Eisenhower to Petraeus
Fifty five years ago, an American general who had won his war and was running for President, had some advice that Gen. David Petraeus and his Commander-in-Chief should take to heart today. “Fanaticism,†Eisenhower said, quoting the philosopher George Santayana, “consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.â€
After election, Eisenhower gave his Cabinet members copies of “The True Believer†by Eric Hoffer, then a best-seller.
“We have perhaps a natural fear of ends,†Hoffer wrote. “We would rather be always on the way than arrive. Given the means, we hang on to them and often forget the ends.â€
Before Hoffer died, Ronald Reagan gave him the Medal of Freedom. Today’s Republicans and those who serve them may want to take another look at what their party icons of the past century admired so much.
Cross-posted from my blog
opinions powered by SendLove.to
21 Responses to “Eisenhower to Petraeus”
Ironic that Eisenhower- a basic do nothing President in his 8 years, is now seen as a font of wisdom. Even more startling is, that compared to today’s idiotic Rep’s and cowardly Dems, he is!
Eisenhower’s wisdom was less noticeable at the time, because there were more reasonble people about. Some of the quotes sound like startlingly fresh insights today, but at the time, they were just homilies.
It’s good to be reminded of the kind of leaders we once had.
Doma:
I agree, but doesn’t that mean the toilet’s already been flushed?
I fail to see how this applies to Petraeus since he is not President. Perhaps it would be more cogent to compare Ike’s generalship to that of Petraeus.
Entropy, this blog is suffering from a debilitating fever of late causing several non-cogent statements.
2 days ago, Gandelman headlines “PR gaffe of endemic proportions!!” for Petraeus to go on Fox news. Other than stirring up the 2nd platoon here for the day, it hasn’t meant squat.
A thread below says Petraeus is merely a mouthpiece for Bushco with no credibility. Well, OK, perhaps no credibility with the avowed anti-war crowd……..but then again, is Petraeus suffering out there in the real world? Not in the least. Early public reaction was that he was very credible and handled the questioning well.
Now, Mr. Stein is calling him a myopic fanatic.
I think the label might be apropo around here, just not on the stated target.
Really? They’ve already polled the public on his testimony?
Because polls leading up to his testimony showed a great deal of skepticism among the public regarding the upcoming report. For instance, the USA Today/Gallup poll from Sep. 7/8 gave him an approval rating of only 52% which seems low for a General as opposed to a politician. Another Sep. poll from Ipsos shows 58% believe the surge has failed to help stabilize Iraq.
Casual,
What I frankly see is a lot of confirmation bias all around the table. I think there is a valid dispute about the military effectiveness of the surge and casualty statistics, etc. That people extrapolate and interpret that to match their particular viewpoints is as unsurprising as it is disheartening. But the attacks on Petraeus go even further by suggesting intent without any evidence beyond disagreement. It’s quite frankly the same as Cheney and the Victory Caucus crowd insisting Democrats are traitors, want the US to lose, etc.
Sad, sad, sad that so few in America today possess even rudimentary critical thinking skills.
Entropy: “Sad, sad, sad that so few in America today possess even rudimentary critical thinking skills.”
Agreed, it appears to me that everyone (including myself) have already made up their minds on this issue. There isn’t too many “undecided” people. Plus, the only conversations on this issue that I see are all inflammatory to one side or the other.
You can’t reasonably change someones mind while simultaneously insulting them.
BINGO! Which is why the moveon ad was stupid, stupid, stupid.
We’ll be seeing a LOT more of that ad in Republican politicking next year.
I agree that the Move on ad was a huge blunder. It created automatic sympathy and support for Petraeus and even worse, stooped to the administration’s level of ad hominem attack. Disagreeing with the man on policy or metrics is fine, questioning his patriotism is not.
We were discussing Eisenhower, right?
The reason his thinking is important is that he was both a general and a politician/president. That he could dispassionately remark about the military is extraordinary, in today’s contect, but ti was normal at the time.
