Amateur Experts

[Hollis]

Link:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/amateur_experts.html


From inside the article, which is a good read.

"Not only is General Petraeus reporting progress, so have a couple of Brookings Institution scholars who have studied the situation in Iraq -- and who are liberal Democrats who had worked for Senator Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004."

[California Joe]

I believe there is tremendous pressure on high ranking military officers to tow the party line. The positions they hold are largely political. They are effected by internal and external politics. However, the idea of being a political mouthpiece goes against everything the best of these men have sworn to do. I think the best Generals think of their troops and their military objectives and do not pander to their civilian masters political whims. Petraeus strikes me as that kinda guy.

[BugHunt]

I sincerely hope he is Joe - but ive a feeling he got too cozy to Bush along the way....


I just love the way that article says let the generals do there work!

Like Bush and co have loyally been following expert military advise from the get go.....they follow it as and when its convenient and replace the generals when there opinions arent to there liking....

Google General Eric Shinseki sometime Hollis.....


From the article -

Progress does not mean inevitable victory, much less quick victory. Nor is it easy to define what "victory" would mean in the messy circumstances of Iraq.

Dancing in the streets with flowers and huge WMD hauls wasnt it? Or was that to kill the 911 perpetrators?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I don't know much about Petraeus but so far he seems like a serious person who can be relied upon to give his opinion irrespective of the wishes of his boss. I hope that's the case - the very last thing we need is further political grandstanding and spin...in any direction.


Dancing in the streets with flowers and huge WMD hauls wasnt it? Or was that to kill the 911 perpetrators?

I seem to remember something about getting rid of Saddam and concluding the WMD inspections.

[vryhpyammoadded]

Based on this article and others appearing about Petraeus I’m now curious to see some polling that revisits the one listed below in a few days.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/washington/10poll.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/washington/10poll.html)

Oh, the same for that Gallup poll on “do you trust the Petraeus report to be unbiased”.

[Ordie]

I like the General as well.

He's been given a difficult task and unfairly critisized. Unfortunately most of the Committee are taking advantage of the 'bully pulpit' and killing the messenger at the same time.

Much of the country's problem is the adversion of prolonged wars. And the enemy knows this fact and will use whatever means not to immediately win, but to harrass.

After all, we're the ones that have a timetable and PERT chart.

For the Iraqi's, Allah gave them time, and lots of it.

Why rush.

"You will kill 10 of our men , and we will kill one of yours [US], and in the end it will be you who will tire of it."
-Ho Chi Minh, 1969

"Yours [USA] is a society which cannot accept 10,000 dead in one battle."
-Saddam Hussien, 1991

[Hollis]

I think General Petraeus, is a straight up shooter, the same with General Pace. Remember Harry Reid's comments on Gen. Pace. Part of the partisan politics is throw those generals in to the septic tank of politics so they all look dirty and incompetent. I think is very safe to say either Gen. Petraeus or Gen. Pace are NOT incompetent, actually very talented and capable Generals.

Getting the average person to micro manage the war is part of propaganda, it will create a negative and hostile atmosphere to the war. Just like making claims to get information from out Intel.


Two really big hints, When the Japanese code (US in WWII) was broken, how did the US react or let anyone know it was broken. Imagine today how the opponents of the war would want full public disclosure of the fact the code was broken, regardless of the obvious cost to the war.


Also the Enigma machine from the Nazis.

Having full public disclosure of the war is insane, treason and only aids the enemy. Just as the terrorists are fighting a propaganda war here on our own soil, so must we counter it and wage a even more effective responce.

[Hollis]

Google General Eric Shinseki sometime Hollis.....



Bug, I think he demonstrates a unique problem in our governmental system. The seeing can be led by the blind, or the competent being lead by the incompetent. Being a elected official does not demand any special skills or knowledge out side of the political arena. The US military has always been under the Civilian Government.

It was something I noticed when I was a elected offical. Our staff was educated and highly qualified professionals as for their "bosses" who knows. We were fortunate, in having some really good elected people.

Amateurs who set in the position of experts.

[Hellfish]

Good article. Thanks, you old coot.

