I consider the exchange between General Petraeous and Senator John Warner (R. VA) to be significant in understanding the perspective of General Petraeous and essential to weighing its value in the debate of our country's "strategy" toward Iraq. Senator Warner asked the General if he were able to say whether the strategy as he had laid it out would make America safer. The General initially responded that he believed the strategy was the best course to reach our objectives in Iraq to accomplish the mission of the multi-national force Iraq. Pressed again by Warner, Petraeous explained that he had tried to focus on what commanders are supposed to do. Petraeous concluded that his strategy was "the best recommendation to achieve the objectives of the policy from which the objectives are derived." His approach then was merely to accept the finality of the existing force structure and the administration's woefully inadequate "strategy." Acceptance of the General's recommendations then is to agree to nothing more than a face-lift to the "stay the course" road to debacle of President Bush.
It is appropriate to reexamine the comments of Gen. Mathew B. Ridgway, Chief of Staff of the Army in 1953-55. "The point I wish to make here, and to repeat it for emphasis, is that the professional military man has three primary responsibilities:"First, to give his honest, fearless, objective, professional military opinion of what he needs to do the job the Nation gives him."Second, if what is given is less than the minimum he regards as essential, to give his superiors an honest, fearless, objective opinion of the consequences."Third, and finally, he has the duty whatever the final decision, to do the utmost with whatever is furnished." Regrettably, General Petraeous approached his task only as to how "to do the utmost with whatever is furnished." We were wrong to expect more from a soldier.
