Towing the broken line
The New York Times posted a strong interactive piece Sunday, on the Pentagon’s PR tactics surrounding a failing war in Iraq. Investigative reporter David Barstow weaves together documents, transcripts and video to demonstrate the manipulative relationship between Donald Rumsfeld and “military analysts” on all the major television networks.
This cuts to a key point that Barack Obama made in last week’s debate (during the small portion not allotted to pressing issues like flag pins, 70’s radicals, and gun worship):
Because the commander in chief sets the mission, Charlie. That’s not the role of the generals. And one of the things that’s been interesting about the president’s approach lately has been to say, well, I’m just taking cues from General Petraeus.
Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And unfortunately we have had a bad mission, set by our civilian leadership, which our military has performed brilliantly. But it is time for us to set a strategy that is going to make the American people safer.
The Pentagon exists to execute the foreign policy of the Commander-in-Chief, not to define foreign policy on its own. Deferring to General Petreaus on matters beyond his pay-grade is a clear sign of a President not willing to accept responsibility for his own title. Obama gets it. McCain doesn’t.
I actually waded through most of the ten or eleven pages of this article on Sunday, waiting for the smoking gun. When I was done my reaction was, “So?”
I figured I missed something and left it alone, but it turns out I wasn’t the only one waiting for a punchline that never came.
Max Boot put his finger on it:
I think I got to the nub of the problem when I read, buried deep in this article, Barstow’s complaint that the Pentagon’s campaign to brief military analysts “recalled other administration tactics that subverted traditional journalism.”
Petraeus’ PR rep doesn’t even have to do anything here, because he is looking like a genius. It seems that almost everyone agrees on two things: 1) the War in Iraq has been mishandled and perhaps ill-advised, but 2) U.S. military forces have done an amazing job all things considered.
Perhaps Petraeus will be president after it’s all said and done. We all know he will would be able to raise plenty of money on all the book deals he will get.
–”I suppose we can call it propaganda if we want to, but no more so than taking every opportunity to call Iraq a failure despite any and all evidence to the contrary.”–
When I call the Iraq War a failure, the cost of my message doesn’t come out of the federal budget, son.
So all the U.S. generals leading up to Petreaus weren’t “up to the task?” Dude, why do you hate Americans so much?
“Son”?
Thanks for the petty, gratuitous, and totally needless condescension.
I’m looking forward to all future HB blog posts on federal government expenditures that promote points of view. Federal global warming propaganda alone should keep your rage gene active for the next six months.
Rage on, dad. Rage on.
Yes well, it seems that comments are only petty, condescending and off-point when they don’t agree with your doctrine. Funny how that works out. Little tougher ballgame outside of the MOB, I’m thinking.
It wasn’t the comment I found petty HB, but the use of the word “son.” I thought I was being clear.
Frankly, your comment as a whole I found kind of worthless and off point, and really just a chance to take a couple of gratuitous shots at me.
Interestingly enough, I have found myriad ways to disagree with your posts without having to resort to such juvenile tactics.
It would be nice if you could return the favor.
Juvenile tactics? Rage? That high road of yours has got some potholes.
Pretty standard Democratic Underground fare, actually. Instead of making a point, belittle the commenter. Call me “son,” and say that criticizing generals’ job performance makes me an America hater. Follow not by arguing any of the points I made originally, but by chalking up my objection to your tactics as a result of my existence in the “echo chamber” of the MOB.
Bitterness, with a dash of self-righteousness and a garnish of silly assumption, hold the actual argument.
But you don’t see it any more than you see the difference between criticizing a general and taking out an ad calling him a traitor.
Somehow I don’t think the candidate of Hope-n-change would approve. Then again, he just might.
I tend to like PT as an instigator, it works for blogs.
But let me quick make a shameful attempt to bring HBurke to my blog for more discussion — “Ranting is all the Rave” with Matt Perkins.
Come and rant it up, you’ll find plenty to discuss with PT.