The cover of the October 8, 2007, issue of Pat Buchanan’s magazine, American Conservative, shows a photo of Gen. David Petraeus under the headline, “Sycophant Savior.” The cover story is subheaded, “General Petraeus wins a battle in Washington — if not in Baghdad.”

Beyond the headline, the American Conservative article is harshly critical of the general and the partisan political role he has chosen to play. The writer, Andrew J. Bacevich, describes Petraeus as a “politcal general of the worst kind — one who indulges in the politics of accommodation that is Washington’s bread and butter but has thereby deferred a far more urgent political imperative, namely, bringing our military policies into harmony with our political purposes.”

Bacevich accuses Petraeus of deploying a strategy in Iraq that is designed to succeed politically in Washington, not militarily in Iraq:

Petraeus has chosen a middle course, carefully crafted to cause the least amount of consternation among various Washington constituencies he is eager to accommodate. This is the politics of give and take, of horse trading, of putting lipstick on a pig. Ultimately, it is the politics of avoidance.

Petraeus’ critics make a good case, says Bacevich, when they accuse him of “…relying on dubious statistics, with ignoring facts that he finds inconvenient, and with discovering trends where none exist. They question whether to credit the much-touted progress in Anbar province to American shrewdness or to the vagaries of Iraqi sectarian and tribal politics. They cite the pathetic performance of the corrupt and dysfunctional Iraqi government. They note the disparity between the Petraeus assessment and those offered by the intelligence community, by the Government Accountability Office, and by congressionally appointed blue-ribbon commissions. They point out that other highly qualified and well-informed senior military officers — notably, Gen. George Casey, the army chief of staff, and Adm. William Fallon, commander of United States Central Command –have publicly expressed views notably at odds with those of General Petraeus.”

If the surge is working, as Petraeus claimed in his congressional testimony, a strong military leader would exploit the opportunities provided by the increased security by pouring in resources to bring the enemy to bay. Instead, Petraeus recommends ending the surge by reducing forces. The only reason for acting in such a counter-military way, Bacevich suggests, is politics. The strategy has nothing to do with “victory” in Iraq, and everything to do with appeasing Petraeus’ interest groups in Washington, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, moderate Republicans in Congress (as well as the Democrats) and even Pres. Bush.

Bacevich concludes:

Politically, it qualifies as a brilliant maneuver. The general’s relationships with official Washington remain intact. 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.

When Moveon.org criticized Petraeus for many of these same reasons in its much vilified ad with the headline, “General Petraeus or General Betray Us? Cooking the books for the White House,” the Senate passed a resolution condemning the liberal group that read:

To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

We’ll be waiting (but not holding our breath) to see if anyone drafts a similar measure condemning the American Conservative magazine.

Surrender Does Not Work. Just Ask Pres. Kerry

If you think Democrats in Washington are on high alert and in rapid-response mode, readied for the inevitable barrage of Republican Swiftboat attacks, think again. The sad fact is the GOP successfully deployed just such a campaign this month right under their noses, and the Dems fell for it, folding their tents at the Republicans’ first suggestion that they are anti-military.

The smear campaign had the standard Swiftboat profile — a concerted, tightly scripted roll out of disinformation designed to discredit an otherwise credible opponent. But maybe the Dems didn’t recognize the attack as Swiftboating, per se, because the target was not a person. It was a newspaper ad published Moveon.org.

Sure, the opportunity fell into the Republicans’ laps, but their rapid-response seized the moment, turned it around and eventually won the day. (Meanwhile our rapid response team is still hiding under the bed.)

The GOP had its talking points together within a few hours. They slammed Moveon for having the temerity to criticize the general, thus shutting off discussion of the charges they’d made against him. If liberals criticize uniformed officers, the talking points said, it proves they disrespect the troops.

In reality of course, criticizing Petraeus proves nothing of the sort. He was sent to Capitol Hill as Bush’s political proxy to defend the president’s policies in Iraq, because Bush is too weak politically to defend them himself. To suggest that Bush’s surrogate can’t be criticized, or that this military man performing an unprecedented political role is emblematic of the entire military is a ridiculous attempt to close off debate.

Ridiculous or not, it worked.

