Oceania Has Never Been at War with General Petraeus
OK, let’s count the left’s pivots on Iraq and war in the Gulf over the last 20 years:
- It was wrong for George H.W. Bush to have left Saddam Hussein in power.
- Regime change of Iraq under Bill Clinton: Good!
- Regime change of Iraq under George W. Bush: Really, Really, Really Bad!
- It was wrong for George W. Bush to have removed Saddam Hussein from power.
- General Petraeus under George W. Bush’s command: General Betray-us.
- General Petraeus under Barack Obama’s command: help us Obi-Wan Petraeus, you’re our only hope!
Or as Ed Morrissey writes at Hot Air, “Awkward: Dems trying to recast Petraeus as a savior:”
David Petraeus trudged up to Capitol Hill today to win a certain confirmation from the Senate, and one has to wonder whether the general is considering the odd twists of history that have surrounded him. Today, he’s the heroic commander tapped by Barack Obama in desperation to salvage his Afghanistan surge and to reinstill confidence in the war. Three years ago, Obama’s allies in Congress and on the Left painted Petraeus as a very different figure, and The Hill reports on the awkward position Democrats now face:
Liberal advocacy groups and senators at the time accused Petraeus of misrepresenting the success of the surge of nearly 40,000 troops. …
[Harry] Reid told CNN in April of 2007 he did not believe Petraeus’s claim that the surge was working in Iraq.
“I don’t believe him, because it’s not happening,” Reid said. “All you have to do is look at the facts.”
At a press conference a few months later, Reid said: “For someone, whether it’s Gen. Petraeus or anyone else, to say things are great in Baghdad isn’t in touch with what’s going on in Baghdad, even though he’s there and I’m not.”
In other words, the Senate Majority Leader strongly implied that Petraeus was either a liar or a fool three years ago. Nor was he the only Democrat in the Senate to have made that accusation. When Republicans offered a resolution defending Petraeus “and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus,” 25 Democrats voted against the resolution, including Hillary Clinton, Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, and Carl Levin, chair of the Armed Forces Committee.
What about Barack Obama, the Commander in Chief who wants Petraeus to rescue them from the debacle of Stanley McChrystal’s exit? He didn’t vote at all, although he was certainly present. Obama voted in favor of a measure that would have forced a retreat from Iraq on that same day in the very next roll call vote. He also voted in favor of an amendment prior to the Petraeus vote that offered similar support for men and women in uniform but failed to mention Petraeus. When it came time to defending the honor of the man Obama now needs to help him win a victory, then-Senator Obama was nowhere to be found.
Or as the Professor wrote last week, when the Ministry of Truth MoveOn.org was caught deleting their infamous 2007 “General Betray-Us” ad (which the New York Times gave them a sweetheart rate to run) from their site, “Have you noticed how these people are always airbrushing? It’s kind of an admission that their stuff won’t sell if they tell the truth…”
Mona Charen and Orrin Judd also note the irony.
If you’re going back 20 years, you should include the fact that several notable Democrats voted against the 1991 Gulf War, including the man Obama picked to be next in line for the Presidency and the man Democrats wanted as President in 2004. (Carl Levin and Harry Reid were in the Senate at the time, and they didn’t vote for the 1991 AUMF either, though I don’t know if they voted against or skipped.)
They thought it was wrong for HW to remove Saddam from Kuwait before they thought it was wrong for him to not remove Saddam from Iraq.
I am a WWII Marine, with combat service in the Pacific theater. As much as I
admire General Petraeus, I believe he has been given command of a war that is
impossible to win, simply because there is no clear identifiable goal in
Afghanistan. The President has complicated what is a most difficult situation:
he has said he will start bringing the “throops home” next year. He will
not be able to do that so simply. Wars must be prosecuted with complete victory
as the objective. And there is no possibility of complete victory in
Afghanistan. Men in combat will not willingly risk death for what is an undefined
and obscure objective.
General Petraeus says that he is comfortable with Obama’s objectives in Afghanistan. He came of age as an officer whose brothers’-in-arms “good bad example” was Vietnam.
I don’t believe he is anyone’s chump. If he discovers that he has been set up as a patsy by his commander-in-chief, he will not fall on his sword. He is eligible for retirement if the need to do so becomes manifest. Certainly he is wise enough to realize that he is not indispensable if the object is to recapitulate Vietnam.
