I don't think there is anything wrong with the way General Patreus testified. He was trying to be within the limits of his duties as a General. It is really hard to expect a General to answer such a question.

I agree Sri. Matthews may be doing a little too much theater on this one.

Over the years I've become more and more pessimistic about American's apathy/ignorance toward the realities of corruption in government all the way from Vietnam to Iran/Contra to now but seeing this I am given a glimmer of hope that this stumble may be enough to get people to realize - even if for just a little while - that the people speaking "on behalf of the troops" are not concerned about America, the troops or the Iraqis and are only concerned about perpetuating the war.

Most Americans truly don't care about Iraqi freedom but they don't like losing and even more they don't like insecurity. Between this statement and Patreus' office being attacked today people might finally start realizing the war is getting worse and making us less safe. I just wish they would have listen to us crazy liberals six years ago before they blindly followed the propaganda into this deadly fiasco that has killed and endangered so many people all for the obscene profits of the anointed few.

It's a very honest, and I think courageous, answer for Gen Patreus to give. I don't like the comparrison to Eisenhauer or Washington. They were big commanders of the overall war. Eisenhauer was not the General in-charge of allied operations in France on D-Day, he was the supreme commander of operations throughout Europe. Washington was not the commander of the army of the Virginia colony, he was the supreme commander of the colonial armies. Patreus really is only responsible for the situation in Iraq, not the security of the US. He is a newly-minted 4-star General which is befitting the duties he now holds but that does not make him the military commander on the "Global War On Terrorism" (GWOT). A battalion commander does not think about "Does our mission to take and hold this sector of territory mean we are going to win this war?". The company commander does not think "Does taking and holding this hill insure our victory in the battle?" No, they think "How can I accomplish the orders I have been given with the maximum impact on the enemy and the minimum loss of my soldier's lives?" That is called tactical thinking. Patreus is a tactical commander. He is not the commander of the global war on terror. Iraq is not the globe, it is only the site of the most conflict right now, and that fighting is not about international terror but domestic terror of Iraqis killing Iraqis. I just hope people take away the message that this man's honest evaluation of the situation lends no hope to the future of the GWOT. I would have found him presumptious, or at least todying to the President, if he had answered this question in any other way. Personally, I thnk the global war on terror will be about as successful as Ronald Reagans war on drugs.

My impression is that the american people at this point want out of the war, regardless of their political stripe. Today the only persons perpetuating the war are the policy makers, ie the congress and the executive. if congress acted today, the war, at least for america in Iraq, would end tomorrow, but the politicians dont want to stick their neck out. And Bush is committed. The committed man wins.

too much theatre Steve? Did you misspeak? Almost 4,000 U.S. soldiers dead. Close to 1,000,000 Iraqis dead. Petreus can't say that the illegal war is worth the blood sacrifice of innocents and doesn't verify the rhetoric of the Bush administration. Considering the gravity of the situation Steve, I think Matthews and Biden were relatively calm.

I think Patreus is being honest by saying "I don't know". If only some politicians would just admit that. Doubt is healthy.

Do you want to risk your life for "I don't know", I don't.

Technically, I think Petraeus is being honest - he doesn't know. Of course, if he were basically optimistic about the question, he wouldn't say "I don't know". C'mon, that is obvious isn't it?

Chris Matthews certainly sounds different than the guy who was grinning like an ape and gushing, ""we're all neo-cons now." doesn't he? (4/9/03) Getting people killed is so much more fun when you can pretend that war is glorious and ignore the fact that waging a war of aggression reduces your country to the moral level of every other shitty empire that ever existed.

Anybody can change their minds. But I'd like to see a little remorse out of these two for their part in all of this: Matthews has offered damn little resistance to Bush's war policy and culture of fear ('till now). And the recently inflamed Sen. Bidden voted for the final resolution to support the war (I say inflamed, like a prostate's inflamed).

These two are watching which way the wind blows. Not singing "Blowing in the wind."

