Trying to keep track of who is running the war in Iraq can be a dizzying exercise. I could have sworn it was the job of the president, but the rotating blame game now includes -- though I'm sure isn't limited to -- Tommy Franks, George Casey, Paul Bremer, Don Rumsfeld, Zalmay Khalilzad, and Jay Garner. Each, you may remember, was at some point held up as a savior before being blamed, at least in part, for the continuing decline of the country.
Now it's Petreaus' turn to be the "nonpolitical" figure upon whom the administration bestows all its hopes and dreams . . . and spin. Glenn Greenwald is, as always, precisely on point when he comments,
In general, military commanders do not typically pronounce their own strategies to have failed; quite the opposite. The need for skepticism here is particularly acute given that there are plenty of Generals with equally impressive military pedigrees who disagree vigorously with Petraeus. War supporters -- who are attempting now to make criticisms of Petraeus off-limits -- long disputed the claims and views of Generals Casey and Abaziad, often quite vigorously, even insultingly. The statements about war from military commanders ought to be subjected to every bit as much scrutiny and skepticism as anyone else's.General Petraeus did some things very well at the beginning of the war, and he seems to understand the region and its people better than many of his predecessors. That has no bearing, however, on his objectivity, and as the Bush administration increasingly uses him as a political tool, it will be even more important to examine critically statements about the war. Bush administration manipulation of the military has stripped its members of credibility, and that is an absolute shame. It's also a reality.
On a somewhat related note, wasn't there a guy whose new job was supposed to involve overseeing this debacle? Remember the War Czar? When was the last time we heard from General Doug Lute?? The whole thing is baffling . . . and infuriating.
Main & gay blog