Korb: Don’t Let Petraeus Testify Alone
Korb: Don’t Let Petraeus Testify Alone
Last September, when Gen. David Petraeus was asked whether his strategy in Iraq was making America safer, he responded, “I don’t know, actually,” adding that he was solely focused on “how to accomplish the mission in Iraq.” Petraeus had a point. It’s not his job to render judgments on the larger strategic implications of operations for which he is responsible. That is why it is common for ground commanders to testify alongside regional commanders, who often are able to better address such issues. (For example, when former Iraq commander Gen. George Casey testified before Congress, he often did so alongside his boss Gen. John Abizaid.)
Petraeus, however, was permitted by Congress to testify alone. Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) said at the time that “it was a very narrow and focused two days of hearings” and that the views of other senior officers were needed “to get a sense of how the region is in play.”
In an op-ed in this morning’s Los Angeles Times, the Center for American Progress’s Lawrence Korb and Sean Duggan question whether Congress has learned its lesson. Looking forward to Petraeus’s testimony before Congress next month, they warn that “if Petraeus is again allowed to testify without his superior officers, as he did last September, neither Congress nor the American people will be receiving the complete picture.” They write:
Other military leaders who are looking at the larger national security picture need to be consulted. They know well how maintaining an average of 130,000 troops in Iraq over the last five years has not only decimated our ground forces, it also has compromised our security interests around the globe.
“The Army is out of balance,” Army Chief of Staff Gen. George W. Casey Jr. told the House Armed Services Committee last fall. That’s a polite way of saying it’s broken.[...]
In January, [chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Navy Adm. Michael G.] Mullen told the Marine Corps Times that there was reserve capacity in the Navy and Air Force but that ground troops were a different story. “Clearly, if we had to do something with our ground forces, a significant substitute would be a big challenge,” he said. Mullen’s predecessor, Army Marine Gen. Peter Pace, also has expressed his discomfort with our ability to respond to other crises. Before leaving his post last October, Pace, stated that the troop commitment to Iraq would “make a large difference in our ability to be prepared for unforeseen contingencies” in the region and elsewhere.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently said, “I’ve asked Gen. Petraeus to make his evaluation… completely based on what’s going on in Iraq. He doesn’t need to look over his shoulder, think about stress on the force or anything else.”
Allowing Petraeus to focus solely on the mission in Iraq intentionally ignores the ways in which the continued war in Iraq has made America less safe by continuing to destabilize the region. It also ignores the expertise and wisdom of other senior officers, many of whom hold views out of line with the Bush administration’s preferred “success of the surge” narrative — views that have no doubt been chilled by the ousting of Admiral Fallon.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The Big Picture’s scary…
Let’s ignore it!
March 14th, 2008 at 10:54 amQuote: he was solely focused on “how to accomplish the mission in Iraq.”
Except in August of 2006 when he spent 17 days of that month hosting as many pressers as he could manage–including a trip to Australia to help out then PM Howard by professing the success of the surge, even though he wasn;t supposed to deliver such an analysis (officially anyway)until September and to the US congress of course.
I just wanted to mention that.
March 14th, 2008 at 10:55 amI doubt that Bush will let Petraeus testify with anyone else. I’m sure that there will be some type of Executive Privilege the shrub will say.
March 14th, 2008 at 10:56 amI wouldn’t worry about it… war’s goin fine.
Best War Ever?
March 14th, 2008 at 10:59 amhttp://tshirtinsurgency.com/best-war-ever-t-shirt
They have gotten rid of the generals who disagree with them and what they have left are obedient….they just aren’t smart enough to speak in public without a handler.
March 14th, 2008 at 11:02 amThey just aren’t smart enough to speak in public without a handler?
I thought this thread was about Petraeus, not Bush, Fred.
March 14th, 2008 at 11:09 am6 bush has always had his handlers too…..remember the debate?
March 14th, 2008 at 11:11 amDefense Secretary Robert Gates recently said, “I’ve asked Gen. Petraeus to make his evaluation… completely based on what’s going on in Iraq. He doesn’t need to look over his shoulder, think about stress on the force or anything else.”
It’s like the stewards being ordered to only concern themselves with the arrangement of the Titanic’s deckchairs, no matter what else was going on around them.
March 14th, 2008 at 11:11 amGen. David “Hussein” Betrayus has got his head stuck up Bush’s butt.
March 14th, 2008 at 11:21 amTrue, Fred, true..
I’m amazed they ever let him speak off script anymore.
The man is an embarrassment to the country. He’s incoherent half the time.
I’ve never seen anything like it. Bill Clinton may have done some dumb things as POTUS, but he was never incoherent in public like Botch.
March 14th, 2008 at 11:35 amListen to Lewis Black take on Bush’s “handlers” (What is he that he needs handlers, a bear? Brilliantly funny!)
Pssst…sorry bear. ;)
March 14th, 2008 at 11:43 am***sniff… sniff***
Thas all right, Mzz J… I’m used ta it by now.
March 14th, 2008 at 11:46 amHey, I luvs me sum bares, uhm, er, bears! ;)
It’s those little beady eyes that just send me!! ;)
March 14th, 2008 at 11:47 amBeady little eyes?
What do I look like to you, a WOLF?
March 14th, 2008 at 12:06 pmI think the answer is to bomb Iran, right, McInsane?
March 14th, 2008 at 12:17 pmNot gonna touch that one. Nope. Wouldn’t be prudent. Not at this juncture.
March 14th, 2008 at 12:28 pmyet another test from richard
March 14th, 2008 at 1:06 pm“Allowing Petraeus to focus solely on the mission in Iraq intentionally ignores the ways in which the continued war in Iraq has made America less safe…”
It also ignores the terrible cost to the economy (three trillions), and the coming inflation caused by high oil prices and the weaken dollar since aWol “took office”.
March 14th, 2008 at 6:01 pmtest 123
March 16th, 2008 at 5:01 amnew 345
March 16th, 2008 at 5:11 amopen 765098
A??
March 16th, 2008 at 12:34 pmclose 543765098
A-I-O
March 16th, 2008 at 12:37 pm_AIO_
March 16th, 2008 at 12:38 pmopen 765098
A??
March 16th, 2008 at 12:38 pm