Petraeus isn't being honest, he's being diplomatic. Anyone with an ounce of logic (and a bit of historical context) knows we are dooming our nation to even worse tragedies then we've alread experienced.

You don't win the hearts and minds by killing the brothers and sisters no matter what your intentions.

What Stupid Git said. When soldiers rise to a high rank such as this, they become politicians, not soldiers. And Petraeus is a very skilled politician. He's just covering his ass so this won't come back to hurt him in his next career.

Personally, what I found most objectionable about that segment was when Biden tried so hard to get all teary-eyed, and referred to the dead soldiers as "fallen angels." This is so goddamned hypocritical. They aren't "angels" -- they're just unfortunate kids who have been offered so few opportunities by this extraordinary wealthy society that the best professional career option they could find, was one where they risk losing life and limbs. If Biden and his ilk did his job as a representative of the people -- rather than just the wealthy people -- those kids wouldn't be dead in the first place.

Marx theory of alienation strikes again.

Petraeus isn't being honest, he's being diplomatic. Anyone with an ounce of logic (and a bit of historical context) knows we are dooming our nation to even worse tragedies then we've alread experienced.

I don't agree - I think Petraeus is being very honest. He literally doesn't know if what they're doing will have a positive or negative effect - because no-one does.

No matter what the U.S. military does - pull out completely and quickly, pull out slowly, keep doing what they're doing, draft U.S. citizens and send in 400,000 troops, or pull out of the cities and towns and leave a force in military bases in Western Iraq as a "check" on Iran (a la Korea) - nobody can say whether it'll work or not.

Whatever happens in Iraq is a political issue, and military force is only useful if it can help achieve a political settlement. Political decisions have to be made by civilians though, not the military - and I think the current Administration is relying too much on the military to come up with political solutions, and even the political vision for Iraq. Partly because their original vision proved to be insanely optimistic, and they have very little credibility left with the American public, let alone the international community or the Iraqi people.

Which is why Petraeus is the front-man not only for the military, but for the whole mess. It's a huge amount of pressure, that theoretically he shouldn't have to deal with.

That's why I think his frankness is honesty - not covering his ass. Given the impossibility of the mission, and the fact that he accepted the role, his ass is toast anyway, barring some kind of miracle (which I'm sure none of the readers of this site are holding out for ;-) )

It will be very interesting to see what the incoming U.S. President decides to do. Hopefully provide much clearer political leadership for the military, whatever their decision may be. I'm not sure if they will though, given the unattractiveness of all the options.

I'm surprised so many people are lining up for the job...

The General does what he is told, it is the nature of his job not to wonder why. Look further up the chain for that.

Yes RG, theater. Congress has no business bringing military officials into this. As one of the other commenters said, the general is just following orders.

What the fuck else is the general supposed to say? Anything else would be treason, if he did in fact disagree with his orders. One aspect of our democracy is that the military is powerless in politics, the impotence of the military is designed into the constitution to impede any political action by the military. Maybe his performance is an indication of his malcontent, that he is aware of the fiasco (any idiot can see it by now), but also aware of his own powerlessness to do much about it. Anyway, as I said before, he has no business being there in the first place, and this is what Chris Matthews should be harping on.

Honest answer or not, it is a pretty heavy answer. 4,000 of your neighbors (or children) have given their life in a war we aren't even sure is working, or will ever work. That's chilling. It probably isn't working, but we're going to keep at it. How much more could you "lose" in a war like this. We've lost, because we are not safer, the war is making more terrorist, and we're worse off on the world stage. Why keep going. Sheesh.

...the general is just following orders.

Okay, I don't wanna Godwin this here fine debate, but for fucks sakes, don't Nuremberg it.

He is a military man not a policy maker. His job is not to make policy but to follow it. In this country we do not let the military make these sorts of claims or decisions. That is for the elected representatives not the military, and I for one like it that way.

The things that nobody seemed to pick up on so far about Patreus are:

a) He evaded the question initially

and b) he said he didn't even think about it.

My guess is that both camps are right. When given the question, he was originally diplomatic in order to avoid answering a question he shouldn't, but when pressed, he told the truth as he felt he needed to.

