Democracy Arsenal

« China Relations Won't Work on Autopilot | Main | Coulter Delenda Est? »

May 30, 2007

Petraeus Pushes Back... On Me
Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

In response to my post regarding General Petraeus’s self evaluation I got a response from Colonel Steve Boylan, asking

What statements has [General Petraeus] made since the Jan 2007 confirmation hearings that lead you to believe that he will do anything other than provide a frank assessment of what is happening in Iraq?

Here's the thing.  Colonel Steve Boylan is... wait for it… wait for it…

A spokesman for General David Petraeus!!! 

First, in response to the Colonel. I refer him to this piece by Larry Korb, which clearly points out that General Petraeus wrote a highly politicized op-ed six weeks before the 2004 election, while he was serving in Iraq. 

Then there is the fact that Petraeus held a closed door strategy meeting with the Republican Caucus back in April.  Not to mention the basic conflict of interest of having to self report on his own strategy. 

But there is an even greater question here.  By his very response Colonel Boylan proves my point that Petraeus is too political and should not be the single source for evaluating the surge.  Is this part of Col. Boylan’s job?  Surfing blogs and defending his boss’s strategy in Iraq?  Doesn’t Colonel Boylan have something better to do?

Oh, and by the way.  Isn’t there a prohibition on the military using sites like my space and blogging?  I guess that doesn’t count if you are pushing Bush Administration policy.

May 30, 2007 at 11:21 AM |

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c04d69e200d8357fdb5d69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Petraeus Pushes Back... On Me:

Comments

Col. Boylan asked a reasonable question and your specific examples were an effective response, but for me they were overshadowed by the 'snark' of your post. When you have good material you don't need to be cute, at least not for your readers.

And getting a polite question, even from an aid to Petraeus, is hardly being 'pushed back.'

Posted by: Caitlyn | May 30, 2007 at 12:23 PM

Whether Petraeus should define the degree of success his own strategy has had is the wrong question.

The right question is whether Petraeus, having nursed his ideas about counterinsurgency since his days as a divisional commander in the Mosul area in 2003, is so committed to trying them across Iraq that he's lost sight of how much water has passed under the bridge since then. I'm persuaded personally that his counterinsurgency doctrine makes sense in the abstract, and might have had a good chance of working in Iraq had it been applied in 2003, mid-2004 at the latest. But the chances of the right doctrine applied at the wrong time leading to success are not wonderful.

Frankly, there is no need for any political figure who isn't terrified of contradicting a senior military officer in public to worry about what Petraeus has to say come September about the campaign he's been ordered to undertake. Even if he is able truthfully to say that surging units into Iraq and dispersed counterinsurgency tactics have reduced violence there, the question the political world will have to answer is: what then? No general can answer that question.

The American national interest requires liquidating the commitment in Iraq. Tactical successes, if they drag us away from that objective, will point our country in a direction it cannot afford to go.

Posted by: Zathras | May 30, 2007 at 02:02 PM

What statements has [General Petraeus] made since the Jan 2007 confirmation hearings that lead you to believe that he will do anything other than provide a frank assessment of what is happening in Iraq?

"What is happening in Iraq" and "how good a job am I doing" are two entirely different questions.

As we've seen over the past 4+ years is that the administration finds it quite easy to note an increasingly outrageously dangerous situation on the ground, yet praise the efforts of the "generals on the ground."

Just one of the perks of not setting binding benchmarks.

Posted by: masonmcd | May 30, 2007 at 07:50 PM

The point is that no one should be expected to plan, execute, and then evaluate the success of a mission like this and still be objective. What concrete tools are we going to use to measure success? We have already been told that July and August could be violent months- as though we did not lose enough men in May. So the number of American or Iraqi deaths won't be enough to tell us whether we are winning or not.

Posted by: blgphd | May 30, 2007 at 10:45 PM

Ian,

You bring up interesting issues and opinions that I don't necessarily agree with as well as some areas that need to be addressed with accurate information.

When you refer to the article by Korb, that was only his views/opinion. General Petraeus over the times he has been in Iraq has written op-eds on various topics in order to provide context to what is happening on the ground. This is only one of the many ways that we can inform the American public as to what is happening no matter where we are in the world without the filter of the media. This is one of the only true one-on-one ways to communicate with the public.

On the issue of the closed door session with the Republican Caucus, that was an inaccurate media report and in fact was corrected by Andrea Mitchell. She was the one that reported it, later when she found out that she was misinformed she corrected it.

That event took place on April 8th I believe and was in fact an open session to both the Democrats and Republican as requested to provide the dialogue on what is happening on the ground. If you don't believe me, go out to the blogosphere. There are a number of blogs that have the links to the correction and dialogue that took place.

