s in charge of the training, very respected general, General Petraeus, insists that 100,000 is the right number out of 164,000 in Iraq.” [http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/01/pzn.01.html]
September 9th, 2007 at 6:14 pm>Cost in lives and money?? This isn’t about balancing a cash drawer,
your a moron. how do you get lives into a cash register.????
> this is about extending freedom and civilization.
The freedom to do what?
The freedom to be like Iran and support Hezbollah and Hamas is they so choose? The freedom to have a constitution where no law contradicts islam? Are these the freedoms our blood and treasure is worth buying?
Oh wait,,,that already happened?
September 9th, 2007 at 6:16 pmYou lefties make me sick…
Comment by Habalaarz — September 9, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
Go enlist, sh$t for brains.
http://www.goarmy.com
http://www.usmc.mil
Heroes like you make me sick…nothing but a chickenshit, chickenhawk, warmongering, coward.
September 9th, 2007 at 6:50 pmTP another IP address to banish.
Comment by Habalaarz — September 9, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
Anther Pee Pee alias.
September 9th, 2007 at 6:51 pmIf it is only the lefties that are against this clusterf^ck called a war in Iraq…we have a majority the reichwingnuts will never defeat. 72% : 28%.
September 9th, 2007 at 6:55 pmhey #3 and #25 – why do you insist linking 9/11 and the iraq occupation and and believe that somehow it keeps you safe from islamic fundamentalists who want to kill you? – this is proof that bush’s propaganda machine gives him power over weak minds
September 9th, 2007 at 8:16 pm“Victory would be obvious. Iraqi families would be strolling the streets of Baghdad, and Osama bin Laden would be walking out of a cave somewhere with his hands up.”
How could victory in Iraq possibly lead to bin Laden surrendering or being captured? Really does BS still not understand that the war on terror is not equal to the war in Iraq?
September 9th, 2007 at 9:13 pm