War strategy: Confirm and undercut

When he appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee before his unanimous Senate confirmation as commanding officer of U.S. forces in Iraq, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus testified:

• That resolutions of disapproval of our (congressionally voted) war in Iraq would be unhelpful to American troop morale and would encourage our enemies in Iraq.

   

• When Sen. John McCain asked what would happen if we were to leave Iraq, the General noted what he termed: ''The very real possibility of involvement of countries from elsewhere in the region around Iraq entering into Iraq to take sides with one or the other groups.''

Petraeus added: ''There is the possibility, certainly, of an international terrorist organization truly getting a grip on some substantial piece of Iraq.''

TRENDING: States launching legal war against Biden's 'overreaching'

Despite this testimony from one of our country's most successful combat commanders – who is the co-author of the U.S. Army's manual on counterinsurgent warfare – the Senate voted 81-0 to confirm him.

This led President Bush to tell a conference of Republican congressmen that he found it ''ironic'' that senators would oppose his plan to dispatch 21,500 more troops to Iraq – while at the same time voting to confirm Gen. Petraeus – who helped design this plan.

Our new Secretary of Defense – whom the U.S. Senate also confirmed – Robert Gates, told a news conference:

''A resolution that, in effect, says that the general going out to take command of the arena shouldn't have the resources he needs to be successful, certainly emboldens the enemy and our adversaries.

''Any indication of flagging will in the United States gives encouragement to those folks. And I'm sure that's not the intent behind the resolutions, but I think it may be the effect.''

Consider the names of U.S. senators who were so hypocritical to vote to confirm the generals' appointment – while at the same time undercutting his stated intentions as well as our troops.

Consider as a prime example of this hypocrisy of one who voted to confirm Gen. Petraues – and who denounced our new secretary of defense as follows:

''The American people will rightly dismiss these accusations as a desperate attempt by the administration to support a failed policy that is not worthy of the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform.''

That was the outburst of the Honorable Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Chappaquiddick. He voted to confirm Gen. Petraues – and then began with this statement and with announcing intent to support the resolutions to undercut the general and all of our troops in Iraq.

Other senators who engaged in the hypocrisy by voting to confirm the general – who have announced positions that will undercut him – include Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden; Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, Senators Clinton, Dodd, Obama and Republicans Hagel and Warner.

This hypocrisy – of confirming while at the same time undercutting an especially brave and brilliant general – should be very carefully remembered in Nov. 2008, not only in the election of a new commander in chief – but in voting for a new Congress.

Last week at the White House new briefing, I asked presidential Press Secretary Tony Snow:

Q: To the President's knowledge, has the United States Senate ever before voted to confirm appointment of a combat commanding general, like General Petraeus, and then voted to condemn the mission that he will lead in what would be an astounding hypocrisy?

MR. SNOW: Well, I am not – I don't think that the people who are discussing resolutions would characterize them in that manner, and nothing has been passed yet.

Q: No, of course not, because they're engaged in the hypocrisy. But isn't it hypocrisy?

MR. SNOW: Well, thank you – thank you for the editorial comment. Let's go to question number two.

Q: The Hill newspaper on Capitol Hill reports that Jane Fonda's fellow anti-war protesters were allowed to spray paint on part of the west front steps of the U.S. Capitol building on Saturday after U.S. Capitol Police were ordered by Chief Phillip Morse to fall back, after which 300 protesters spray painted, "Our Capitol building'' and ''You can't stop us."
And my question, does the executive branch believe the legislative branch should have allowed this treatment of the Capitol building of the United States?

MR. SNOW: Well, Les, what you're doing is – I would encourage you, or all others interested, to call the Capitol Police and find out how this came to pass. I just – I can't answer it.

Q: Yes, one wonders what does the president – he must have an opinion of this? Doesn't he?

At which, Snow called on another questioner – despite the fact that earlier, during this press briefing, when he was asked by Helen Thomas:

Q: What did the president think of the march on Washington?

MR. SNOW: I don't think he really thought a lot about it. It's nice to see Jane Fonda in front of the camera again. There are a number of people who were here making statements, and that's perfectly appropriate. This is a vigorous democracy.

Presuming that Tony was having fun in announcing how ''nice it was'' to see Hanoi Jane on camera again, I am, I admit, glad he did not similarly jest about Jane's cohorts spray-painting the U.S. Capitol. But I wish he had conveyed what I strongly suspect was the president's disgust at these spray painters, who should surely have been jailed rather than tolerated.

Related special offer:

"Don't Tread on Me: A 400-Year History of America at War, from Indian Fighting to Terrorist Hunting"