Willey: It's a bit melodramatic to say that because the guy who isn't supposed to answer the question of safety didn't, America is now doomed. What you need to do is find the answers that the guys who have their fingers on the buttons are giving.

Disgusting theatrical proselitism. That acting was an pathetic.

The video speaks volumes. How can anyone say that he came off as being frank and upfront when he clearly attempted to dodge the initial question of whether it was keeping America safe and started to ramble about what we should and shouldn't do? James Raynor nailed it.

General Petraeus has a job to oversee the current operation in Iraq. He has been doing that job (we can evaluate his performance another time). However, as a four-star General, the highest ranking General in the military, he is required by oath [http://www.army.mil/CMH/faq/oaths.htm - as an officer, his oath is the second] to evaluate whether we are in Iraq to provide military consulting and security for the citizens and residents of Iraq and/or if we are in Iraq to ensure the security of the USA and its citizens and residents. Gen. Petraeus has a fundamental responsibility by means of his sworn oath to seek the answer to a question of whether our occupation of Iraq is making the US safer. According to Gen. Petraeus's sworn oath, if Iraq is not our enemy, we should not be there and if Iraq IS our enemy, Gen. Petraeus should be able to say that we are safer (from Iraq) for being there. He did not swear an oath to obey the President, Gen. Petraeus swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and thereby the people of the US, so following orders (of the President) is not sufficient reasoning to evade his responsibilities as an Officer of the US Army.

Most Americans truly don't care about Iraqi freedom but they don't like losing and even more they don't like insecurity.

Funny how people like you seem to think you know what 'most Americans' believe. Guess when you think you're God, you think you know everything.

I just wish they would have listen to us crazy liberals six years ago before they blindly followed the propaganda into this deadly fiasco that has killed and endangered so many people all for the obscene profits of the anointed few.

I know how your type like to wash your hands of any responsibility for anything, but bear in mind that your beloved 'crazy liberal' party quite readily voted for this war based upon the same 'propaganda and lies' which pretty much everyone believed to be true at the time.

You can claim that you had some great insider knowledge and woe-is-me all you want about how we should have listened to you, Nostradamus, but the fact is that you're just a contrarian. You're against everything, and your type always complain and bitch and moan, so the fact that one of your Cassandra-like predictions of doom and gloom eventually came partially true is neither astounding nor meaningful.

And I'd really like to know what productive, constructive goal constantly wringing your hands and going 'if only' accomplishes, other than letting you rub a little more ego salve on your inflated sense of self-worth for being able to see in hindsight exactly what everybody else sees.

How we got there is irrelevant to the current situation. We're there. And what I find the most pathetic about your position is that you seem to think leaving, and leaving the people of the area to suffer genocide and years of sectarian violence, is the solution to the problem.

Your reflections on past decisions are irrelevant, and your input into current ones is simply self-serving and counterproductive. And you're lecturing people?

"Funny how people like you seem to think you know what 'most Americans' believe. Guess when you think you're God, you think you know everything."

Yeah..just ask Bush...

Ass

T4t said, "but bear in mind that your beloved 'crazy liberal' party quite readily voted for this war based upon the same 'propaganda and lies' which pretty much everyone believed to be true at the time"

Wrong. Some Democrats may have voted for this war, and they were the crazy ones. But not everyone believed the lies and propaganda.

House Republican - Yeas 215, Nays 6 Democrat - Yeas 81, Nays 126

Senate Republican - Yeahs 50, Nays 1 Democrat - Yeas 27, Nays 22

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold on Opposing the Resolution Authorizing the Use of Force Against Iraq From the Senate Floor

October 9, 2002 >

Both in terms of the justifications for an invasion and in terms of the mission and the plan for the invasion, Mr. President, the Administration's arguments just don't add up. They don't add up to a coherent basis for a new major war in the middle of our current challenging fight against the terrorism of al Qaeda and related organizations. Therefore, I cannot support the resolution for the use of force before us.