[…]

The results of the congressional testimony last week by Gen. David Petraeus — George Bush’s new (hired) poodle now that Tony Blair is off the stage — are in, and, not surprisingly, he failed to change hearts and minds of regular Americans:

A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday found essentially no shift in views on whether U.S. forces are likely to win the war — two-thirds predict they won’t –and if the United States should set a firm timetable to remove troops.

In the days before Petraeus’ appearances and President Bush’s speech to the nation last week, 60 percent supported setting a timetable for withdrawal and sticking to it “regardless of what is going on in Iraq at the time.” Now 59 percent do.

(A CBS News poll taken after the testimony and after Bush’s “stay the course” address to the nation last week produced similar results.)

Of course, changing the minds of normal Americans was never the goal. Bush’s prime objective was, and is, to avoid having the ghastly ending to his war occur on his watch. He sent Gen. Petraeus to Capitol Hill to keep the GOP base in line, thereby ensuring the loyalty of Republicans in Congress. On that level, the Petraeus hearings were a smashing success.

And yet, as the Republicans line up to follow Bush once more into the breach, it is beginning to look like their loyalty to Dear Leader has become a death wish. What else could explain such selfless obedience to a president whose only noteworthy accomplishment has been the efficiency with which he has emptied the treasury, and whose pathological lying and ineptitude have left his party at least as politically damaged as it was when it was forced to cede power to the Democrats after Sen. Joe McCarthy’s reign of terror in the 1950s and after Watergate 20 years later?

Republicans in Congress must know that after the “surge” ends next spring and the number of U.S. security forces is no longer sufficient to flood the zone, the violence will resume to pre-surge levels or worse. If this happens, the violence will be ramping up in Iraq just as the 2008 election season enters its final heat.

This is particularly dangerous for Republicans in the Senate, where almost half the GOP seats (with Warner and Hagel dropping out, I think it’s up to 24) are up for grabs next year, compared with 12 seats for the Democrats. By following George Bush off a cliff one last time, Republicans in Congrewss could find themselves in January 2008 handing a veto-proof majority to the Democrats — one more time.

On CNN Wednesday, House Minority Leader John Boehner told Wolf Blitzer that the loss of U.S. blood and treasure in Iraq is an “investment” and a “small price” to pay if it leads to destroying al Qaeda.

Leaving aside the fact that we’d be hearing howls from ideologues like Boehner right now if a Democrat had so casually dismissed the deaths of U.S. troops, the Minority Leader’s statement is all the more nauseating because it is underpinned by a lie: Al Qaeda in Iraq, a force of just a few hundred men, poses no threat to U.S. national security.

And even if we stay there until the last member of al Qaeda in Iraq is dead, it won’t affect the viability of the al Qaeda that attacked us on Sept. 11 at all.

Here’s the transcript of Boehner’s statement (emphasis added):

BLITZER: Mr. Leader, here’s the question. How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure? The loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment is going to require?

BOEHNER: I think General Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. We’re making success. We need to firm up those successes. We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we’re making today will be a small price if we’re able to stop al Qaeda here, if we’re able to stabilize the Middle East, it’s not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids.

In his testimony this week, even the GOP’s sainted Gen. David Petreaus signaled that he does not believe that Bush’s war in Iraq is making America safer. If the man in charge of the can’t war can’t assure us that American security rests on the outcome of the war, how can the lives of American troops, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and the billions of dollars we’re spending be worth it?

And even if it were worth it, how can Boehner get away with saying the deaths of U.S. troops are an investment — and a small price at that?

On Hardball at around 2 p.m. Pacific, NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert reported that in a briefing with television news anchors this morning, Pres. Bush said that in his speech to the nation tonight he will announce that Iraq and the United States are discussing forming a long-term security arrangement similar to pacts the United States has with Israel and South Korea.

Hardball host Chris Matthews said that a security agreement would likely keep American troops in Iraq for decades to come.

During the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing today:

WARNER: I hope in the recesses of your heart that you know that strategy will continue the casualties, stress on our forces, stress on military families, stress on all Americans. Are you able to say at this time, if we continue what you have laid before the Congress, this strategy, that if you continue, you are making America safer?

PETRAEUS: Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objections in Iraq.

WARNER: Does that make America safer?

PETRAEUS: Sir, I don’t know actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind. What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multinational Force in Iraq.

If the head of our military in Iraq doesn’t know if the war there is making us safer, who does?

Cross posted at the BRAD BLOG