Where's the outrage?

[TexasTiger 13,030]

http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_09_24/article2.html

[otterinbham 0]

Kind of a hatchet job if you ask me, and I'm a vociferous critic of the way this war has been run.

The writer of this article uses "political general" as a pejorative in this article. He describes U.S. Grant as a "political" general (quite possibly the oddest statement I have read in a long time), but conveniently omits the political sensibilities of Douglas McArthur, whose delicate handling of the Japanese during World War II's closing days probably avoided a wholesale revolt against our occupation, despite the Emporer's pleas to surrender.

The fundamental point that the author doesn't seem to grasp is that we're fighting an asymmetrical conflict, not a conventional conflict. This is evident by the fact that he uses The Battle of the Wilderness to illustrate his point. It's an embarrassing non sequiter. You might as well try to analyze a hockey game by using the tactical principles of golf. Both sports require a stick. Both sports try to move an object into a cavity on the playing surface. But beyond that, the parallels end abruptly.

In an asymmetrical conflict, the dynamics are far, far different, requiring a very keen political sense on the part of the theater commander. You're not just moving around units and organizing logistics. You have to court locals and form alliances, and rely on local assets to perfrom the work. It's not a matter of boots on the ground. It's a matter of brains in the leadership and the ability to respond to hot spots with small unit fully versed in local culture and politics. So, quite frankly, given the utter stupidity this war's leadership, it's small wonder that the war has gone badly up to this point.

Finally, the White House woke up and appointed a general who has studied asymmetrical warfare his entire career. What's more, in a stunning burst of lucidity, the administration has provided Petraeus full control over the theater. Because asymmetrical warfare does not involve divisions of tanks, it relies on a far more nuanced understanding of the situation, the kind that can only come from the comanders in the field.

Two textbook cases? The British counterinsurgency in Malaysia and the American handlling of the Philippine Rebellion. In both cases, the operational commanders were given complete autonomy to undertake the political and military efforts needed to defeat the enemy, and did so on a shoestring with small numbers of troops (A fact the author ignores in his sweeping statement that counterinsurgency requires "lots of troops"). So while the author takes Bush to task for essentially transferring warfighting decisionmaking to Baghdad, that has been the one intelligent decision the White House has made since the tanks rolled into the Iraqi capital, one that is fully consistent with American war fighting principles embodied in commanders such as George C. Marshall. The key question to ask is, "What took Bush so long?"

So, in the end, what is this writer nitpicking? That the general offered optimistic testimony in the committee hearings? For the first time since Saddam fell, we can actually see some tangible progress, especially in terms of local political leadership coming off the sidelines to join forces with Americans. That he actually believes he can achieve better results in the field with fewer troops? The lessons of Malaysia taught us exactly that. What's more, similar approaches in Vietnam worked very well before Creighton Abrams squelched them in favor of larger, conventional operations.

No, in the end, the writer feebly offers up that what we need is lots and lots and lots of troops. He offers no strategy. He offers no understanding of asymmetrical warfare. He basically offers more of the same that we did through the first four years of the war--something anybody with a brain will acknowledge did not work.

[Tigermike 3,055]

What he said.

Tex, I believe your article has been exposed for what it is. Great job Otter.

[TexasTiger 13,030]

What he said.

Tex, I believe your article has been exposed for what it is. Great job Otter.

You missed my point. The American Conservative publishes an issue with the title "Sycophant Savior" in reference to Petraeus and the Right is silent. This cover is at least as insulting as the silly moveon ad that everyone went ballistic over.

[Tigermike 3,055]

What he said.

Tex, I believe your article has been exposed for what it is. Great job Otter.

You missed my point. The American Conservative publishes an issue with the title "Sycophant Savior" in reference to Petraeus and the Right is silent. This cover is at least as insulting as the silly moveon ad that everyone went ballistic over.

Not nearly as insulting as the moveon ad and you know it.

[AFTiger 282]

When the left applies one standard I will listen.

