We Have Nothing to Fear But Victory Itself

[BT]

We Have Nothing to Fear But Victory Itself

Posted by Stephen Green on 06 Apr 2008 at 09:20 pm

The New York Times has a Sunday feature on GEN David Petraeus as a potential presidential candidate* in 2012, calling him ?politically astute.? If you ask me, that?s a loaded phrase. It?s as if reporter Steven Lee Myers is trying to belittle Petraeus as a military commander, just in time for his latest Congressional testimony.

Although to be fair, you don?t become a general officer without being politically astute. It?s not as if Petraeus?s military credentials could be doubted after our successes in Iraq since he took charge ? but how about we ?question the timing? of such a statement?

What?s most interesting in the story however is this line:

    On Tuesday and Wednesday, General Petraeus will once again appear on Capitol Hill, testifying about the progress of a war that most Democrats and, polls suggest, most Americans think cannot end quickly enough.

?Quickly enough.? Ponder those last two words for a moment. What you?ve just read is the sound, yet again, of goalposts moving.

Due to the upcoming election, there are only two Democrats of note right now, and their names are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. They don?t say we can?t win ?quickly enough.? They say we can?t win at all.

But Petraeus changed the narrative, didn?t he? And so The New York Times is helpfully changing the terms of the debate, from ?we can?t win? to ?we can?t win quite as quickly as the people would like.?

In other words, there?s victory in the air ? and that has the liberal media running scared.

http://vodkapundit.com/?p=9730

[fatman]

Too bad Petraeus isn't running right now, he'd have my vote.

[_JS]

What does "victory" look like?

[BT]

What does "victory" look like?

Much different than retreat or defeat.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Too bad Petraeus isn't running right now, he'd have my vote.
=================================================
Petraeus is probably a lot more knowledgeable about politics than any of the three candidates running. His successes in Iraq have been because he understands the way Iraqis think, not because he knows where to put tanks or where to bomb. Colin Powell was also a whole lot smarter than anyone around eight years ago.

Whether Petraeus would make a good president or not (would a majority of Americans ever be able to learn how to spell his name?) would really depend on his vision for the future. We do need good tacticians, but we don't need imperialists. He's far too tactful to reveal his ideology.

I still don't see how the US can win what is now a civil war in Iraq. Let us imagine that somehow Napoleon III had a huge army in the US in 1862 or 1863: is there any way the French could have won the US Civil War when every Americans was convinced they were only there to steal our natural resources? Now suppose that 80% of all Frenchmen wanted that army to come home as soon as possible.

 Because we favor democracy, we favor Shiites in charge, but we want them to behave like Catholics and Baptists do in the US. We don't want Iraqi Shiites to regard Iranian Shiites as their brothers instead of Iraqi Kurds and Sunnis. But the fact is that Iraqi Shiites greatly respect the Iranian Shiites, because only in IraN have the Shiites managed to take charge. Whatever you say about the Iranians, they have a more equitable and modern society than Saudi Arabia, after all. Everywhere else in the Muslim world, Shiites are treated like second class citizens, or as lower than whalesh*t untouchables, as the Hazari are treated in Afghanistan by the Pashtoons.

I am sure that Petraeus will manage to pull off a great speech. But I fail to see how there can be an American 'Victory' in an Iraqi Civil War. Would we be victorious if Iraq had a corrupt democracy that would sell ExxonMobil Iraqi crude at $50 a barrel for us to buy at $3.00 a gallon?  Could major profits for Brown and Root, Bechtel and Halliburton be a victory for the American people, and how?


The thing is that Iraqis are NOT like US Catholics and Baptists, and they never will be.

[fatman]

Too bad Petraeus isn't running right now, he'd have my vote.
=================================================
Petraeus is probably a lot more knowledgeable about politics than any of the three candidates running. His successes in Iraq have been because he understands the way Iraqis think, not because he knows where to put tanks or where to bomb. Colin Powell was also a whole lot smarter than anyone around eight years ago.

Whether Petraeus would make a good president or not (would a majority of Americans ever be able to learn how to spell his name?) would really depend on his vision for the future. We do need good tacticians, but we don't need imperialists. He's far too tactful to reveal his ideology.

I still don't see how the US can win what is now a civil war in Iraq. Let us imagine that somehow Napoleon III had a huge army in the US in 1862 or 1863: is there any way the French could have won the US Civil War when every Americans was convinced they were only there to steal our natural resources? Now suppose that 80% of all Frenchmen wanted that army to come home as soon as possible.

 Because we favor democracy, we favor Shiites in charge, but we want them to behave like Catholics and Baptists do in the US. We don't want Iraqi Shiites to regard Iranian Shiites as their brothers instead of Iraqi Kurds and Sunnis. But the fact is that Iraqi Shiites greatly respect the Iranian Shiites, because only in IraN have the Shiites managed to take charge. Whatever you say about the Iranians, they have a more equitable and modern society than Saudi Arabia, after all. Everywhere else in the Muslim world, Shiites are treated like second class citizens, or as lower than whalesh*t untouchables, as the Hazari are treated in Afghanistan by the Pashtoons.

I am sure that Petraeus will manage to pull off a great speech. But I fail to see how there can be an American 'Victory' in an Iraqi Civil War. Would we be victorious if Iraq had a corrupt democracy that would sell ExxonMobil Iraqi crude at $50 a barrel for us to buy at $3.00 a gallon?  Could major profits for Brown and Root, Bechtel and Halliburton be a victory for the American people, and how?


The thing is that Iraqis are NOT like US Catholics and Baptists, and they never will be.

The thing with Petraeus is, I don't see him being any worse than any of the others that we've got in the running now.  Sure, his ideology matters, but so does his integrity.  As a four star general, I can imagine that he knows a thing or two about politics.  Would I rather have someone who has experience directing troops on the ground, or someone who has sat in the comfy confines of the Senate for a term or four?

I think that the answer is obvious.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Would I rather have someone who has experience directing troops on the ground, or someone who has sat in the comfy confines of the Senate for a term or four?

I think that the answer is obvious.
==========================================
Generals look best mounted on a horse in statue form.

Historically, soldiers have not made great presidents. Washington and Eisenhower, maybe, but Jackson, Grant and the other Civil War types, not do great.

Latin America has excelled at producing really awful military presidents.

A senator has a staff as well, and the best ones have to be good at tact and compromise. A general pretty much gets obeyed. With regard top Petraeus, perhaps he might make a good president someday. I don;pt think I'd want Scwartzkopf in the White House, and Powell would be a good choice as well.