I associate myself with the concerns eloquently raised by Senator Kennedy and Senator Byrd and others that this could well represent a disturbing change in our overall foreign and military policy. This includes grave concerns about what such a preemption-plus policy will do to our relationship with our allies, to our national security, and to the cause of world peace in so many regions of the world, where such a doctrine could trigger very dangerous actions with really very minimal justification.

But, Mr. President, I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. My colleagues, I'm not suggesting there has to be only one justification for such a dramatic action. But when the Administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, I think it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency. I believe that this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the Administration's motives in insisting on action at this particular time.

What am I talking about? I'm talking about the spectacle of the President and senior Administration officials citing a purported connection to al Qaeda one day, weapons of mass destruction the next day, Saddam Hussein's treatment of his own people on another day, and then on some days the issue of Kuwaiti prisoners of war.

I am especially troubled by these shifting justifications because I and most Americans strongly support the President on the use of force in response to the attacks on September 11, 2001. I voted for Senate Joint Resolution 23, the use of force resolution, to go after al Qaeda and the Taliban and those associated with the tragedies of September 11. And I strongly support military actions pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 23.

But the relentless attempt to link 9-11 and the issue of Iraq has been disappointing to me for months, culminating in the President's singularly unpersuasive attempt in Cincinnati to interweave 9-11 and Iraq, to make the American people believe that there are no important differences between the perpetrators of 9-11 and Iraq.

The html didn't work too well on my post above. But to summarize, all but 7 Republicans voted for the Iraq War Resolution. 98 Democrats voted for and 146 Democrats voted against the resolution.

So clearly, the majority of the beloved Democrats voted against this war and were not fooled by the propaganda.

Futhermore, the foreign press clearly outlined the problems that would ensue and urged the U.S. not to wage war on Iraq.

Furthermore, even Cheney himself did not believethat going to war in Iraq was not the right decision.

I know how your type like to wash your hands of any responsibility for anything

No, it is your type who were too fucking ignorant too be informed to know enough about what was really going on. Don't place your own ignorant guilt on the shoulders of those who knew better.

And what I find the most pathetic about your position is that you seem to think leaving, and leaving the people of the area to suffer genocide and years of sectarian violence, is the solution to the problem

The presence of the U.S. is stimulating sectarian violence. Furthermore, we simply don't have enough troops to insure stability. All we are doing is delaying the inevitable.

Nostradamus, my ass. Here's another statement by Jean-David Levitte, February 2003:

A second reason for the reluctance of the French people is that Iraq is not viewed as an immediate threat. Thanks to the determination of President Bush and the international community - and to the inspections that destroyed more armaments between 1991 and 1998 than did the Persian Gulf war itself, and which have now been reinforced with stronger means and bigger teams - Saddam Hussein is in a box. And the box has been closed with the inspectors in it.

Europeans consider North Korea a greater threat. Imagine what a sense of security we all would feel if, as in Iraq, 100 inspectors were proceeding with unimpeded inspections throughout North Korea, including the president's palaces.

A third reason for the cautious mood relates to the consequences of a war in Iraq. We see Iraq as a very complex country, with many different ethnic groups, a tradition of violence and no experience of democracy. You can't create democracy with bombs - in Iraq, it would require time, a strong presence and a strong committment.

We also worry about the region - considering that no peace process is at work for the moment in the Middle East, that none of the great powers seem able to foster one, and that a war in Iraq could result in more frustration and bitterness in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

People in France and more broadly in Europe fear that a military intervention could fuel extremism and encourage Qaeda recruitment. A war could weaken the indispensable international coalition against terrorism and worsen the threat of Islamic terrorism.

The inspections should be pursued and strengthened, and Saddam Hussein must be made to cooperate actively. War must remain the very last option.

Thank you very much.

Embassy of France in the United States - February 14, 2003

I know how your type like to wash your hands of any responsibility for anything, but bear in mind that your beloved 'crazy liberal' party quite readily voted for this war based upon the same 'propaganda and lies' which pretty much everyone believed to be true at the time.