Every politician who recieved money from Norman Hsu or Moveon.org should immediately resign from office.

[otterinbham 0]

What he said.

Tex, I believe your article has been exposed for what it is. Great job Otter.

You missed my point. The American Conservative publishes an issue with the title "Sycophant Savior" in reference to Petraeus and the Right is silent. This cover is at least as insulting as the silly moveon ad that everyone went ballistic over.

Well, if that's the case, then I beg to differ. There's an enormous difference between being call a toady and being called a traitor. That being said, the writer is a halfwit.

[TexasTiger 13,030]

What he said.

Tex, I believe your article has been exposed for what it is. Great job Otter.

You missed my point. The American Conservative publishes an issue with the title "Sycophant Savior" in reference to Petraeus and the Right is silent. This cover is at least as insulting as the silly moveon ad that everyone went ballistic over.

Well, if that's the case, then I beg to differ. There's an enormous difference between being call a toady and being called a traitor. That being said, the writer is a halfwit.

Even if there is such a difference, you mistate what the ad said. They never called him a "traitor" as you claim. They essentially made a similar argument to what was made in this article. I think the implication was that he was shirking his larger duty as an American by being a sycophant to a political leader, which can be viewed as a form of betrayal of one's larger duty.

Powell was a loyal soldier to his President. So loyal, in fact, he let down his country by pushing a war he knew was a bad idea.

[otterinbham 0]

What he said.

Tex, I believe your article has been exposed for what it is. Great job Otter.

You missed my point. The American Conservative publishes an issue with the title "Sycophant Savior" in reference to Petraeus and the Right is silent. This cover is at least as insulting as the silly moveon ad that everyone went ballistic over.

Well, if that's the case, then I beg to differ. There's an enormous difference between being call a toady and being called a traitor. That being said, the writer is a halfwit.

Even if there is such a difference, you mistate what the ad said. They never called him a "traitor" as you claim. They essentially made a similar argument to what was made in this article. I think the implication was that he was shirking his larger duty as an American by being a sycophant to a political leader, which can be viewed as a form of betrayal of one's larger duty.

Powell was a loyal soldier to his President. So loyal, in fact, he let down his country by pushing a war he knew was a bad idea.

I'm sorry...In your alternate universe, what does the word "Betray" mean? Let's look at the definition of the word, please:

betray |bi?tr?| verb [ trans. ] be disloyal to : his friends were shocked when he betrayed them. • be disloyal to (one's country, organization, or ideology) by acting in the interests of an enemy : he could betray his country for the sake of communism. • treacherously inform an enemy of the existence or location of (a person or organization) : this group was betrayed by an informer. • treacherously reveal (secrets or information) : many of those employed by diplomats betrayed secrets and sold classified documents.

So there you have it. Short of outright treason, any other use of the word 'betray' is sheer puffery at best and inflammatory at worst. And, whether Petraeus is right or not in his assessment of the war, he certainly is not trying to throw the country under the bus or deceive anybody. Instead, he applied his expertise in asymmetrical warfare to give his perspective on the course of the conflict now that an entirely new strategy has been constructed.

So, betray is a word that has specific meaning, to be applied in very specific situations that involve the willful violation of trust. Which means you make a very spurious argument here. Quit digging the hole, please.

Oh, and when did the argument shift to Colin Powell here?

[Tigermike 3,055]

What he said.

Tex, I believe your article has been exposed for what it is. Great job Otter.

You missed my point. The American Conservative publishes an issue with the title "Sycophant Savior" in reference to Petraeus and the Right is silent. This cover is at least as insulting as the silly moveon ad that everyone went ballistic over.

Well, if that's the case, then I beg to differ. There's an enormous difference between being call a toady and being called a traitor. That being said, the writer is a halfwit.

Even if there is such a difference, you mistate what the ad said. They never called him a "traitor" as you claim. They essentially made a similar argument to what was made in this article. I think the implication was that he was shirking his larger duty as an American by being a sycophant to a political leader, which can be viewed as a form of betrayal of one's larger duty.