What this has to do with berating other people, I fail to see.
Yes it is sad, sad that comments attempt to conrtibute something to this, or any other disucssion, by simply ranting on about how stupid or misguided everyone else is.
Eisenhower and his observations are interesting in their own right. It is sad, that this is bypassed entirely.
Colin Powell always reminded me a little of Ike. I think Ike would not survive in today’s political climate, where doing what’s best for your country is no longer top priority. He also never had to deal with a Washington overrun by lobbyists, the 24 hour news cycle and the political spin that accompanies it. My guess is that he would have gotten out of politics the way Powell did.
It seems to me that the legacy of MacArthur has been what has persevered in the senior officer corps than the legacy of Ike.
Personal politics take priority. I didn’t watch any of Patraeus’ testimony because, once I heard I found out it was purely oral testimony, it was abundantly clear what he was going to say. He was no longer speaking as Commander, International Forces. He was speaking as David Patraeus, high ranking general that was hand-picked by the administration for a reason.
It seems very clear to me that our military has become far too politicized. Generals that don’t toe the party line are quickly left without a job. Generals that embrace the party line are quickly put to the forefront.
I don’t pretend to know the right answer for Iraq. But I can say with confidence that I have lost ALL confidence in the military as an objective player.
Re: Petraeus, Flyer’s nailed it.
Generals serve the country, not the President. He failed to level. Period.
This alone separated him from Ike, much less Bushco’s favorite Uncle Tom: Powell.
To even remotely compare Powell, after his faux Adlai Stevenson moment at the UN, is an insult to Ike- a man who gave perhaps the most important and honest political speech in America over the last 1/2 century- the ‘military industrial complex’ one.
Flyerhawk,
You seem to forget that three and four star officers get promoted only through senate confirmation. Petraeus was picked by Bush’s DoD for the CMF-I commander position and the Senate confirmed him with no negative votes. If he is the wrong man for the job, who is to blame? The Congress continues to authorize and fund this war. Who is to blame?
And what is wrong with “purely oral” testimony? He did submit a more lengthy written report as well. Is it his fault that most senators and congressmen spent their 7 minutes of “question time” pontificating and asking only one or two leading questions?
And Cosmo, you frankly don’t understand what a General’s , or any other military persons, service requirements are.
Again, exactly what did Petraeus say that was a lie? How, EXACTLY?
The irony here is that Petreaus took command of our forces in Iraq seven months ago and apparently he is to blame for all our Iraq problems. No one seems to acknowledge that he inherited a f*cked-up mess for Casey, Abizaid, Franks and others whose strategy for Iraq got us insurgency and civil war and who were far more political than Petraeus. Now Petreaus has long criticized the strategies of our previous commanders – so much so that many believed he was risking his career in doing so. He criticized the policies and men who really WERE “Bush’s boys” – Franks, Casey, etc. Despite this criticism, he gets selected for the job to unf*ck Iraq and apply a completely new strategy to the problem.
Yet some here believe he is some kind of political soulmate to Bush – and I say believe because there is zero evidence to show otherwise.
He may be wrong, his strategy may not succeed, but the impugning of his motives is unconscionable without more evidence than simple disagreement.
Entropy: ‘you frankly don’t understand what a General’s , or any other military persons, service requirements are.’
Perhaps I’m wrong, but are not all military men sworn in to protect and defend the nation and Constitution? I don’t recall them owing allegiance to a President.
Entropy: ‘Again, exactly what did Petraeus say that was a lie? How, EXACTLY?’
From this thread, redux: http://themoderatevoice.com/general/15078/the-petraeus-hearings-the-turning-point/#comment-98158
‘Iraq is a disaster, the surge has failed. The General is sworn in to tell the truth, and does not admit the two truths I just stated. That is lying, and when under oath, a violation of the law- Constitutional law.’
and
‘See paragraph 1- when you knowingly do not level with people- it’s a lie. Period. The problem is folk like you accept these evasions as part of the game. He lied. Bush lied. The Congress is a bunch of dimwits, and the electorate- folk like you, yawn, as more Americans burn.’
