Petraeus’s phony critics
There is more of this same risible name-calling, including the truly astonishing claim that Petraeus is too concerned with his personal appearance (“never has so much beribboned finery decorated a general’s uniform”)–as if Petraeus were remotely in the same league as Patton who was known for his riding breeches, highly polished helmet, and ivory-handled pistols.
I search in vain for a serious point here. There is none. Rather this is sheer animus against Petraeus animated by runaway nostalgia for the Greatest Generation, which ignores the fact that most wars before and since World War II could not be ended by marching on the enemy’s capital to demand unconditional surrender. Where, after all, is the capital of the Taliban or al-Qaeda in Iraq? Petraeus and the troops under his command did extremely well in dealing with in dealing with a more diffuse enemy that could not simply be pounded into submission with massive firepower because he did not wear a uniform or control a well-defined territory.











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
What? “STUD” isn’t good enough?
Well, other than that whole “married” thing……
ProfShadow on November 18, 2012 at 8:55 PM
To hear his supporters you would think he was Patton come back from the grave. When asked what makes him comparable to Patton you usually get an embarrassed silence.
I am noticing that.
Petraeus was claimed to have pacified Mosul, but when the 101st Division withdrew it collapsed into anarchy.
Petraeus was said to have trained the Iraqi army, but given their lack of capability to take over from American troops for close to a decade, this is more of a criticism.
Petraeus is said to have written a counter-insurgency manual that reads like every other counter-insurgency manual.
sharrukin on November 18, 2012 at 9:05 PM
Yeah well, count me in. Sure would be nice to know who did what to who or not. Did the guys under fire request aid or not? Is Obama feckless or just a lying A-hole?
I was in the military and used to trust the Generals—-my bad.
arnold ziffel on November 18, 2012 at 9:07 PM
If the progressive hivemind of the modern New York Times was covering World War II, they’d be scalding us for being intolerant and hateful towards the ancient, beautiful Japanese culture.
Transpo on November 18, 2012 at 9:16 PM
Those were generals.
These are most all political hacks, in aim for the 4th star, high and fancy retirement.
I’m pretty sure Petraeus voted for Obama.
Schadenfreude on November 18, 2012 at 9:16 PM
Plus, 4 stars are handed out today like the promotion of Obama/Susan Rice is.
They used to be earned, and very rare, alas.
Schadenfreude on November 18, 2012 at 9:17 PM
Good point. While politics has always played a part in the selection of Generals, the last thirty-forty years has been a bit much.
And yes,Petraeus fell for that ol Black Magic. Not a profile in courage—either of them.
arnold ziffel on November 18, 2012 at 9:25 PM
Petraeus is an idiot.
Anything else?
profitsbeard on November 18, 2012 at 9:47 PM
I keep hearing some pundits calling Petraeus the “American Napoleon.” They should be saying he has an “Napoleon Complex” instead.
moonsbreath on November 18, 2012 at 10:42 PM
Lietraeus has now hired a lawyer. I guess he doesn’t want to depend on his girl friend, Max Boot, to defend him.
VorDaj on November 18, 2012 at 11:13 PM