Powell was a loyal soldier to his President. So loyal, in fact, he let down his country by pushing a war he knew was a bad idea.

You beat me by a few minutes Otter.

When they said "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" how was that not calling him a traitor?

be·tray /bɪˈtreɪ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bi-trey] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–verb (used with object) 1. to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty: Benedict Arnold betrayed his country.

2. to be unfaithful in guarding, maintaining, or fulfilling: to betray a trust.

3. to disappoint the hopes or expectations of; be disloyal to: to betray one's friends.

4. to reveal or disclose in violation of confidence: to betray a secret.

5. to reveal unconsciously (something one would preferably conceal): Her nervousness betrays her insecurity.

6. to show or exhibit; reveal; disclose: an unfeeling remark that betrays his lack of concern.

7. to deceive, misguide, or corrupt: a young lawyer betrayed by political ambitions into irreparable folly.

8. to seduce and desert.

[TexasTiger 13,030]

What he said.

Tex, I believe your article has been exposed for what it is. Great job Otter.

You missed my point. The American Conservative publishes an issue with the title "Sycophant Savior" in reference to Petraeus and the Right is silent. This cover is at least as insulting as the silly moveon ad that everyone went ballistic over.

Well, if that's the case, then I beg to differ. There's an enormous difference between being call a toady and being called a traitor. That being said, the writer is a halfwit.

Even if there is such a difference, you mistate what the ad said. They never called him a "traitor" as you claim. They essentially made a similar argument to what was made in this article. I think the implication was that he was shirking his larger duty as an American by being a sycophant to a political leader, which can be viewed as a form of betrayal of one's larger duty.

Powell was a loyal soldier to his President. So loyal, in fact, he let down his country by pushing a war he knew was a bad idea.

I'm sorry...In your alternate universe, what does the word "Betray" mean? Let's look at the definition of the word, please:

betray |bi?tr?| verb [ trans. ] be disloyal to : his friends were shocked when he betrayed them. • be disloyal to (one's country, organization, or ideology) by acting in the interests of an enemy : he could betray his country for the sake of communism. • treacherously inform an enemy of the existence or location of (a person or organization) : this group was betrayed by an informer. • treacherously reveal (secrets or information) : many of those employed by diplomats betrayed secrets and sold classified documents.

And in your alternate universe, there are no such things as alternate definitions. But in the real world, where reasonable mean and women live, there are.

Main Entry: be·tray

1 : to lead astray; especially : SEDUCE

2 : to deliver to an enemy by treachery

3 : to fail or desert especially in time of need <betrayed his family>

4 a : to reveal unintentionally <betray one's true feelings>

I think it is pretty clear that the form used in the silly, ill-advised moveon add is that he was leading us astray-- not giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The assertion is similar in the article in the American Conservative:

Yet he has broken faith with the soldiers he commands and the Army to which he has devoted his life. He has failed his country. History will not judge him kindly.

[TexasTiger 13,030]

What he said.

Tex, I believe your article has been exposed for what it is. Great job Otter.

You missed my point. The American Conservative publishes an issue with the title "Sycophant Savior" in reference to Petraeus and the Right is silent. This cover is at least as insulting as the silly moveon ad that everyone went ballistic over.

Well, if that's the case, then I beg to differ. There's an enormous difference between being call a toady and being called a traitor. That being said, the writer is a halfwit.

Even if there is such a difference, you mistate what the ad said. They never called him a "traitor" as you claim. They essentially made a similar argument to what was made in this article. I think the implication was that he was shirking his larger duty as an American by being a sycophant to a political leader, which can be viewed as a form of betrayal of one's larger duty.

Powell was a loyal soldier to his President. So loyal, in fact, he let down his country by pushing a war he knew was a bad idea.

You beat me by a few minutes Otter.

When they said "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" how was that not calling him a traitor?

be·tray /b??tre?/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bi-trey] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–verb (used with object) 1. to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty: Benedict Arnold betrayed his country.

