Won't Somebody Listen to the Generals (and Admirals and Majors)?

by Eric Martin

To reiterate the Bush-era Republican Party line on defense issues, it would be highly irresponsible for US leaders to ignore the advice of the generals.  Especially, someone like, say General Petraeus:

General David Petraeus said this past weekend that President Obama's decision to close down Gitmo and end harsh interrogation techniques would benefit the United States in the broader war on terror.

In an appearance on Radio Free Europe on Sunday, the man hailed by conservatives as the preeminent military figure of his generation left little room for doubt about where he stands on some of Obama's most contentious policies.

"I think, on balance, that those moves help [us]," said the chief of U.S. Central Command. "In fact, I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention. And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines.

"With respect to Guantanamo," Petraeus added, "I think that the closure in a responsible manner...I think, sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees."

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen concurs: 

The top U.S. military officer on Sunday pushed for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison despite rising resistance in Congress, saying it serves as a "recruiting symbol" for America's enemies. [...]

"Well, the concern I've had about Guantanamo in these wars is it has been a symbol -- and one which has been a recruiting symbol for those extremists and jihadists who would fight us. ... That's at the heart of the concern for Guantanamo's continued existence," Mullen said on ABC's "This Week."

"Well, I've advocated for a long time now that it needs to be closed. President Obama made a decision very early after his inauguration to do that by next January. And we're all working very hard to meet that deadline," Mullen added.

Deferment Dick Cheney, however, thinks the Generals and Admirals are wildly off the mark: 

In a vigorous defense of the Guantanamo prison...former Vice President Dick Cheney assailed what he called "this recruitment tool theory" that U.S. treatment of foreign terrorism suspects held there has helped al Qaeda and other U.S. enemies attract new members.

"It's another version of that same old refrain from the left, 'We brought it on ourselves,'" Cheney said on Thursday.

Senator Kyl agrees:

Republican Senator Jon Kyl, speaking on "Fox News Sunday," embraced Cheney's view. "I think it's palpably false to suggest that the existence of Gitmo created terrorists. And yet the president gets away with (saying) that," Kyl said.

Not just the President, but the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Petraeus.  Also, Major Alexander:

First, VP Cheney said, "This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately... it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do." He further stated, "It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so." That is simply untrue. Anyone who served in Iraq, and veterans on both sides of the aisle have made this argument, knows that the foreign fighters did not come to Iraq en masse until after the revelations of torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. I heard this from captured foreign fighters day in and day out when I was supervising interrogations in Iraq. What the former vice president didn't say is the fact that the dislike of our policies in the Middle East were not enough to make thousands of Muslim men pick up arms against us before these revelations. Torture and abuse became Al Qaida's number one recruiting tool and cost us American lives.

Major Alexander is obviously correct.  These are classic counterinsurgency principles - not to mention common sense: try not to radicalize, alienate and, thus, mobilize the target population.  The existence of Gitmo, and the torture that occurred there and elsewhere, did just that.  The simplistic response is to point out that some terrorists/insurgents/takfirists would have come to Iraq/joined al-Qaeda regardless.  This is true, if beside the point: it is imperative to limit that number of militants, and to limit the extent of the sympathy and support those militants receive from the underlying population of non-militants. 

While there is entirely too much deference to the opinions of military figures in this nation, when it comes to sussing out counterinsurgency doctrine, I'll take Petraeus' analysis over Dick Cheney's any day. (via)

Comments

[Point]

"While there is entirely too much deference to the opinions of military figures in this nation, when it comes to sussing out counterinsurgency doctrine, I'll take Petraeus' analysis over Dick Cheney's any day."

Oh come on, give these commanders more credit than that -- hell, I'd take keyboard cat's analysis over Cheney's!

[Pithlord]

Dangerous argument for the right position. Sitting generals can't (and shouldn't) take a policy position independent of the administration.

[Eric Martin]

Sitting generals can't (and shouldn't) take a policy position independent of the administration.

Which made Bush's appeal to "listening to the generals" so ridiculous. Especially because he fired or undercut each general that in any way disagreed with the wisdom of his preferred course of action.

But if the GOP wants to treat Petraeus like he walks on water, and that the generals deserve deference on military matters, then they should reap the whirlwind.

