The Petraeic Oracle

The Greek poet Aeschylus is attributed first with the observation that “In war, truth is the first casualty.” As the Iraq war plows towards its sixth year, it is well to keep this adage in mind.

During the war’s first year, David Petraeus was a Major General commanding the 101st Airborne Division. His work as a divisional commander was well regarded. Post military correspondent Thomas Ricks, in Fiasco, a highly critical account of the Iraq invasion and occupation, gave Petreaus high marks for his understanding of counter-insurgency warfare, and for the conduct of his division in pacifying the insurgency rather than exacerbating it, by working with tribal sheiks and locals to create a sense of security.

Flash ahead a few years, and Petraeus has undergone a metamorphosis, from being a capable military commander who did a capable job in a difficult situation, to being — at least in the minds of the Bush Administration and the war’s supporters — an infallible oracle, an irrefutable authority on the direction which our nation must take in Iraq.

The new Petraeus, the Petraeic Oracle, is endowed with supernatural powers of judgment or cognition. No longer a mere mortal, he is the unchallenged seer who can peer into the future of Iraq.

This new construct is both artificial and damaging. After Bush’s serial roll outs of different slogans for the Iraq war, from Mission Accomplished to the Plan For Victory, his advisors told him his credibility on Iraq was shattered. He needed a new standard bearer, and he at least believes that Petreaus is that man. So Bush has pointedly and dishonestly issued the edict that it is “Commanders on the Ground,” who would drive decisions in Iraq, that he was a so-called “Commander Guy” whose decisions would supposedly no longer be based on Neocons, Chalabis, and other frauds of an intrinsically political nature, but rather by the technical expertise of the professional military.

The Commander Guy construct is also a lie. Bush has been perfectly willing, for years, to ignore, shunt aside, and pass over generals who do not agree with his decisions. Here, he’s simply found a general with whom he agrees. The Surge is yet another Neocon scheme (a Kagan’s thumbprints is all over this sucker), but it also happens to be one which Petreaus believes is most likely to be “successful” in Iraq, assuming that the White House can define success in any meaningful terms at this point. Success, as it appears to me the White House is using the term, is mustering the political will to maintain our troops in Iraq in large numbers. The White House has accomplished a transference of its political will onto the military judgment of Petraeus.

The adminstration and its Right Wing Fools and Lackies (example) are defending the political decision of the Bush administration, not only on the basis that it is a decision guided by military science, but also on the basis that Petraeus is infallible. If you question Petreaus’s judgment with respect to Iraq, you question his integrity, you hate the troops/America/God/apple pie and the whole ball of wax. The dichotomy posed is that either Petreaus is an honest man, and therefore right, or he is the lowest form of political toadie and has sacrificed his military judgment for political silver. This dichotomy is false.

Petraeus may be a capable commander, perhaps the best we have, and still be wrong with respect to our mission in Iraq, and especially on whether it can be accomplished through our current military strategy. It is said of Hannibal, one of the most brilliant generals in history, but not how to use that victory. Despite his brilliance, Carthage ended up defeated, then razed to the ground. Can Petraeus, a division commander 3 years ago, even a Hannibal?

It isn’t necessary for Petraeus to be dishonest in order to be wrong. Indeed, Petraeus, before he was endowed with oracular infallibilty by the White House, was certainly wrong in September 2004 when he lauded the Iraqi Security Forces, and especially the police forces which recent studies have suggested disbanding, and badly overstated the numbers, capabilties, and prospects for independent operation of these forces. An honest person can support a mistaken strategy. Especially in this case, where the man was chosen precisely because he supports the strategic decision made by the Bush administration. Bush’s Iraq misadventure is a vampire, it has always been a vampire, living off the blood and credibility of others. It has already claimed the credibility and reputation of Colin Powell, almost at its inception. It is surviving now off the reputation of David Petraeus.

I think war critics misstep when they insist that Petraeus has been somehow compromised by the Bush administration; it simply isn’t necessary that his integrity have lapsed to be wrong. It is an easier task for the war’s supporters to defend the integrity of one general with an outstanding service record, than it is to defend the disaster which is Iraq.