[ElHombre]

Like Bush and co have loyally been following expert military advise from the get go.....they follow it as and when its convenient and replace the generals when there opinions arent to there liking....

That is one point which does seem to be missing from the constant fellation of Petraeus that I've been seeing all over the news. The moment a commander doesn't please the WH, he's gone. The next ones in line learn the lesson to toe the WH line or else. Petraeus is just the latest one to be given the 'honor' of providing the Bush admin political cover for the true goal of the WH: avoid having to admit defeat in a war of their own choosing. As soon as the WH can no longer hide under Petraeus' skirt, he'll be gone and replaced with another.

[usa320]

I like the General as well.

He's been given a difficult task and unfairly critisized. Unfortunately most of the Committee are taking advantage of the 'bully pulpit' and killing the messenger at the same time.

Much of the country's problem is the adversion of prolonged wars. And the enemy knows this fact and will use whatever means not to immediately win, but to harrass.

After all, we're the ones that have a timetable and PERT chart.

For the Iraqi's, Allah gave them time, and lots of it.

Why rush.

"You will kill 10 of our men , and we will kill one of yours [US], and in the end it will be you who will tire of it."
-Ho Chi Minh, 1969

"Yours [USA] is a society which cannot accept 10,000 dead in one battle."
-Saddam Hussien, 1991

Spoken like a scholar and a gentleman. I agree completely.

[Calanen]

I don't know much about Petraeus but so far he seems like a serious person who can be relied upon to give his opinion irrespective of the wishes of his boss.

Very interesting guy - reading the story Michael Yon did about how he forgave the Specialist who shot him in a live far exercise (nearly killing him), and actually recommended that same specialist for Ranger school - made me think that this General is a truly great man. Here's the link to the story for those who have not read it, which has no doubt already been posted somewhere on here a few times.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/second-chances.htm

[Shellshock1918]

Petraeus is being made the Fall boy for all of this. The Administration hides behind him and the far left attacks him. Its really disgusting to see such an honorable man dragged down in the political muck.

[martinexsquaddie]

mind you if somebody shot me
few days in a stockade with plenty of sleep

or a truly miserable time at ranger school and he volunteered so you don't get to look petty and vindictive :)
how about sere school while you at it :)
though he's army so buds was out that looks deeply unpleasant

[Mastermind]

He has the right name...Looking at him, he makes me think of a Legatus Legionis (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legatus_Legionis&action=edit).

[11 Bravo]

Petraeus is being made the Fall boy for all of this. The Administration hides behind him and the far left attacks him. Its really disgusting to see such an honorable man dragged down in the political muck.

With a handle like "Shellshock 1918" you must be a fan of Niall fergusen. If so You have a fairly incorrect view of the great war.
That said I find it fairly inacurrate that you would propose your POV that Gen Petraeus is in any way being made a fall guy , and that the current US administration "hides behind" him.
That the Honorable General is being dragged down into any muck is strictly due to the left nut side demanding it for their dog and pony show to prepare for their bombastic attempt at election manipulation.

[Mastermind]

I have to agree with you 11 B...It's all a sham...and the media are failing miserably...because the real story...the shocking story... is the vast number of overt traitors in our midst and in our congress.

[ElHombre]

That said I find it fairly inacurrate that you would propose your POV that Gen Petraeus is in any way being made a fall guy , and that the current US administration "hides behind" him.

You'll find it less inaccurate if you start aligning your belief's with the facts. What's been the standard line the Bush admin has used when talking about Iraq for the past nine months? 'We're going to wait until we read Petraeus's report'. Decisons are delayed and the goalposts get moved once again with the cost of more dead and wounded.


That the Honorable General is being dragged down into any muck is strictly due to the left nut side demanding it for their dog and pony show to prepare for their bombastic attempt at election manipulation.

The only muck he's being drawn into is the one in front of his nose. Agreeing with Bush on anything (especially about Iraq) is the best way to shoot a gigantic hole in one's credibility. Petraeus has done just that.