2. to be unfaithful in guarding, maintaining, or fulfilling: to betray a trust.

3. to disappoint the hopes or expectations of; be disloyal to: to betray one's friends.

4. to reveal or disclose in violation of confidence: to betray a secret.

5. to reveal unconsciously (something one would preferably conceal): Her nervousness betrays her insecurity.

6. to show or exhibit; reveal; disclose: an unfeeling remark that betrays his lack of concern.

7. to deceive, misguide, or corrupt: a young lawyer betrayed by political ambitions into irreparable folly.

8. to seduce and desert.

See above.

Even if you believe that, however, the article I linked to was no less strong in their judgement of the the General:

Yet he has broken faith with the soldiers he commands and the Army to which he has devoted his life. He has failed his country. History will not judge him kindly.

That's pretty harsh stuff, isn't it?

[Tigermike 3,055]

What he said.

Tex, I believe your article has been exposed for what it is. Great job Otter.

You missed my point. The American Conservative publishes an issue with the title "Sycophant Savior" in reference to Petraeus and the Right is silent. This cover is at least as insulting as the silly moveon ad that everyone went ballistic over.

Well, if that's the case, then I beg to differ. There's an enormous difference between being call a toady and being called a traitor. That being said, the writer is a halfwit.

Even if there is such a difference, you mistate what the ad said. They never called him a "traitor" as you claim. They essentially made a similar argument to what was made in this article. I think the implication was that he was shirking his larger duty as an American by being a sycophant to a political leader, which can be viewed as a form of betrayal of one's larger duty.

Powell was a loyal soldier to his President. So loyal, in fact, he let down his country by pushing a war he knew was a bad idea.

You beat me by a few minutes Otter.

When they said "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" how was that not calling him a traitor?

be·tray /b??tre?/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bi-trey] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–verb (used with object) 1. to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty: Benedict Arnold betrayed his country.

2. to be unfaithful in guarding, maintaining, or fulfilling: to betray a trust.

3. to disappoint the hopes or expectations of; be disloyal to: to betray one's friends.

4. to reveal or disclose in violation of confidence: to betray a secret.

5. to reveal unconsciously (something one would preferably conceal): Her nervousness betrays her insecurity.

6. to show or exhibit; reveal; disclose: an unfeeling remark that betrays his lack of concern.

7. to deceive, misguide, or corrupt: a young lawyer betrayed by political ambitions into irreparable folly.

8. to seduce and desert.

See above.

Even if you believe that, however, the article I linked to was no less strong in their judgement of the the General:

Yet he has broken faith with the soldiers he commands and the Army to which he has devoted his life. He has failed his country. History will not judge him kindly.

That's pretty harsh stuff, isn't it?

The moveon ad is what was harsh. It was also plain in what was said and what they meant. Unlike what you are trying to do here.

[otterinbham 0]

What he said.

Tex, I believe your article has been exposed for what it is. Great job Otter.

You missed my point. The American Conservative publishes an issue with the title "Sycophant Savior" in reference to Petraeus and the Right is silent. This cover is at least as insulting as the silly moveon ad that everyone went ballistic over.

Well, if that's the case, then I beg to differ. There's an enormous difference between being call a toady and being called a traitor. That being said, the writer is a halfwit.

Even if there is such a difference, you mistate what the ad said. They never called him a "traitor" as you claim. They essentially made a similar argument to what was made in this article. I think the implication was that he was shirking his larger duty as an American by being a sycophant to a political leader, which can be viewed as a form of betrayal of one's larger duty.

Powell was a loyal soldier to his President. So loyal, in fact, he let down his country by pushing a war he knew was a bad idea.

You beat me by a few minutes Otter.

When they said "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" how was that not calling him a traitor?

be·tray /b??tre?/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bi-trey] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–verb (used with object) 1. to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty: Benedict Arnold betrayed his country.

2. to be unfaithful in guarding, maintaining, or fulfilling: to betray a trust.

3. to disappoint the hopes or expectations of; be disloyal to: to betray one's friends.

