Now that he has left Iraq in better shape than he found it, can Gen. David Petraeus save Afghanistan and the rest of the region? He'll need to apply some tough lessons from Baghdad to his new challenge--just not the ones you think. Full Story »
Posted by Derek Hawkins
The article paints a very positive picture of Gen. Petraeus as a talented commander with superior tactical and strategic skills. His promotion by the White House was quite predictable. Much like Gen. Westmoreland in Vietnam, Petraeus' biggest asset was being a "yes" man to the administration. He certainly understands the complex dynamics of the Middle East but appeared uninterested in the fraud and corruption taking place under his nose. The articles endorsement of an open ended commitment are at best disturbing.
A glorifying ode to Petraeus giving him sole credit for the surges success in reducing Iraq violence, while blatantly ignoring the importance of other factors. Echoing the standard discredited neocon jargon, the piece becomes nothing more than mediocre propaganda. This stuff is getting tiresome.
More fan mail to Petraeus than anything resembling journalism, Robinson does at least present information to back up her opinion. Unfortunately, she simply dismisses any that doesn't lionize the general--such as the Woodward information--which she could have tried to refute, but doesn't. It is an opinion piece, and she's entitled to hers, it's just unfortunate her bias is so transparent.
This story incorrectly assumes that the "surge" was both a tactical and strategic success, when the evidence is very strong that it was an enormous blunder strategically. The surge wasted hundreds of billions of dollars and in effect prevented the engagement with Syria and Iran that would have allowed the US to withdraw all of its military forces from Iraq. The story assumes Iran is an "enemy" when Iran seeks stability in Afghanistan, and when Iran rebuked the Russians for punishing Georgia so severely last month. I agree with Zbigniew Brzezinski that increasing the US troop strength in Afghanistan will make things worse, not better, and that there is no military solution to the growing insurgency. This in fact is the opinion of ... More »
The story dis-informs by repeating misconceptions that more careful investigators and reporters have shown to be distortions, exaggerations, or lies. Woodward's book treats the "surge" with less idealogical reverence than here. Robert Parry http://consortiumnews.com/2008/092708.html points this out clearly also.
Retrieving Comments