[Zoomie]

The only muck he's being drawn into is the one in front of his nose. Agreeing with Bush on anything (especially about Iraq) is the best way to shoot a gigantic hole in one's credibility. Petraeus has done just that.
Has your hatred for Bush truly made you that disillusioned that anything he says must be false? :roll:

[ElHombre]

Has your hatred for Bush truly made you that disillusioned that anything he says must be false?

Take a moment and google all the predictions the Bush admin has made about Iraq before you accuse anyone pointing this out a 'Bush hater'. The real question is how bad do things have to get before his remaining supporters step into the light of reality.

[AlterMega]

The real question is how bad do things have to get before his remaining supporters step into the light of reality.
I'd say things could get a lot worse if the "disagree with bush no matter what" crowd had any more power than they do now.

[Mastermind]

I think Bush is a product of our own schizophrenia...we have become a very twisted little society here in the USA. Our "political correctness" has invaded just about every corner of our society...we have raised two generations of school children who absolutely do not know how to think. "Relativism" has become prevalent thought...everything is okay so long as at least someone is happy with it....even killing Americans in tall buildings.

This has generated an almost "Alice in Wonderland" political atmosphere...even the Democrats are suffering within it...look at their confusion over dealing with their "Move-On" crowd...a very tiny minority of kooks who seem to have exaggerated control over the Democrat reigns...and in the sticky quagmire of it all, America has become rather lost . We don't seem to be able to differentiate between good and bad anymore...not as clearly as we once did. and, the new age of total information and communications via computers, blogs, web sites and chat rooms had generated a fantastic array of empowered nuts who have managed to voice any and all theories, amateur strategies, opinions, "fact-oids" that makes every one feel like an expert on just about anything and everything.

Bush has done a fair job...he has made some grievous mistakes. He is not a very good communicator...his speeches sometimes are just terrible. The war is going about as well as anyone could have managed, except an Attila The Hun, of course. How do we fight a war against an "enemy" that is called "militant" or "insurgent"...these non-names have hazed over the objectives and the opposition until it is as if we are losing our soldiers lives fighting at shadows. We have various flaws in our political systems in general...and one glaring flaw is to have such a protected spot for "all religions", even the religions that want to destroy us...so we have nothing left to fight against...and here we are engaged in the biggest struggle for our existence we have ever known.

There is no President who cold have done this perfectly...no President who would have made this nasty thing go away. Sometimes bush makes me so mad I want to throw things at my TV...but, he is our President...or Commander in Chief. He is the only leader we have. Our Congress critters have lost their way and are like a group of elementary school children now. And, quite honestly, the determined focus Bush has maintained on the war in Iraq and Af have encouraged me. Even though it is taking much longer and costing much too much, we are not quitting...and that's what we need.

[Hollis]

MM, pretty good analysis. El Hombre sort of represents it. Bush is to be despised and hated at all cost, I mean all costs. It is also like we are really a nation of political isolationism, in that partisan politics is ignoring every reality outside of the US, except to use it for political manipulation to promote or demote a political person.

There was a thread a while back, "what is the war costing you" or something like that. Because the war is almost a complete abstract as far as cost except for those fighting it and their love one, it used as a political football. It is just kicked about in what ever direction it needs to go to add a political spin. Reality be damned.

I think if Gore was elected or Kerry, they would be in the same mess as Bush (or close enough).

This is not only a D issue or a R issue, it is a All American issue.

Example, what is the difference:

"Hey, Hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"

or

"Bush lied so thousands died."

It 2009, we will have a new president, with the same problems, who knows this time it may the D's taking all the flack on the war.. what ever problem, delay, cost, etc that is being focused on to cause political doubt of the leadership ability and to promote the other candidate at the cost of the men and women who are fighting.

[ElHombre]

I think if Gore was elected or Kerry, they would be in the same mess as Bush (or close enough).

There's a problem right there. Folks, it doesn't matter how much one despises Gore or Kerry, there's little room for arguement that either one of them would have made a better President than Bush and his group of cronies. Don't even try rebutting that statement, because we all know it's true and y'all will just make yourselves look like fools in the attempt.

