Posted on 03/16/2008 6:20:30 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
David Petraeus was diplomatic in his choice of words, and careful to honor the primacy of civilian authority over the military. But the commanding general of multi-lateral forces in Iraq has left little doubt that if a new president wanted to withdraw from Iraq faster than would reflect Petraeus's considered military opinion, he'd be happy to go home to his family.
ABC's Bill Weir interviewed the Gen. Petraeus as part of a Good Morning America special today marking the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq. The opening segment focused almost exclusively on the costs of the war. Some producer had apparently calculated that the war has cost 19 times the annual budget of Los Angeles. Who knew? But a subsequent segment did highlight some of the progress that has been made, notably in terms of former insurgents now come over to the multi-lateral side. Then came the Petraeus interview, which ended with this exchange.
BILL WEIR: You serve at the pleasure of the president. If our new president, a year from now, says general, I want out of here in a year. What do you say? Is that even feasible?
View video.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
What he is saying is that it is completely up to civilian control to replace him if they do not want to follow his professional advice.
While he serves at the pleasure of the Commander in Chief, he can resign his commission at any time if he feels he is being ill used. That is HIS choice.
“I think you are overreacting on this.”
Maybe, but I’m not so sure. When I was commissioned, it was fairly clear to me that this sort of discussion was not proper.
I think he is venturing into the political realm, and that is not an acceptable role for an active duty general.
“While he serves at the pleasure of the Commander in Chief, he can resign his commission at any time if he feels he is being ill used. That is HIS choice.”
This is a point that while obvious, has no place in a media interview of a general officer. “I will quit if I am asked to do this” is not the right sort of discussion for a general officer to have with media.
He’s crossing a line he should know better than to cross.
This particular assignment is completely intertwined with the political, as the repeated forays in front of committees of Washington politicians to justify and explain things clearly show.
Having lived a good deal of my life in a military environment, I am probably as steeped in the chain of command and behavior as a military member as you are, but I understand that your experience as a commissioned officer may color your opinion on this issue with a different brush than it does for me. I can respect that.
I can agree to disagree with you on this.
I am proud of Gen. Petraeus, he is a no nonesense man and leader. He is not saying anything he is not alloweed to say and he is doing it in a very diplomatic way. It truly shows how dedicated he is for our and his troops. He has to know how the military felt under the Clinton’s when they were in power it was horrible and being under Obama will be no different.
“I can agree to disagree with you on this.”
Fair enough. Thanks for the exchange.
I'm contemplating the options in my mind, comparing them to Hillbama or McCain accelerating the invasion on the southern border and expanding socialized government still further. So far, Petraeus keeps coming out on top. I like Gen. Pace, too. Both are more likely to be GWashington types than any other politicians we know. . . But don't rush me, I'm still thinking.
“So far, Petraeus keeps coming out on top. I like Gen. Pace, too. Both are more likely to be GWashington types than any other politicians we know. . . But don’t rush me, I’m still thinking.”
If he retires, he’d make a fine candidate, I agree.
Seems to me to be the smartest thing he could say, and what an honorable man would say. He is just saying that he will stand for what he thinks is right. Why should he stay in Iraq carrying out a policy which he doesn’t believe in. How can you be a good commander if you don’t have the flexibility to make decisions. He is also popular so it puts pressure on the new president to stay the course.
The statement isn’t that bad. Not even close. But it is more than obvious and not as insightful as it might be.
“if at any time someone wanted someone else’s best professional military advice, I’d be happy to allow that to happen. “Under civilian control of the military, it is not his choice to allow or disallow anything. For a general to say this is problematic. Maybe he meant something else, but this is not right.
As much as I sympathize with the general, I clearly see your point.How does the history of the "General Betray Us" hearing of a few months ago - and the hostile questioning of the general by Senator Clinton - affect this?
Do we cut him a little slack for the maximally public rudeness of the senator?
“Do we cut him a little slack for the maximally public rudeness of the senator?”
Senators can tend to be rude. I am sure Petraeus was unfazed by that.
I’d cut him slack for that comment because it doesn’t matter what he might think he allows or disallows. But it does cause me to wonder what he was thinking.
What I am prone to cut less slack over is the demoralizing effect of his message on the troops. What he is effectively saying is “my way is the only way, and you (the troops) will have a bozo yes-man leading you after I quit if I don’t get my way”.
He is undermining the war effort, should the next president choose a path that Petraeus does not prefer. He should remain silent - offer his best advice, and if he is unable to accept his orders he can resign. No media necessary.
What I am prone to cut less slack over is the demoralizing effect of his message on the troops. What he is effectively saying is “my way is the only way, and you (the troops) will have a bozo yes-man leading you after I quit if I don’t get my way”.
. . . which unfortunately does, IMHO, have the "merit" of being true.Which is why I consider it to be a questionable decision to enlist to serve under a Democratic president. Imagine serving under John Kerry! Or under Bill Clinton with Les Aspen as SecDef, or under Jimmy Carter, or Lyndon Johnson, or under "Bay of Pigs" Kennedy.
‘Imagine serving under Bill Clinton with Les Aspen as SecDef, or under Jimmy Carter’
Ain’t no imagining, it did suck.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.