This is cattle excrement. No one had access to the same intelligence as the WH , because only the WH had the CIA analysis of the documents Bush and co were basing their arguments on. Its kind of like saying that scientists have proven that evolution is a lie, and failing to point out that the scientists in question work for the discovery institute. The Democrats who voted for the war based their views on lies and propaganda because that's all they had.

According to Gen. Petraeus's sworn oath, if Iraq is not our enemy, we should not be there and if Iraq IS our enemy, Gen. Petraeus should be able to say that we are safer (from Iraq) for being there.

The oath isn't quite like that - it says "...I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me..."

He doesn't have to be sure that the actions being taken are having positive effects - only that they are not illegal or against the Constitution.

I guess it shows up the complexity of the situation though - in a "traditional" war you'd expect a pretty clear-cut distinction between what makes us safer vs. what makes us less safe.

In Iraq it's not clear at all what the outcomes of different plans of action will be - even if they are "successful". A fully-trained Iraqi security force could form the basis of terrorist groups 10 years from now... or a strong Iraqi government could decide to invade Saudi Arabia. It's impossible for Petraeus to guarantee anything long-term, so he shouldn't.

If his report is the basis for which they make the decision to further the war effort, shouldn't his opinion on its security impact be called into question? It's absurd not to ask this question of him. He is our link to the progress of the war, and one of the strongest arguments for this war is the preemptive nature of it.

How is the impact of this war on our national security not within the scope of his thought? Who is he fighting the war for, orders? Do these orders exist in a vacuum? Is this what we should support, blind generals and can claim as their accountability, "I was just following orders." It seems as if he's invested the assessment of our safety in Bush, who hasn't even seen the battlefield [now or ever].

If Petraeus cannot answer this question, then who are we supposed to ask? What was the point of the report? To tell us more of what Bush has already been saying?

gazza j - I understand what you're saying. I also believe that the question of whether "America is safer" was to ascertain whether we're safer today, not a forecast into the future.

What I was saying is that as military personnel, Petraeus swore to "defend" the US. If we are in Iraq for the sake of defending Iraq, not defending the US, then we should not be there. If we are defending the US as well, he should be able to say more than a meager, "I don't know".

Additionally, the oath you quoted was the enlisted oath, not the oath Gen. Petraeus made as a commissioned officer.

Okay, so here's the deal: Abizaid and Casey were "surge opponents," so Bush replaced them with Fallon and Petraeus . But in this big hearing, Fallon was nowhere to be seen -- and he's Petraeus' boss. Isn't that strange?

Well, yes, and no. Fallon, as it turns out, isn't much of a surge enthusiast himself. And he's not much of a fan of Petraeus, either. In fact, Fallon apparently told Petraeus -- to his face -- that he considers him to be an "ass-kissing little chickenshit."

I guess my initial assessment was right...

Source: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/12/webb-fallon/

I seem to be the only one confused by the term "fallen angels" i realize it is meant to be some kind of beautiful tribute to these dead kids...but seriously? name the most famous fallen angel? ... Lucifer ... I'm not Christian, but for a known Christian nation to name its dead soldiers 'fallen angels' even as a slang term is either incredibly ignorant ... or really perverse. I'd like to get someones thoughts on this.

The "fallen angel" phrase is open to interpretation, but it's pretty clear that they aren't calling them "Satan followers" by calling them fallen angels. Fallen is a synonym for dead. It's also a religious symbol, which is weighty in most american's minds, already, they are thinking about death when you talk about fallen soldiers, and then you compound the importance of the death by directly invoking Heaven, inferring that each and every one of these soldiers are now in a better place.

It's a pretty heavy phrase, tested on focus groups i'm sure. Only Fred Phelps would compare the "fallen angels" analogy to satan with any seriousness.

And fallon's description of Patreous was pretty surprising

Maybe I wasn't clear enough for you Willey I UNDERSTAND WHY THEY USED THE NAME it's just completely fucked up. I don't think people want to call soldiers followers of satan. I think however that the phrase is fucking silly for Christians to use.