Now, let’s stop pretending that this great snow job was not that. Yes, he was not as flagrant as Gonzo or any of the other pathetic lackeys, but that does not mean it was not BS.
Until people will stop tolerating deceptions, NOTHING changes.
Cosmo,
Ok, let’s start with the basics. Military personnel swear to uphold the constitution and obey the lawful orders of the officers and civilians they are subordinate to. In the military chain-of-command, the President of the united states sits at the top.
Now, the war in Iraq is constitutional. It was authorized by Congress, and continues to be authorized and, moreover, funded. Petreaus was ordered to appear before the Congress to give testimony – his opinion – on the operations in Iraq. That you don’t like that opinion does not make it unconstitutional, nor does it make it deception.
Now, the quote you keep quoting is not evidence or even data. What you call “two truths” are obviously self-evident to you and require no basis of support, but many would consider them debatable. In either event, Iraq was a disaster before Petreaus took command and his job is to turn that disaster around. He believes that process is beginning. You do not. That simple difference in opinion does not make his statements untrue, nor do they speak to intentional deception.
As I said elsewhere, when you accuse the General of lying, you are accusing many of those under his command of the same. Tell me, are about a hundred officer’s on the General’s staff all liars too? Because they are the ones that advise, plan, and carry out the General’s strategy, and they are the ones who developed, collected, and analyzed the data Petreaus gave in his report. For you to accuse the General of lying is not to just accuse him.
Here is a characterization of Petreaus from one who has worked with him:
Entropy:
Common sense time. Dozens, if not 100s, of Iraqis die each day cuz of IEDs and car bombs. More and more young men join the militias, and infiltrate and corrupt the police. All independent reports- non-Bushco authorize, show failures at every level.
None of this was broached, and when asked direct q’s by congressmen. Petraeus and the other stooge did yet another Gonzo-like two-step.
Yes, I don’t like the answers, when they are clearly lies. I don’t like when people like you refuse to call spades speades. But my likes or your dislikes have ZERO to do with the continued carnage which evidences FAILURE.
Spin control may dominate DC but it means zip in the real world.
Ther eare people in the South who still believe the Civil war, from their POV was a just cause. So what? There are Germans who still revere Hitler, and Chinese who adore Mao. So what? Their leaders and causes were all corrupt.
When people die routinely, that is failure. There is no sugarcoating it. That the failure is a little less egregious than before- so what?
If you do not tell the truth- whether for politics, personal pride, vainglory, personal profit, whatever, it is still LYING.
The war and surge have ben failures. Nothing short of a draft and 500k-1 mill soldiers can chabge that. Did Petraeus or Bush admit this? No. Lies are not only things committed, but those omitted for convenience.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
Main Entry: 4lie
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English lige, lie, from Old English lyge; akin to Old High German lugI, Old English lEogan to lie
1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
2 : something that misleads or deceives
3 : a charge of lying
Note #2. There is no great success in Iraq, and anything that does not deal w that fundament is deceptive, therefore a lie.
You can believe in the tooth fairy, but that don’t make her real. To tell someone she exists, though, is a lie.
This is reality, and common sense. This is also apolitical.
The D’s are liars and cowards. But their cowardice mitigates not one iota Petraeus’s lies. And until folk like you can put aside politics and admit ‘he lied’ or she lied’, regardless of party or POV, nothing will change.
As for your quote- have you ever read the opinions of those who served under Hitler or Napoleon. It’s meaningless. What is meaningful is the day to day failure.
Lying will not change that.
Ok, Cosmo, I now realize that nothing can convince you, so I will not bother trying.
Nor anything I say can persuade you of the folly of deceptions.
No, I’m more than capable of persuasion, but the difference between us is that I have a higher evidentiary standard than you do.