In The American Conservative, no less
Sycophant Savior General Petraeus wins a battle in Washington—if not in Baghdad. by Andrew J. Bacevich In common parlance, the phrase “political general” is an epithet, the inverse of the warrior or frontline soldier. In any serious war, with big issues at stake, to assign command to a political general is to court disaster—so at least most Americans believe. But in fact, at the highest levels, successful command requires a sophisticated grasp of politics. At the summit, war and politics merge and become inextricably intertwined. A general in chief not fully attuned to the latter will not master the former.George Washington, U.S. Grant, and Dwight D. Eisenhower were all “political generals” in the very best sense of the term. Their claims to immortality rest not on their battlefield exploits—Washington actually won few battles, and Grant achieved his victories through brute force rather than finesse, while Ike hardly qualifies as a field commander at all—but on the skill they demonstrated in translating military power into political advantage. Each of these three genuinely great soldiers possessed a sophisticated appreciation for war’s political dimension.
David Petraeus is a political general. Yet in presenting his recent assessment of the Iraq War and in describing the “way forward,” Petraeus demonstrated that he is a political general of the worst kind—one who indulges in the politics of accommodation that is Washington’s bread and butter but has thereby deferred a far more urgent political imperative, namely, bringing our military policies into harmony with our political purposes....
A political general in the mold of Washington or Grant would have taken a different course, using his moment in the spotlight not to minimize consternation but to stir it up to the maximum extent. He would have capitalized on his status as man of the hour to oblige civilian leaders, both in Congress and in the executive branch, to do what they have not done since the Iraq War began—namely, their jobs. He would have insisted upon the president and the Congress making decisions that wartime summons them—and not military commanders—to make. Instead, Petraeus issued everyone a pass.
And it only gets worse from there.
Andrew is right to ask: They've already condemned MoveOn.org. Will conservatives now rise up to condemn The American Conservative as well? And if not, why not? Bacevich criticized a general during a time of war, something that is supposedly verboten.
One thing I can say with absolute certainty. For their own sake, and for the sake of the soul of this nation, I hope defenders of the administration do not instead decide to attack Bacevich for daring once again to speak out. Not only did the man honorably serve in the Army during Vietnam, his son served and was killed this past year in the war in Iraq. He fights because he loves his country; about that there can be no doubt.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
