“I told POTUS I’d support his ultimate decision. Besides, the troops can’t quit.”
Conservative writer Max Boot, whom Petraeus respected, was outraged by the speech. He told Petraeus that if he wanted to quit and run for president, he would work on his campaign. Petraeus told him quitting was not the answer. He certainly didn’t intend to run for president, either. As a student and practitioner of civil-military relations, Petraeus had thought at length about the subject of resignation in protest, turning it over in his mind many times. He was well steeped in the theory and practice and pitfalls of civil-military relations. Military decision making and the use of force as they related to civil-military relations had been foundations of his doctoral research.
Petraeus strongly believed that “military leaders should provide advice that is informed by important nonmilitary and military factors beyond their strict purview, but is driven by the situation on the ground and military considerations.” In other words, a military leader’s advice was premised first and foremost on his or her areas of expertise — military affairs, not political ones.
Petraeus fully subscribed to the oath of office, including obeying “the orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over me.” Obama’s decision to draw down forces faster than he had recommended did not, in his mind, begin to approach the threshold for such an extraordinary action as resignation. He thought it would have been a selfish, grandstanding move with huge political ramifications. He had had ample opportunity to provide input and give his best advice, and now it was time to salute and carry on.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
at long last proof that petraus is a democrat.
(i guess i sorta know what he means, but wow thats an awful quote>)
pamplonajack on January 23, 2012 at 1:54 PM
Pet should have asked PBHO to quit.
Bishop on January 23, 2012 at 1:55 PM
Petraeus did the right thing. His job is to accomplish the mission set by the President as effectively and safely as possible. The ability of senior commanders to influence political actors and public policy depends on those commanders being both competent and objective. If generals start resigning in protest over political judgments, it makes the military leadership look like a bunch of political hacks, reduces the public’s trust in them, and makes it harder for the military to do its job.
Outlander on January 23, 2012 at 2:03 PM
This^^^
DethMetalCookieMonst on January 23, 2012 at 2:06 PM
Huh? He didn’t want to resign in protest because the men serving under him did not have that luxury.
Fezzik on January 23, 2012 at 2:07 PM
When Petraeus said “The troops can’t quit,” he didn’t mean he himself had no acceptable option to quit. He meant, literally, that the troops under him have no option to hand in their resignation and be released from service, just because they don’t like the way the president is conducting the war.
So he chose to stick it out with the troops — stand with them and not leave them to someone else’s leadership — in spite of his personal reservations about the president’s policies.
Applaud or disparage him, that’s what he was talking about. I for one applaud him. Outlander is right: we don’t want “political” generals who go around making gestures that undermine the president. We just need a different president.
J.E. Dyer on January 23, 2012 at 2:14 PM
“Soldier, shut up and Soldier.”
Mord on January 23, 2012 at 2:17 PM
boy, i wonder how substantiative that debate was. General Petraeus returns from the battlefield to debate with the likes of Field Marshal Biden.
Steven McGregor on January 23, 2012 at 2:21 PM
What we do have are political generalas who go around buddy buddy with senators and the pres to undermine the USA’s best interests and tie the hands of our beloved family members in service.
Patreaus and his “Hearts and Minds” war fighting should be tossed into the ashbin of failure, as that is exactly what he and our current and former president accomplished.
MadDogF on January 23, 2012 at 2:22 PM
Ah, yes, the ‘Nuremberg Defense’. Oh, wait…
Knott Buyinit on January 23, 2012 at 2:25 PM
I do agree with you J.E., but if you do not think that “political” generals (and admirals for that matter) are the rule rather than the exception you need to hang out at the Pentagon more often.
It is very rare for a general to not be playing a political game, it’s just done internally within Washington and does not make the press all that often.
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on January 23, 2012 at 2:30 PM
Exactly.
He’s all Grant without an ounce of McClellan.
dczombie on January 23, 2012 at 2:35 PM
That is the core of the matter.
Undoubtedly true, but a Patreaus protest resignation would have been an extremely high-profile, in-your-face, political statement. I despise the President, and it grates me to have our military under his control, but the fact that Patreaus refused to make such a political statement is to his credit, and that is enhanced by the fact that there is so much politics in the Pentagon.
peski on January 23, 2012 at 2:36 PM
We need Generals like Chesty Puller who protect and lead the troops and could give a rats ass about the political ramifications. We have sissified the military missions and the leaders.
Wade on January 23, 2012 at 2:53 PM
Because this is obvious a political pander for votes no matter what Patreaus does or says it becomes political. If generals think orders from the CIC impede the military mission they need to be heard. This is the security of the country we are talking about, not having carrots served in happy meals instead of fries.
Wade on January 23, 2012 at 3:01 PM
Agree with both posts. As much as a Petraus resignation would have been a joy to witness as a long-overdue slap in the face to Obama, it would set a very dangerous and ugly precedent for our military and our country.
Just Sayin on January 23, 2012 at 3:41 PM
Had to seek out the original WaPo version of this story to find the comments-very few of them to begin with, which shows the average WaPo Kos Kid “reader” has total ignorance of how the military works.
More than a few though say Petraeus handled this correctly; the best the Kos Kids there can “respond” to these posts with is to throw out words like “Neocon”, “Bush”, Cheney”, “thousands of dead Iraqi civilians for a lie”, and so on.
Del Dolemonte on January 23, 2012 at 3:48 PM
As a 20-year member of the military, I fully understand what General Petraeus is saying. He, like most members of the military, asked himself “What’s best for the country?” and did it.
RoadRunner on January 23, 2012 at 3:54 PM
But neither do they take cushy jobs in the same administration they supposedly disagree with.
jnelchef on January 23, 2012 at 4:18 PM