The General and MoveOn's Cojones

Big cojones.

By now you've all seen the ad (if not, see it) and heard the cries of concern from the DC establishment and moderate Democrats nation wide. John Kerry called the ad "over the top." Big Tent Democrat lauded the ad, but condemned the use of tactics he equates with Republican smear campaigns. Diarists and bloggers opined the "danger" such a bold move may create, putting Democrats on the offensive. And of course Lieberman was all upons.

Amid the "vertical bars" and hazy numbers of Petraeus' statements, many prominent Democrats have found reason to speak out against the MoveOn.org ad for it's challenge issued to (gasp!) an experienced military general, while they remain relatively silent in comparison on the credibility of the report itself.

During the testimony yesterday, a simple yet important question was asked by Gary Ackerman (D - NY) regarding the goal of the recommendations of a minute troop withdrawal in July of 2008, but a continued (large) military presence in the region to quell the sectarian civil war. Via The Gate:

Gary Ackerman: Is it worth it?

No one in the hearing thus far has tied Iraq into "the international war on terror," he observes, and if the two are related, the end of sectarian violence can't be the ultimate goal of U.S. operations in Iraq. "How could anyone suggest that we have a drawdown until we kill each and every one of [the terrorists]?" Ackerman asks. "That should be the argument you're making, and you're not."

"It seems to me that we're trying to be in the middle of a dysfunctional, violent family," he continues, before asking if it's worth the near-daily deaths of Iraqis and U.S. troops.

"The General" responded that Al-Qaeda was the "fuel" behind the continuing violence, to which Ackerman responded, "Then how can you suggest we leave after the sectarian violence stops?" "The General" couldn't respond, and his recommendations never patched that strategic hole. Who are we fighting, what are we fighting for, and when will we know when we are done fighting? Are we safer for all of this?

"The General" doesn't know (with video).

The crux of the debate over this report seems to blur within suspect numbers and vague statements of "goals" and "success" constantly sputtering from the right-wing, the Pentagon, and the White House, but lest we forget, "The President" argued for the surge in order to promote a decrease in violence to provide for "political progress," and now "The General" argues for continued occupation in order to promote a decrease in violence to provide for... well... he isn't sure.

Is it Al-Qaeda? Is it the Al-Maliki government? Is it quelling the civil war? Is it all of the above? "The General" couldn't say, but was ever so sure that we must continue on our present course, with only minor changes in troop levels, because "The Numbers" show a decline in violence, which means... What? If we focus on calming the civil war which our presence is only strengthening, what about the AQI? If we are fighting Al-Qaeda, how is that effecting the Sunni/Shia rift? While we are doing either/or, what projected goals is this allowing the Iraqi government to achieve? And what if they don't achieve these goals?

He can't tell us.

What he can tell us is that he and Katie Couric had a great time when she stopped by the green zone, "The Numbers" are down. And he got "The Numbers" via a method different from the CIA and the NSA, but rest assured the same method of data mining is used by "two other" government agencies. Which he also can't tell us about (Is it the FDA? DOE? DOT? A funded think tank in Des Moines? Hell, even Ann Coulter has footnotes!). "The General" has reasons, and reasons usually imply a goal, and "The General" can't tell us what the goal is, or how he came by his reasons. "The General" instead focuses on his PR campaign, and again "The Numbers."

And let's not forget "The General" also wrote an op-ed in 2004 telling us that things were just peachy in Iraq, and we should have the whole thing wrapped up in about six months. Oh did I say six months? I meant this six months, that was all it will take. Oops, another six months. Okay, one more "six months", serious this time... (rinse, and repeat)

"The President" says listen to "The General" and "The General" says look at "The Numbers" and "The Numbers" don't really have much to say. But we must continue this present course or the bad guys will get us! 9/11, 9/11, 9/11...

And out of all of this, the only thing we have heard from the DC establishment is "how dare MoveOn.org question 'The General.'"

I have utmost respect for anyone who commits themselves to a life in the military. I myself do not have the discipline or necessary motivation to dedicate myself to something so noble as a life of service. I admire anyone who does. But in this debate, that is beside the point, as "The General" has damaged his own credibility when it comes to an honest portrayal of the situation in Iraq through his own efforts to campaign for "The President" instead of provide honest assessment. I find it difficult to trust him. The Pentagon's PR campaign only serves to deepen my suspicion (PR, to me, is something a scandal burdened pop-star uses to rekindle her career, not something that applies to war, foreign policy, and other things involving guns and blood).

So the question posed by MoveOn.org, "Petraeus or Betray Us" is anything but unpatriotic. Yes it is bold. Yes it is confrontational. But it is still an important thing to ask. If "The General" is cooking the books to promote a possibly failed war, isn't that a gigantic betrayal of trust in the American people? If "The President" is using "The General" to promote a failed policy and a disastrous war, isn't that (to borrow from Kerry) "over the top" itself?

I applaud MoveOn.org for their bravery. If the ad has a few senators, representatives, members of the DC elite, and concern troll moderates writhing in angst, I say two thumbs up. When the debate involves the lives of Americans and Iraqi civilians, I would prefer my leaders squirming in their seats to prove themselves in place of vapid talking points and doctored reports.

The guy down the street from me has served in the military his entire life, but just recently he was arrested for shooting a shotgun in his backyard, which is adjacent to a schoolyard playground. I decided, based on this single event, that the man was an idiot, and therefore I wouldn't be asking him to plan for my future, invest my money, vote for me, or watch my dog, despite his years of service to the country. If Petraeus is misleading us, then he is betraying us, and I don't think it will hurt to maybe double check a little.

Put simply, the admittedly inflammatory "over the top" MoveOn.org ad raises a question that should always be asked of our leadership: Should we trust these people, and why?

There may have been kinder, gentler ways to ask this question, but they are asking it when so may are not.