Here's the big problem the US faces. The Bush admin has gotten us into a god-awful mess in Iraq and Bush himself has publicly acknowledged that he is going to pass the handling of it into the hands of the next admin. Bush simply does not want to deal with a problem he created all by himself. The price for his indecision will be the deaths of troops serving in Iraq. Most Americans think that is not a goal worth their sacrifice. War supporters must feel differently...

[SBL]

^You're reading zero(0) on my rationality meter.

[The Punisher]

Don't even try rebutting that statement, because we all know it's true and y'all will just make yourselves look like fools in the attempt.


I'm glad to see that you support free speech and recognize that your point of view isn't the only one.

[vryhpyammoadded]

You’re correct ElHombre, the philosophical differences between the war supporters and war detractors defines everything of the argument and is why the strongest supporters on either side appear irrational to each other and never able to reach common ground.

Personally I do not see Gore or Kerry as being anything but similar to a Bush administration in character and skill with only differing strategy leading to equal potential for fiasco since 9/11, growing along alternative paths of personal/administration ego i.e., the Middle East would still be a mess with heaps of bodies eventually piling up and no end in sight to the carnage.
The anti war faction can scream all they want “Bush lied, people died” and it will not dissuade my opinion that Gore or Kerry or any other American politician could ever have prevented “eventual” US military intervention in the Middle East. In my opinion it was inevitable but good we got started early.

The big difference I see between all other political rivals and the Bush Administration is simply the timing of the real conflict approaching and how intense it will be.

[usmcprincipal]

This article is from Thomas Sowell as well. It was written after "Amateur Experts". I appreciate Sowell. He is a clear thinker, but doesn't allow his conservative thinking define him as a simple political hack.

In my judgment, the Democrats offered little in the way of substantive arguments when addressing General Petraeus' September report. There was a great deal of posturing, while some resorted to lecturing a professional soldier despite having little or no military background let alone a professional military perspective. Neither did the MoveOn.Org ad address issues of substance, but rather chose to attack his character. Obviously, Bush wants success in Iraq. Petraeus believes his plan might offer success. It hardly means Patraeus is some type of stooge. It merely indicates Bush chose a general, who was able to define his plan and how he would implement it.

I was surprised the Democrats did not offer input from respected generals, who might offer differing assessments of the surge and alternative military options. Interestingly, they've seemingly chosen to lie low, but I'm not sure why.

I think the Democratic political strategy was clearly laid out by Harry Reid in April when he announced the so-called "surge" had failed, when in reality the application had not yet begun. From a political power perspective, the Democrats have nothing to gain from any measure of success in Iraq. However, it's pure folly to assume that in the space of a few months a tactical counterinsurgency plan will offer clear measures of success. It can only offer trends.

Now some politicians honestly believe the war has failed and nothing can be done to turn the pig into a beauty queen, while others are merely opportunists, but I've never read any thoughtful, indepth policy plan from the Dems outlining how we can tactically disengage without losing, and ultimately there will be winners and a losers.

I believe it's imperative the surge achieves a large measure of success, since it will only make the task easier when attempting to extricate ourselves from Iraq.

I'm not sure what was accomplished (other than possible political gain) by the posturing of Democrats and MoveOn.org. during the Petraeus hearings. Perhaps a partisan Dem with some capability of clear rationality could explain it.
____________


Mugged By Reality

In a world where the tragedy that is Iraq is usually discussed only in media sound bites and political slogans, it is especially gratifying to see an adult, intelligent, and insightful account of life inside Iraq by someone who lived there for nine months in the early days of the occupation in 2003 and 2004, and who saw the fundamental mistakes that would later plague the attempt to create a viable Iraqi government.

John Agresto, a career American academic and former college president who volunteered to go help create a better higher education system in Iraq, learned a lot about Iraqi society in general and about American attempts to create a better society there.

His recently published book is titled "Mugged by Reality" and is subtitled: "The Liberation of Iraq and the Failure of Good Intentions."

What is refreshingly different about this book is that it does not take the Bush administration line, the Congressional Democrats' line or anybody else's line.

Agresto is not out to prove some theory or push some pet scheme but to convey what he saw with his own eyes and discerned from his own experiences with both Iraqis and Americans in Iraq.