4. to reveal or disclose in violation of confidence: to betray a secret.

5. to reveal unconsciously (something one would preferably conceal): Her nervousness betrays her insecurity.

6. to show or exhibit; reveal; disclose: an unfeeling remark that betrays his lack of concern.

7. to deceive, misguide, or corrupt: a young lawyer betrayed by political ambitions into irreparable folly.

8. to seduce and desert.

See above.

Even if you believe that, however, the article I linked to was no less strong in their judgement of the the General:

Yet he has broken faith with the soldiers he commands and the Army to which he has devoted his life. He has failed his country. History will not judge him kindly.

That's pretty harsh stuff, isn't it?

It's puffery. What's more, it's puffery that is actually being used to support a point that you would be diametrically opposed to: Namely, the pouring of MORE troops into the theater. So what you're basically doing is intellectually aligning yourself with the neanderthals who were running the show for the past four years.

Look, I've met General Petraeus. What's more, I've read his papers and listened to his speeches long before he stepped into the public limelight. The position he took before Congress is completely consistent with his long-held concept of warfighting, concepts that had him branded as a maverick in the Pentagon for a long time.

So what the nitwits at MoveOn did, in their lazy quest for a headline, was smear a man who has served his country with integrity, even though he has not espoused the conventional wisdom. It's a shame that you cannot tell the difference.

[TexasTiger 13,030]

What he said.

Tex, I believe your article has been exposed for what it is. Great job Otter.

You missed my point. The American Conservative publishes an issue with the title "Sycophant Savior" in reference to Petraeus and the Right is silent. This cover is at least as insulting as the silly moveon ad that everyone went ballistic over.

Well, if that's the case, then I beg to differ. There's an enormous difference between being call a toady and being called a traitor. That being said, the writer is a halfwit.

Even if there is such a difference, you mistate what the ad said. They never called him a "traitor" as you claim. They essentially made a similar argument to what was made in this article. I think the implication was that he was shirking his larger duty as an American by being a sycophant to a political leader, which can be viewed as a form of betrayal of one's larger duty.

Powell was a loyal soldier to his President. So loyal, in fact, he let down his country by pushing a war he knew was a bad idea.

You beat me by a few minutes Otter.

When they said "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" how was that not calling him a traitor?

be·tray /b??tre?/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bi-trey] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–verb (used with object) 1. to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty: Benedict Arnold betrayed his country.

2. to be unfaithful in guarding, maintaining, or fulfilling: to betray a trust.

3. to disappoint the hopes or expectations of; be disloyal to: to betray one's friends.

4. to reveal or disclose in violation of confidence: to betray a secret.

5. to reveal unconsciously (something one would preferably conceal): Her nervousness betrays her insecurity.

6. to show or exhibit; reveal; disclose: an unfeeling remark that betrays his lack of concern.

7. to deceive, misguide, or corrupt: a young lawyer betrayed by political ambitions into irreparable folly.

8. to seduce and desert.

See above.

Even if you believe that, however, the article I linked to was no less strong in their judgement of the the General:

Yet he has broken faith with the soldiers he commands and the Army to which he has devoted his life. He has failed his country. History will not judge him kindly.

That's pretty harsh stuff, isn't it?

It's puffery. What's more, it's puffery that is actually being used to support a point that you would be diametrically opposed to: Namely, the pouring of MORE troops into the theater. So what you're basically doing is intellectually aligning yourself with the neanderthals who were running the show for the past four years.

Look, I've met General Petraeus. What's more, I've read his papers and listened to his speeches long before he stepped into the public limelight. The position he took before Congress is completely consistent with his long-held concept of warfighting, concepts that had him branded as a maverick in the Pentagon for a long time.

So what the nitwits at MoveOn did, in their lazy quest for a headline, was smear a man who has served his country with integrity, even though he has not espoused the conventional wisdom. It's a shame that you cannot tell the difference.

I haven't defended either. Just said they're very similar. If you can't see that, then you can't see much.