Is Petraeus a Traitor
- From: dangdangdoodIe <note-a@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:47:36 -0800
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KB11Ak01.html
Petraeus 'leaked' Iraq pullout plans
By Gareth Porter
WASHINGTON - The political maneuvering between United States President
Barack Obama and his top field commanders over withdrawal from Iraq has
taken a sudden new turn with the leak by Central Command chief General
David Petraeus - and a firm denial by a White House official - of an
account of the January 21 White House meeting suggesting that Obama had
requested three different combat troop withdrawal plans with their
respective associated risks, including one of 23 months.
The Petraeus account, reported by McClatchy newspapers on February 5 and
then by the Associated Press the following day, appears to indicate that
Obama is moving away from the 16-month plan he had vowed during the
campaign to implement if elected. But on closer examination, it doesn't
necessarily refer to any action by Obama or to anything that happened at
the January 21 meeting.
The real story of the leak by Petraeus is that the most powerful figure
in the US military has tried to shape the media coverage of Obama and
combat troop withdrawal from Iraq to advance his policy agenda - and,
very likely, his personal political interests as well.
This writer became aware of Petraeus' effort to influence the coverage
of Obama's unfolding policy on troop withdrawal when a military source
close to the general, who insisted on anonymity, offered the Petraeus
account on February 4. The military officer was responding to an Inter
Press Service story published two days earlier (Please see, Obama not
bowing to top brass, yet, February 4, 2009.)
The story reported that Obama had rejected Petraeus' argument against a
16-month withdrawal option at the meeting and asked for a withdrawal
plan within that timeframe, and that Petraeus had been unhappy with the
outcome of the meeting.
It also reported that General Ray Odierno, the top US commander in Iraq,
and retired army general Jack Keane, a close ally of Petraeus, had both
made public statements indicating a determination to get Obama to
abandon the 16-month plan.
The officer told IPS that, contrary to the story, Petraeus had been
"very pleased" with the direction of the discussions. He said that there
had been no decision by Obama at the meeting and no indication that
Obama had a preference for one option over another.
The military source provided the following carefully worded statement:
"We were specifically asked to provide projections, assumptions and
risks for the accomplishment of objectives associated with 16-, 19- and
23-month drawdown options." That was exactly the sentence published by
McClatchy the following day, except that "specifically" was left out.
The source also said Petraeus, Odierno and ambassador Ryan Crocker had
already reached a "unified assessment" on the three drawdown options and
had forwarded them to the chain of command.
But a White House official told IPS on Monday that the Petraeus account
was untrue. "The assessments of the three drawdown dates were not
requested by the president," said the official, who insisted on not
being identified because he had not been authorized to comment on the
matter. "He never said, 'Give me three drawdown plans'."
McClatchy's Nancy Youssef reported a similar account from aides to
Obama. "Obama told his advisors shortly after taking office that he
remained committed to the 16-month timeframe," Youssef wrote, "but asked
them to present him with the pros and cons of that and other options,
without specifying dates."
That suggests that the only specific plan for which Obama requested an
assessment of risks was the 16-month plan, but that he agreed to look at
other plans as well.
The sentence given to this writer as well as to McClatchy bore one
obvious clue that the request for the assessments of three drawdown
plans did not come from Obama: the sentence used the passive voice. It
also failed to explicitly state that the request in question was made
during the meeting with Obama.
Petraeus did not respond to a request through the intermediary to say
who requested the studies and whether they had been proposed by the
military commanders themselves. McClatchy's Youssef also noted that it
is "unclear who came up with the idea ..." of the 19- and 23-month
withdrawal plans.
By implying that Obama had requested the three plans without saying so
explicitly, the sentence leaked by Petraeus seems to have been
calculated to create a misleading story.
One of Petraeus' objectives appears to have been to counter any
perception that he is seeking to undermine Obama on Iraq policy.
Petraeus wishes to remain out of the spotlight in regard to any conflict
regarding withdrawal over the Iraq issue. "He has been very careful to
keep a very low profile," said the military officer close to Petraeus,
"because this is a new administration."
But the Petraeus leak also serves to promote the idea that Obama is
moving away from his campaign pledge on a 16-month combat troop
withdrawal, which has already been the dominant theme in news media
coverage of the issue. That idea would also justify continued sniping by
military officers at Obama's 16-month plan as too risky.
In a new book, The Gamble, to be published on Tuesday, Washington Post
reporter Tom Ricks confirms an earlier report that in his initial
encounter with Petraeus in Baghdad last July, Obama had made no effort
to hide his sharp disagreement with the general's views. Obama
interrupted a lecture by Petraeus, according to Ricks, and made it clear
that, as president, he would need to take a broader strategic view of
the issue than that of the commander in Iraq.
Ricks, who interviewed Petraeus about the meeting, writes that Obama's
remarks "likely insulted Petraeus, who justly prides himself on his
ability to do just that ... " That strongly implies that Petraeus
expressed some irritation at Obama over the incident to Ricks.
On top of the interest of Petraeus and other senior officers in keeping
US troops in Iraq for as long as possible, Petraeus has personal
political interests at stake in the struggle over Iraq policy. He has
been widely regarded as a possible Republican presidential candidate in
2012.
Petraeus evidently believed the White House was promoting a story that
made him look like the loser at the January 21 meeting. "I imagine the
White House is not too happy that this information is out there," said
the military source, referring to the Petraeus account he had provided
to IPS.
Obama is obviously treading warily in handling Petraeus. His concern
about Petraeus' political ambitions may have been a factor in the
decision to bring four-star Marine Corps General James Jones in as his
national security adviser.
"I've been told by a couple of people that one of the reasons for Jones
being chosen was to have him there as a four-star to counter Petraeus,"
said one Congressional source.
Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specializing
in US national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest
book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in
Vietnam, was published in 2006.
-- the dang
"To those who would tear the world down, we will defeat you." Obama
.
- Prev by Date: Re: It makes me sick to my stomach
- Next by Date: Re: WHAT CHANGE? OBAMA/DEMS USING ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AS BUSH USED 911
- Previous by thread: Bush, Cheney Should Pay Impoverished Iraq War Widows
- Next by thread: Re: WHAT CHANGE? OBAMA/DEMS USING ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AS BUSH USED 911
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