Based on his record in Iraq, I also believe that he understands how crucial it is to have domestic support for success. The fact that our objective currently appears undefined and obscure is not a condition that he will endure. Watch carefully. Things are going to change.
http://www.damaverick.com/obama193.jpg
PaulM is correct. Announcing our withdrawal eliminates the possibility that Afghani’s will turn away from Taliban.
I think this is not because they (in general) want the Taliban back but because they know the Taliban will be back and to survive they must not align themselves with the Western-backed government or assist their troops.
This is not a matter of principle, it is a matter of survival.
People that have survived in Afghanistan for the last 30 years have had to deal with the Russians and their puppets, the Taliban, warlords, etc.
They pick sides based on tribal loyalties, religious loyalties and their own survival.
Sticking their necks out to support us when we have already told them we will desert them to their fate next year would be suicidal.
If we aren’t committed to victory, please pull our troops out now. Wasting the blood and treasure of our nation as a political statement, with no goal other than to leave as soon as possible (after declaring that Afghanistan’s government is “ready to stand on its own”), is cynical politics at its worst. We will see the same pictures as in 1975 and it will have the same effect on our security. We will be shown to be a “paper tiger.” Politicians seem to think that allowing American troops to be killed on a mission that they (the politicians) didn’t believe in and won’t follow through on shows that are “tough” and “decisive.” It really shows that they are reckless and so removed from reality that they don’t realize the soldiers are not pawns, they are people with lives and families.
They are willing to risk their lives to protect us. We should respect their bravery and commitment and only put them in harms way when it is necessary, for reasons of national defense, not for political advantage.
Ed, you missed a big pivot:
-George W. Bush’s use of Predator launched Hellfire missiles for killing bad guys = War Criminal!
-Barack H. Obama’s use of Predator launched Hellfire missiles for killing bad guys = silence.
Afghanistan is important.
The mainstream media and the ’60s leftovers in the White House basement are still in ‘Vietnam syndrome’ mode or more likely Hanoi Jane mode.
Can we win? Sure, by my count we are.
After a long time of dithering we are killing Taliban on both sides of the border and Taliban leaders are dying by the score. Eventually this has an impact.
Our troops are attacking the centers of drugs and Taliban in Helmand. Eventually this will have an impact, unless NATO and Obama collapse. Admittedly our political leaders are weak and strangely suicidal, but our troops and generals are good.
Pakistan has turned against the Taliban.
Afghanistan and the entire region, including Russian and Iran hate the drugs and drug lords.
We are fighting the ones who must be fought.
Give war a chance.
And GITMO!!! What about GITMO???
Please try to remember, The One never promised this. And if you find any recording where he says this, keep in mind it is a doctored tape made by obstructionist Republicans
..simply because there is no clear identifiable goal in
Afghanistan.
You have just defined the first hundred years of the American military experience in consolidating the west. Strategy, tactics, political goals, native policies, all moving, altering, never could you find a master plan that integrated it all or anything to give it semblance of someone knowing what they were doing. Some how, we improvised, adapted and overcame.
Does anyone remember when Bush, when told that the war in Iraq would make it the focus of al Qaeda, said “bring it on”?
I do.
Some people said that showed how callous he was. I saw it as a challenge and a warning to AQ. You AQ types think, because you worship death, that you can beat us? You think your pathetic boys from European slums can defeat America’s army?
Only America can defeat America. You no longer have peers. None. Not CHina, not Russia, not the EU… no one
But you do have the worst president in your entire history presiding over one of the worst economic downturns in your history. Most of it caused by his allies (ACORN, the CRA)
If The One has his way, America will once again be among peers. Not by raising others but by lowering you.
There is a new, or at least newly publicized, factor
in the strategic equation: The wealth of natural resources
in Afghanistan needs to be defended from Chinese attack;
The Tribal Khans on the ground, and our hi-tech forces
overhead, can do this; The government of the Mayor of Kabul
cannot.
Just a couplw of random notions.
1. Gen. Petraeus will not forget that large sections of the left once referred to him as Gen. Betray-us. He also knows that the left includes Obama. And as everyone appears to have noted, he is an astute politician.
2. The question isn’t who runs the war, the question is why we still have a war going on. We defeated OBL and the Taliban in 2001 — we should have pulled out immediately afterward. Similarly, we won in Iraq in 2003, and again in 2007; it’s really hard to understand why we didn’t just pull out after winning. Yes, yes I know, liberals don’t want to acknowledge that we won anything, but how long do you think they can maintain that farce? “Mission accomplished” was indeed accomplished.
In Soviet Amerika the future is known, it’s the past that is always changing.