Peace and Justice Post

Gen. Petraeus might have taken pressure off Bush and assured a large U.S. military presence in Iraq until 2009, but to what end?

ALAN BOCK

Sr. editorial writer
The Orange County Register
abock@ocregister.com

So far as I know, only Yale Law School professor Bruce Ackerman and a few bloggers have taken note of one of the more disturbing aspects of the administration’s decision to put our Iraq commander, Gen. David Petraeus, front-and-center in the policy debate over the next steps in Iraq.

One can understand the dynamics behind the elevation of this general. President Bush’s administration’s credibility is in tatters – remember how the toppling of Saddam’s statue, the killing of Saddam’s sons, the capture and execution of Saddam, the several elections, the handover to an Iraqi government all presaged ultimate victory and a democratic Iraqi ally? He needed an ostensibly independent figure to restore some confidence.

Over the longer haul, however, this apparent deference to a military figure on strategic objectives could be seen as an episode in the erosion of civilian control over the military. To be sure, while saying he relied on the judgment of military commanders, President Bush has made his own decisions about Iraq and has not hesitated to shuffle generals around to put those in line with his current thinking into positions of command. But this time he needed the general more than the general needed him.

Continued . . .

This entry was posted on September 17, 2007 at 10:15 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.