He makes no claim to infallibility but in fact admits to being forced to change his mind by what he saw.

Initially a supporter of the invasion, he now says that he would not have been a supporter if he had known beforehand how the occupation would be mishandled and the results that followed. But he also recognizes that we cannot unring the bell and simply leave, for that would lead to even worse consequences, not only in Iraq but elsewhere, not only to others but to ourselves.

The worst mistake, in Agresto's view, was the failure to establish law and order in the wake of the military victory, before undertaking the grandiose project of attempting to create democracy in Iraq. From this fundamental mistake, many of the other tragedies followed.

In the absence of law and order, there was widespread violence, looting, rape -- in short, the war of each against all that Hobbes warned about, centuries ago.

As for democracy, Agresto understands that the right to vote is no guarantee of freedom, toleration or respect for the rights of others. Without those prerequisites, democracy can mean tyranny at home and terrorism abroad.

Apparently the American civilian authorities in Iraq did not understand this or else they let that understanding be overridden by political considerations. By setting up a government based on warring factions, they made cooperation in the national interest a very unlikely prospect.

Today, when more and more Iraqis are rejecting the outside terrorists whom the media keep calling "insurgents," and when our military is restoring more order than Iraq has seen in a while, the most intractable problem is the very government we set up.

General David Petraeus is mentioned only a couple of times, and briefly, in "Mugged by Reality." But those brief mentions seem to be revealing.

Right after the success of military operations in Iraq, General Petraeus' 101st Airborne had control of the city of Mosul. According to Agresto, "he ran it in radically different ways than the rest of Iraq was run" -- and Mosul was "calm" in contrast to other parts of Iraq.

Then, after control of Mosul was passed on to others, it "began to rival the worst sections of Baghdad for attacks on Coalition forces and violence against Iraqis."

One of the ways in which Petraeus ran Mosul differently from the way things were done in the rest of Iraq, according to Agresto, was not to get rid of existing public officials wholesale, despite their being members of the former ruling Baath Party.

Somebody has to run the basic institutions that make civilized life possible -- and you can't just get rid of those who know how to run those institutions before you have someone qualified to replace them. Apparently General Petraeus was pragmatic enough to understand that.

We may, belatedly, have found a man and an approach that work.

[Mastermind]

This article is from Thomas Sowell as well. It was written after "Amateur Experts". I appreciate Sowell. He is a clear thinker, but doesn't allow his conservative thinking define him as a simple political hack.

In my judgment, the Democrats offered little in the way of substantive arguments when addressing General Petraeus' September report. There was a great deal of posturing, while some resorted to lecturing a professional soldier despite having little or no military background let alone a professional military perspective. Neither did the MoveOn.Org ad address issues of substance, but rather chose to attack his character. Obviously, Bush wants success in Iraq. Petraeus believes his plan might offer success. It hardly means Patraeus is some type of stooge. It merely indicates Bush chose a general, who was able to define his plan and how he would implement it.

I was surprised the Democrats did not offer input from respected generals, who might offer differing assessments of the surge and alternative military options. Interestingly, they've seemingly chosen to lie low, but I'm not sure why.

I think the Democratic political strategy was clearly laid out by Harry Reid in April when he announced the so-called "surge" had failed, when in reality the application had not yet begun. From a political power perspective, the Democrats have nothing to gain from any measure of success in Iraq. However, it's pure folly to assume that in the space of a few months a tactical counterinsurgency plan will offer clear measures of success. It can only offer trends.

Now some politicians honestly believe the war has failed and nothing can be done to turn the pig into a beauty queen, while others are merely opportunists, but I've never read any thoughtful, indepth policy plan from the Dems outlining how we can tactically disengage without losing, and ultimately there will be winners and a losers.

I believe it's imperative the surge achieves a large measure of success, since it will only make the task easier when attempting to extricate ourselves from Iraq.

I'm not sure what was accomplished (other than possible political gain) by the posturing of Democrats and MoveOn.org. during the Petraeus hearings. Perhaps a partisan Dem with some capability of clear rationality could explain it.


Excellent!