[T]hanks to this great general, David Petraeus, and the troops who serve under him, they have succeeded. And we are winning...It's like they have nominated him for sainthood, attributed absolutely all events in Iraq to him, with the correlate that Petraeus is immune from criticism. Not that Petraeus is incapable of error, but that the rules of the debate simply do not allow criticism of "this great general," as it would be an attack on the troops. Military commanders are supposed to be subordinate to political leaders, but they attribute every decision or action or outcome in the theatre to the General, and since he cannot be criticized, the policy debates are effectively ended there.
The Democrats have never really figured out how to neutralize this tactic. They generally ignore any mention of the man and respond with a criticism of Bush or McCain or whatever issue is at hand. But leaving the Petraeus assertion unchallenged bothers me. By all accounts, it does sound like he's enormously successful and capable; I've no desire to tear the man down. But the use of him as a shield is distasteful at the least and potentially dangerous.
I don't think it's actually important. It just strikes me as dishonest and borderline demagoguery, and Iraq is important enough that I wish it was possible to have an honest discussion of the situation.
1 comment:
Yeah, it bugs me because (1) Obama would absolutely listen to generals and the implication is that he would not, and (2) the kinds of decisions Petraeus is making are not the kinds of decisions Obama and McCain disagree about.
I'm glad others picked up on the tactical/strategical difference. I recall the example McCain used as being definitely tactical but he called it strategic.
Post a Comment