Patterico's Pontifications

6/24/2010

Is Petraeus Doomed to Fail?

Filed under: Obama,War — DRJ @ 8:13 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

Senator Kit Bond thinks General Petraeus may be set up to fail [video at the link]:

“He is set up for failure if the President and the Vice President continue to talk about a hard, fast withdrawal date, an exit strategy in July. That has already unsettled and demoralized our allies and encouraged our enemies.”

Bond agreed that a “good start” would be putting a muzzle on Vice President Joe Biden and criticized Ambassador Karl Eikenberry for sending a “secret memo” to President Obama designed to undermine General McChrystal. Bond also called on Eikenberry to step aside in favor of former Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

– DRJ

22 Responses to “Is Petraeus Doomed to Fail?”

  1. Ambassador Dingleberry needs to be reassigned.

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  2. Who wouldn’t think that putting a muzzle on Joe FREAKING Biden would be a good thing? Well, unless sandounding stupidity is what you WANT in your government.

    paul mitchell (f0ae8a)

  3. Petraeus is young. Heartache to heartache he stands.

    No promises.

    No demands.

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  4. I bet Gen. P. has a higher approval rating than the one, and if he can’t pull Afghanistan out of the mire the blame may fall back on the one, as well. A Petreus failure is an Obama failure, a Petraeus victory is a Petraeus victory that Obama didn’t get in the way of.

    MD in Philly (5a98ff)

  5. Excuse me, but please, what is “win”, in this situation?

    It is already a very long, very expensive, very sapping war.

    DRJ, What does “Win” mean to you? Because, and I mean this honestly, I don’t know what that means to people talking about winning.

    What conditions establish the fact that we’re good? I’m not looking for withdrawal notions (we’re still in Germany and many parts of the Soviet Union). Just and understandable notion of what it means to win.

    grog (b3126e)

  6. Otto: You know your problem? You don’t like winners.
    Archie: Winners?
    Otto: Yeah, winners.
    Archie: Winners, like North Vietnam?
    Otto: Shut up! We didn’t lose Vietnam! It was a tie!
    Archie: [Cowboy-like drawl] I’m tellin’ you, baby, they kicked your little ass there! Boy, they whooped yer hide real good!
    Otto: No they didn’t!!
    Archie: Oh Yes they did!
    Otto: Oh no they… SHUT UP!

    Icy Texan (b7ab71)

  7. The best Petraeus can do is get us out with some sort of honor. Read Kilcullen’s book. The people of Afghanistan don’t want the Taliban but most of them are so isolated that it won’t make much difference to them who wins. It is not like Vietnam which actually had a transportation system.

    We should have kicked their ass in 2001 and left. Pakistan is the enemy there and they have nukes. Obama is afraid of the Taliban getting control of the Pakistani nukes (Read Peggy Noonan today) but he would never try to take over Pakistan.

    Besides, Iran is a bigger threat with nukes. The Pakistanis seem to be deterrable. Iran may not be with a nut running the country.

    Mike K (82f374)

  8. If Obama had not acted like the quisling to the Iranian Mullahs last Spring and instead voiced unequivocal support for the Green Revolution, he might not have this problem today. I have a hard time believing that Petraeus would have accepted this assignment without major diplomatic changes in the works – at least that’s what I fervently hope.

    Dmac (cfe27e)

  9. I tend to agree with Mike’s @7 (putting aside any notion that any words from Noonan make sense except by accident), and indirectly Icy’s @6 – we need an event upon which we can declare we won, pick up our toys, and go home.

    A land war in Asia, the SR’s 20 year experience, and all that.

    Petraeus can probably do that, assuming the Kristols of the world don’t manage to back the narrative into a corner that keeps up the bleeding.

    @Dmac (@8) – the Great Satan backing the Green Revolution would have been an unpurchasable gift to “the Iranian Mullahs” (I’m using that phrase to indicate the bundle of actors whose interests run counter to the U.S.’s medium-long term interests in the region, don’t know how you’re using it) that would have left them happier than they’ve been since Iran/Contra. If you don’t get that, you don’t get the Middle East.

    grog (b3126e)

  10. Letting the Iranian Revolution die on the vine, wasa great move, Kristol’s publication, lone among others backed the surge, when every one else was stuck in the ‘civil war’ meme. Pulling away from Afghanistan will be a gift to the ISI which created
    the Taliban, and recruited the cadres for AQ

    [Need to pick a name and stay with it please. Clearly not an attempt to dishonestly sockpuppet, but Patterico asks people to stay as consistent as possible. No harm, no foul this time. --Stashiu]

    solomon grundy (7bb4f2)

  11. Can we give Kit the Max Cleland treatment (you’re with us or against, Kit, that’s what the previosu Prez said)? Or, is calling him unpatriotic trademarked by Karl Rove and his Astroturf groups?

    timb (449046)

  12. Oh, good Allah.

    JD (0f9c01)

  13. timb, Obama lied to you about his intentions, and you’ve lapped it up like a dog laps up its own vomit.