The secure video teleconference that took place had members from both sides of Congress, but we don't determine who shows up, the members and staff do. Key point again, it was open to both.

You should be aware that General Petraeus will not be the sole source of the assessment. This will be a joint assessment by the US Embassy in Baghdad and the Multi-National Force-Iraq. The two individuals who will report on the assessment are of course Ambassador Ryan Crocker and General Petraeus.

As to your question on what is my job? Very simply it is to inform the American public and to provide context and yes, to push back on incorrect or inaccurate information that is out there and to increase the understanding of military operations. It is called Public Affairs.

And no, there is no prohibition from posting on blogs or myspace, etc by the military. Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines can own and post to blogs as long as they conduct thier discussions within the bounds of operational security so we don't inform our enemies on what we are doing before we do it or provide them information that would be useful to them in conducting operations against us such as; rule of engagement, our tactics, future plans, etc. As to what I think you are referring too is the recently highlighted issues with bandwidth that was clarified in the military's updated regulations.

There is a bandwidth issue you are referring too that limits some areas to access on government computer systems, but straight internet is not one of them. Those areas that use a lot of bandwidth for streaming audio and video have been restricted due to capabilities on government computers. They are available on our Morale, Welfare and Recreation computers at all of our operating bases.

Again, another part of my job is to correct inaccurate information such as stated on this site, in the media, and in the public domain. Hopfully this continues a better informed discusson on the issues at hand.

Posted by: Colonel Steve Boylan | May 31, 2007 at 02:52 AM

Ilan,

I have served under General Petraeus, but am no longer in the military. I will tell you that he is an honorable man. He isn't going to put out a false assessment that would result in needless deaths of the sons and daughters under his charge for partisan politics. He is the man in charge on the ground and we need to listen to what he has to say when the time comes. In this age, there is no such thing as a "sole source" for anything. There will be plenty of them to go around, both red and blue, in September as there have been all along.

P.S. Sorry the Kerry/Edwards campaign didn't work out for you. I'm sure they'd have all this fixed by now. Just look at what the Democratic Congress has already managed to do. Maybe if they'd focused on conditions for success instead of artifical timetables, we'd be a step closer to ending this war.

Posted by: sc1 | June 01, 2007 at 01:39 PM

条码检测仪
条码打印机
条码扫描器
数据采集器
标签打印软件
碳带
标签
司法考试
司法考试
韩国留学
录音电话
翻译公司
防静电地板
传奇私服
康明斯
气枪
仿真枪
防窜货
职务犯罪
无负压
猎头
猎头公司
猎头顾问
广州猎头
上海猎头
北京猎头
猎头公司
发电机
发电机组
发电机出租
发电设备
发电机租赁
租赁发电机

出租发电机
空气过滤器
北京婚庆
北京婚庆公司
进销存软件
进销存
erp软件
生产管理软件

牛皮癣
精神病
结肠炎


瑜伽
北京瑜伽
瑜伽教练培训
肚皮舞
肚皮舞培训
云台
监控器材
分配器
301云台
公共广播
中央空调
家用中央空调
格力中央空调
中央吸尘|商用中央吸尘|家用中央吸尘|工业中央吸尘|别墅中央

吸尘
家用中央清扫系统|宾馆吸尘|中央吸尘系统|别墅吸尘
拆除
拆除公司
建筑物拆除


鱼鳞病
不锈钢水箱
防雷
防雷器
职业装
大屏幕
快速熔断器
高压熔断器
低压熔断器
熔断器
按钮
塔钟
法语
西服
西装
按钮开关
船型开关
微动开关
钥匙开关
旋转开关
法语培训
婚纱摄影
润滑油
连接器

新开传奇私服
日光温室
节水
rohs认证
传奇私服
最新传奇私服
新开传奇私服
新开传奇
新开私服

3C代理
强制认证
汽车进口

最新传奇私服
山东助听器信息网
上海助听器总汇
北京助听器网
助听器
贵州助听器信息港
名品助听器（南京）直销店
广西助听器验配网
杭州 助听器验配中心
广东 助听器总汇
海参
紫外线消毒器|搪瓷水箱
进口轴承
轴承
进口轴承
玻璃钢水箱|无负压
进口轴承
网站优化|google优化|google推广|google排名


网站建设 北京|北京网页设计|北京网站制作|北京网站推广
北京网站建设|双线空间
虚拟主机|双线空间|asp空间|
非油品
中石化
冬虫夏草
生态餐厅

Posted by: sdfsd | June 05, 2007 at 10:15 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe
Sign-up to receive a weekly digest of the latest posts from Democracy Arsenal.
Email: 
Subscribe to this blog's feed
RSS 2.0
Powered by TypePad

Disclaimer

The opinions voiced on Democracy Arsenal are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of any other organization or institution with which any author may be affiliated.
Read Terms of Use