
Can Petraeus set aside self-promotion and provide neutral analysis of military strategy he set into motion?
Stewart and Hosenball set the stage for their analysis by stating that Petraeus “has a reputation for brainpower and political savvy”. Pincus takes that characterization even further, noting Petreaus’ presidential ambitions:
Petraeus comes to the agency with a particularly high profile and, like George H.W. Bush before him, has long been seen as having presidential aspirations. Bush had to sign a letter agreeing not to run in 1976 as part of his confirmation. That profile is seen within the agency as both a plus and a minus, veterans say.
Hmmm. Bush took over CIA in January, 1976 and signed the agreement not to run that year. Does Obama have a similar agreement in mind for Petraeus and the 2012 race?
At any rate, Stewart and Hosenball point out the inherent conflict of interest that Petraeus will face:
But in his role as U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, Petraeus has been a developer of the counterinsurgency strategy whose results are incomplete as the Obama administration plans to begin a withdrawal of U.S. soldiers this summer.
Because he helped to craft U.S. policy and has publicly defended it against critics, some officials wonder how open Petraeus will be in his new role to critiquing his own work.
They wonder if he will faithfully represent to the White House a CIA view of Afghanistan and Pakistan that is more pessimistic than that of Pentagon brass.
Pincus notes that CIA is nervous about Petraeus taking over:
The agency staff is always nervous with change, particularly when the new director comes with a high-profile military background, a history of regularly changing jobs and a hint that this may just be a temporary stopover on the way to something else.
Pincus concludes his article with a blockbuster quote from former CIA deputy director for intelligence John Gannon:
“The challenge for Petraeus is to avoid promoting himself rather than the organization,” said Gannon.
I’ll take promoting himself for $500, Alex. David Petraeus has made a career of promoting himself at the expense of many lives and billions of taxpayer dollars. I don’t see him changing that any time soon.



21 Comments

He could avoid self promotion but he won’t. He’s got little man syndrome and got it bad.
The CIA is a recognized failure in intelligence but its stated purpose (intelligence) has been eclipsed by its operational activities, whereby the president can covertly tell the CIA Director to do whatever, wherever, and it’s done. Petraeus will be good at that, and enjoy the power.
You know, this is one of those times where I’m glad the CIA is full of amoral ratfuckers. I wonder if all those agency people that were there before and will be there when he’s gone will know well enough to sabotage him. Seriously – I want to see this. And I expect it at some point.
I’ve done a lot of research on Petraeus, but I refuse to seek evidence on this point.
A big problem was that while Goss was in charge, his mission was to purge anyone whose world view did not align with the Bushies. That means there will be scarce few left who disagree with Petraeus.
Oh. Damn. I hadn’t realized that.
Simple answers to simple questions – Nope, he will not stop his shenanigans.
Damn! I tried to trick you into it that time.
Never mind the self promotion. The key question is: Can the man avoid starting wars in another half dozen countries?
The CIA is a rogue terrorist agency, accountable to no one. Now the man who has been conducting “intelligence” gathering in half a dozen countries in order to identify targets for US bombing has just been handed the keys to a secret arsenal of drones.
Why would he even TRY to avoid self-promotion? There’s no upside for him to remain in the shadows.
Boxturtle (Predicts weekly briefings with tame reporters)
What could possibly go wrong?
(For the folks who sell drones and missiles…)
David Dayen has a fresh cross-post ready: Goolsbee: Lower Federal Spending Caused Slowdown in GDP
Betrayus and the CIA, it is a match made in heaven, actually made in hell. Betrayus is the worst general in history, after eight years of failure in Irak and ten years of failure in Afghanistan.
These are now forever military occupations, to steal oil and practice oppression. The US military has become a Fascist Machine and McChrystal and Betrayus are two of the biggest fascists ever.
The CIA is a secret police that has also failed time and time again. But its power to spy, and commit False Flag terror, and make war on the American people has increased. Betrayus and the CIA, together, makes the US an official military dictatorship.
man o man … petraeus positioning himself as the savoir. this is rolling out just like this paper predicted. and it’s terrifying:
The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012
CHARLES J. DUNLAP, JR.