    So what do you do? You come here to troll and repeat a lie you’ve had your backside kicked on thousands of times before. Brilliant.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  14. But, more importantly, timb, what does Cindy Sheehan think about all this?

    elissa (ababd7)

  15. that would have left them happier than they’ve been since Iran/Contra. If you don’t get that, you don’t get the Middle East.

    We heard the same exact sentiments regarding Carter’s lying down for the Soviets, and as a result we got the invasion of Afghanistan, Cuban involvement in Latin America, Daniel Ortega taking over Nicaraugua, and so many other actions of intimidation and loss of other’s freedoms by the USSR and tinpot dictators everywhere who sensed our weakness and acted accordingly.

    Reagan would have known which side he was on, and would have made it clear. We don’t even have to hazard a guess where the last POTUS would have been – and if you don’t understand the difference between intent and being a pussy, then you are the latter.

    Dmac (cfe27e)

  16. BTW, Petraeus is now going to change the ROE in our current war, because his predecessor made his own troops operate under the Marquis du Queensbury Rules. Nice to know that there’s still one person in our leadership class that understands how to act when you actually want to win.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7852684/Gen-David-Petraeus-to-review-courageous-restraint.html

    Dmac (cfe27e)

  17. Sorry about that,stashiu, but if one is going to name yourself as an animated character, to throw
    worthless talking points,

    narciso (7bb4f2)

  18. Comment by Dmac

    Very good to hear that, hope it is true. I wondered if the ROE were McChrystal’s idea or from higher up. (Also have heard they were not that bad per se, but they way they were understood down the chain. I have no idea what the truth is.)

    Maybe they were from higher up but Gen. P. requested/demanded a change.

    MD in Philly (5a98ff)

  19. Maybe they were from higher up, but Obama’s people realize they are a political liability and changing them now would give the impression they were not from the White House.

    As far as playing into the hands of Iranian propaganda goes, that’s a double edged sword.

    I don’t want another example of the USA supporting some good guys just enough for PR and then dropping them when the going gets tough, but I do think we have missed many opportunities with Iran.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  20. Sorry about that,stashiu, but if one is going to name yourself as an animated character…
    Comment by narciso — 6/25/2010 @ 2:11 pm

    My sincere apologies if that was parody that I missed. Multiple distractions just now which has me a bit humor-impaired. It clearly wasn’t dishonest as I said and I should have sat back a bit longer to see what happened. My fault, no excuses.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  21. but I do think we have missed many opportunities with Iran.

    The dwindling list of true believers that still think anyone can accomplish anything worthwhile by “engaging” with the Mullahs is a complete idiot. They’ve jailed tens of thousands of citizens over the past year, killed hundreds via hanging, and continue to torture just about anyone caught expressing an opinion contrary to their own regime’s insane outlook. No one is suggesting that the US should have directly intervened within Iran’s affairs, but when you saw the vids of thousands of Iranians pleading for some kind of sign (any sign) of support from Obama was truly heart – wrenching.

    We had the chance to be on the right side of history once again, but our own Captain Awesome decided to say nothing and try to talk the nutbags in charge to death. Feckless and depressing, he’s learned nothing in the ensuing year regarding the ME, and his actions regarding the “peace flotilla” suggest he’s actually regressing, if such a thing was even possible.

    Dmac (cfe27e)

  22. Dmac, well said.

    What happened in Iran recently could have been pivotal. I agree with those who say the tyrants wanted to associate the protesters with the CIA. But they already did so, crushingly, anyway.

    And they can’t claim some paranoid secret conspiracy if we are overt and honest.

    My real concern with this idea is that we failed the Kurds, to the point where it was counter productive. This is one of those things that we either do or don’t do.

    Iran is going to be a hellish problem. No one wants to solve it, but it’s going to be solved eventually because they are going to force the issue with nuclear weapon strikes. If you think I’m crazy you don’t know the Middle East.

    Dustin (b54cdc)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3470 secs.