Petraeus Weighs In, Supports Obama Policy

[alienlovechild 75]

My point is that you are saying it is a given that Gen. Petraeus' opinion will always be politically motivated, so it doesn't matter whether you criticize his opinion before or after he gives it.

He's not a politician nor did he go along with a withdrawal timetable. He's hardly "always" politcially motivated and has shown to execute his duties as a soldier first regardless of what's fashionable in DC. The idea of supporting blind criticism before the man spoke is a clear indication you could care less what he has to say until it fits your mindset.

In other words, you're position is really no different than those who simply dismissed his opinion believing that it was political back when his Commander in Chief was Bush.

See above. I feel like Petraeus in that you entirely skipped my praise of Obama in following most of Bush's foreign policy. You write the same stuff regardless of what I write.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

alc,

What is the criteria then for you to determine whether the General is giving his own, non-political opinion and when he's merely being political?

In your words...

Obama is his superior and previous generals have been dismissed for publically disgreeing with the president.

That sounds to me like you are essentially saying that whenever he says something in agreement with the President, he is being political, no?

[alienlovechild 75]

What is the criteria then for you to determine whether the General is giving his own, non-political opinion and when he's merely being political?

Ugh, it's like talking to a slightly animated wall with a keyboard. I told you the general was doing his duty and following a counterinsurgency strategy when everyone else was pushing for a withdrawal timetable. That wasn't politically popular at the time. I speculate he threw a bone to Obama on an issue that's stale to everyone except the media and the Beltway i.e. nobody on the battlefield should give a hoot about how some terrorists got man handled 7-8 years when there are plenty of his pals shooting at troops today and tomorrow. if I really thought it would weaken enemy morale I'd say drop daisies on the Taliban and Al Qaeda but I don't think that'll help.

In your words...

Obama is his superior and previous generals have been dismissed for publically disgreeing with the president.

That sounds to me like you are essentially saying that whenever he says something in agreement with the President, he is being political, no?

No, the general was doing his bit long before Obama took office and American generals, in general (pun) are apolitical. There's no indication the general had any input on Afghan detainees during 2001-2002 so he had nothing to lose in backing Obama- no flip flop. Plus, the Dems are controlling the DOD budget so pissing them off wouldn't be in his best interest.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

alc,

I mean come on, really...you've just made two contradicting generalizations...

"You'd think somebody would know about the chain-of-command and where General Petraeus fits in. Obama is his superior and previous generals have been dismissed for publically disgreeing with the president."

and

"...American generals, in general (pun) are apolitical."

Edited May 28, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[nowhereman 1]

General Petraeus operates on the strategic level of warfare, so whatever he does has political ramifications (they are intertwined with one another). At the same time military officers should remain as politically neutral as possible, so Petraeus's job is to carry out the orders of the President. Only his wife and close friends have an idea of what his personal opinions are about foreign policy.

[alienlovechild 75]

I mean come on, really...you've just made two contradicting generalizations...

"You'd think somebody would know about the chain-of-command and where General Petraeus fits in. Obama is his superior and previous generals have been dismissed for publically disgreeing with the president."

and

"...American generals, in general (pun) are apolitical."

There's nothing contradictory that most generals are apolitical but some have gotten relieved of command. Look at Truman and MacArthur or Lincoln and McClellan. Let me know when you find counterexamples of either of my statements.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I mean come on, really...you've just made two contradicting generalizations...

"You'd think somebody would know about the chain-of-command and where General Petraeus fits in. Obama is his superior and previous generals have been dismissed for publically disgreeing with the president."

and

"...American generals, in general (pun) are apolitical."

There's nothing contradictory that most generals are apolitical but some have gotten relieved of command. Look at Truman and MacArthur or Lincoln and McClellan. Let me know when you find counterexamples of either of my statements.

Oye...I hate to keeping harping on this, but...

You implied with your first generalization, that by defacto, Gen. Petraeus is not going openly disagree with the President's policies, and subsequently implied that he is only supporting the President's position to be expedient. That's being political. I don't know how you could call it anything else.

[alienlovechild 75]

You implied with your first generalization, that by defacto, Gen. Petraeus is not going openly disagree with the President's policies, and subsequently implied that he is only supporting the President's position to be expedient. That's being political. I don't know how you could call it anything else.

You're stuck and I don't how many other ways I can explain it to you. I had a high school speech teacher tell me if you're arguing something and the other person repeats something and ignores everything you say- you've reached an impass and further communication is useless.

If it helps I expanded on my post and you're still on the first post. You ignored everything else I wrote so I'm not getting through. You got toggle-switch mind with on/off or yes/no on this one.