[cleek]

then they should reap the whirlwind.

they like the whirlwind. it keeps people from seeing clearly.

[jdog]

This is why (some) blogs are essential. Newspapers may report the news, but reporters often do a poor job of making sense of it. We get better analysis of statements and facts in forums like Obsidian Wings . . .

Keep it up, Eric.

[Jay C]

While I personally would be much more pleased if Gen. Petraeus had said something more along the lines of:

"I have listened to Former Vice President Cheney's opinions as to the value of closing our prison at Guantanamo Bay, and have come to the conclusion that this man is a disgrace to this nation, and should shut the fnck up. Permanently."

the General's comments are, well, just what one would expect: reasoned, simple and intelligent. No wonder the pro-torture crowd is likely to go ballistic! I wonder how long it will take for some rightwing blog or talking-head to start dumping on Gen. Petraeus (their Hero) as an America-hating, terrorist-enabling wuss? (if RedState hasn't, already.

[topsy, part one]

Fncking Dick Cheney. May he be remembered as the sucking chest wound of our national political life.

[novakant]

I'm confused, I thought Petraeus was the guy who tried to sell us on the surge and would say anything to further his career.

[Eric Martin]

I'm confused, I thought Petraeus was the guy who tried to sell us on the surge and would say anything to further his career.

Yeah, but since the GOP annointed him The Second Coming, his statements really undermine their efforts to attack Obama over torture/closing Gitmo.

Petraeus is who he is, but in this instance, it helps Obama considerably. Another GOP boomerang.

[Slartibartfast]

"Petraeus is who he is, but in this instance, it helps Obama considerably."

I've got no dog in this fight other than to say that you can't have it both ways, Eric. It's got far too much baggage to make an effective boomerang. You can't have Petraeus willing to say anything to suck up to power, and then have his opinion matter.

You can't have it the other way, either. Symmetry!

[Eric Martin]

But I can, and here's why:

Most Americans do not view Petraues as willing to say anything to suck up to power. They view him as the Warrior Poet who won the war in Iraq.

His approval ratings are very high, and generally speaking, Americans tend to like a man in uniform.

Thus, what he says carries weight with most Americans. Especially with those national security minded fence sitters that might be swayed by some Cheney/GOP scaremongering.

It won't effect Obama's base, or the Cheney hardcore 30%, but it will matter with much of the rest.

[Slartibartfast]

"Most Americans do not view Petraues as willing to say anything to suck up to power. They view him as the Warrior Poet who won the war in Iraq."

Point taken. Most Americans will surely have a stick with which to beat Republicans.

My "You can't have it the other way" comment was intended to convey that Republicans cannot either have it that Petraeus was the purveyor of all that is true and good while working for Bush, but is now simply sucking up to power and should be ignored.

Side comment: "Warrior Poet" may be a little exaggerated, no?

[Slartibartfast]

And, nit:

Cheney 30% plus Obama's base (I'm guessing you're going to want to nail that at 30% or larger) equals 60% of the voting public.

Which leaves 40% or less to stand in for "Most Americans".

NTIM;JS.

/nit

[Eric Martin]

""Warrior Poet" may be a little exaggerated, no?"

Sure, but the real-time hagiography was a little exaggerated as well.

"And, nit"

I know, I saw the math after I posted it and figured there was some punishment coming my way, but you get the jist.

[Slartibartfast]

WAY OT:

Radio Free Europe?

So, so wrong.

[Slartibartfast]

It was my understanding there would be no math, Eric.

Not, again, That It Matters, really.

[Eric Martin]

"It was my understanding there would be no math"

Ha.

[The Crafty Trilobite]

Petraeus could be a lying suckup on matters that concern his immediate job responsibilities when defending his performance or securing his budget, and a truth-teller on other occasions or when something really, really bugs him. There are no Empodoclean Cretans in the real world.

In pointing out this logical flaw in Slarti's argument, I express no opinion as to when, or whether, Petraeus told the truth. This offer void where prohibited.

[Slartibartfast]

Oh, granted. Best of all would be if Petraeus lied when he said stuff I disagreed with, and told the truth the rest of the time. I pick that.

Some settling of contents may occur during shipment.