Skip to comments.David Petraeus - Person Of The Year Runner-up (Time mag)
Posted on 12/21/2007 5:06:53 AM PST by RDTF
On the day after he assumed command of the Multi-National Forces in Iraq last February, David Petraeus toured some of the neighborhoods of Baghdad and was shocked. "They were ghost towns, blasted, abandoned.
I remembered thriving markets and community life. I simply hadn't grasped the magnitude of the destruction, not just the sectarian violence but the [intra-sect] violence of al-Qaeda on Sunnis."
There were other shocks. Petraeus had spent most of 2005 in Baghdad trying to train Iraqi Army units. In 2006, while he was serving as commander of the Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kans., much of the Iraqi security forces, and especially the national police, had slipped under the control of various Shi'ite and Kurdish militias. The situation on the ground was dire; the prognosis among Petraeus' military peers was pessimistic. At a Pentagon meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff in December 2006, President Bush asked the Chiefs how many supported the idea of a surge the deployment of more troops (which Petraeus would command) into Baghdad to secure the city and create the conditions necessary for a reconciliation of the various Iraqi political factions. The Chiefs were unanimously opposed.
And yet Petraeus has not failed, which, given the anarchy and pessimism of February, must be considered something of a triumph. The sketchy progress he has made is the result of equal parts luck and skill. The Sunni tribal revolt against the violent grip of Salafist extremists (most notably, al-Qaeda in Iraq) was already under way when Petraeus arrived. But he was smart enough to encourage and fund the Anbar Awakening, even though Iraq's Shi'ite-dominated central government was opposed. The pacification of Anbar, the most violent province in 2006, has been the signal success of 2007.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
They jumped the whale.
I thought TIME ragazine said ALGORE was runner-up.
I also thought Al would take them to court demanding a recount.
I thought they made Patraeus 5th runner-up
But in the end, Time magazine explained, we just had to go wtih the Commie. ;-)
maybe...it’s not really clear what order they are in
Liberal shill! Once again Time magazine shows us they are completely incapable of seeing anything that doesn’t go along with their leftist biased agenda. General Petraeus was fifth in their poll. Of course they went with Putin, He’s the closest to the Democrat candidates in policy.
I think it’s hilarious that the same week Time makes this major blunder, news comes out that one of Putin’s critics is in a psychiatric hospital to silence him and that he has amassed a fortune of at least $40 billion. Boy, do they have egg on their faces. I’d love to see them lose a huge number of subscribers over this.
“maybe...its not really clear what order they are in”
lol. That’s what they’d like people to believe. But, let’s look at the page they wrote and see where Patraeus’ name shows up. Gore is listed first, then Rowlings, then Hu Jintao, THEN Patraeus. 4th. my mistake I said 5th.
Listing him 4th was deliberate.
The sketchy progress he has made is the result of equal parts luck and skill..
SKETCHY PROGRESS?? Joe Klein - you haven’t a CLUE.
Time is not the journal of record.
Tim is not the journal of record.
Time mag:”The sketchy progress he has made is the result of equal parts luck and skill.”I guess that’s the closest that Time will get to admitting the surge is working.I believe it was Hillery(?)who commented that in order to belive the generals report “required the willing suspension of disbelief.”Wonder what her thighness would say now?
They jumped the shark on this one, and they surely must know it.
This is nothing new, of course. Hitler and Stalin were Man of the Year for 1938 and 1939, respectively.
General David Petraeus should be our first American President since IKE.
...kudos to Bon mots
They won't. Nobody really cares. TIME has trivialized their POY ritual to the level of an oscar or an emmy.
“Luck” is when something happens that the libs say can’t happen.
It was great skill, analysis, and leadership. Some of that was, and is, by Bush - who stood firm for the surge against much public opinion, and almost total opposition from the Dems.
Luck is the residue of design Red Auerbach (and w/ 13 NBA titles, he’d know)
Does anyone except Rats read that liberal ragazine?