From Parameters, Winter 1992-93
http://www.uwec.edu/sfpj/Origins.pdf
Thanks for that, it’s a fascinating read. It appears that the fellow who wrote it retired recently:
http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5293
((Long time reader, infrequent poster. ))
It is telling to me that nobody even bothers to question why Obama would PROMOTE this guy.
We have all collectively let go of Candidate Obama’s promises to undo the actions and practices of (guys like) Petraeus. Accepted that he works with these guys, not against them. At all.
So sad.
i happened across this paper in 2003 and periodically feel compelled to link to it. this is one of those times…
it is an amazing piece of writing.
Yup. This action really does confirm that Obama is one of them.
(And please share your thoughts more frequently.)
Good morning, everyone.
Well, it is a little like failing upward as well. Let’s not forget that Petraeus [like many military types at that level] is going to be highly politically driven. One of my many observations during my time with Grey Hull Cruise Lines (I was a nuc engineer) was just how vicious the backstabbing was at the O-4 level, because if one made O-5, you could count on getting your 20 years in, otherwise, bupkis. Mustangs were excluded in this. After that, the jobs are high profile, and politically driven toward flag envy. It doesn’t hurt to be a ring knocker as well (or whatever the Army version is), those connections run very deep. So if Petraeus is a political beastie, there’s more than a few reasons for it.
That being said, what is also clear is that Petraeus doesn’t have the record of real achievement even at Colin Powell’s level, much less Ike’s or Omar Bradley’s or Matt Ridgway’s. He doesn’t even rise to MacArthur levels because even though he has the politics aspect down pat, Mac succeeded until his ego blinded him to the Chinese.
Petraeus presided over the outright loss of 9 billion dollars from the C-130 in Iraq, presided over losing track of lots of weapons that probably armed the insurgents attacking our troops in Iraq, failed to supervise Abu Ghraib or hold anyone accountable except the low enlisted, the surges that really did not work, failed to keep the contractors in line, failed to hold McChrystal [or himself, he had to sign off on it too] accountable for Pat Tillman’s investigation, presided over the drone strikes not long ago that killed two US servicemen, with NO accountability, floated more than a couple of MacArthuresque press bombs to get his way, etc., etc., etc. This is far from an exhaustive list, it shows someone who stays in a place long enough to get a short-term “credit” and bolts before the butcher’s bill comes due.
So going to CIA will not be a good thing, given that he will have complete ability to cover his tracks and fingerprints. I’m not sure I would agree with Jim on the completeness of the Bushie purge, but if Petraeus does what he usually does, they will love him there, especially if he contrasts himself to Panetta’s style. The ability to dig up and make up dirt on anyone is unparalleled. I doubt Petraeus will agree (or follow through if he does) to a restriction against running in ’12. Obama’s not going to be able to muzzle him this way.
As far as a coup goes, I will read the paper noted above, it is interesting that no GOPer is really palatable to the base AND the general electorate. The GOP knows it will lose to Obama in ’12 with who they would get through the primaries. So whoever does run, it will be gamed so that a hung convention will result and the GOP will just happen to select Petraeus, who may or may not grease the skids from his CIA perch to slide Obama out in the court of public opinion. There won’t be time for oppo research, and the evidence would be spiked anyway, in secret.
All in all, the wrong person for the job. Panetta as SecDef isn’t any better, he’s a self-serving hack as well.
the northamerican pinochet…a rumor in his own mind.
I think one of the most frightening parts of Petraeus at CIA is what Ray McGovern points out: the utter lack of accountability asked by Congress of that body, and as they are increasingly running dark ops with contract forces, it’s getting darker and darker. And we don’t know who is really making the plans and naming the targets.
It was impossible not to notice exactly how political Petraeus was during his stint in Iraq, even to the point of interfering in Iraqi electoral politics.
Now Malaki is effectively silencing the press in Iraq, and we don’t even hear about the protests and those killed during them. Hard to say what the 100,000 military and contract forces are supposed to be doing there.