Our colleague Rob Bluey notes that in an apparent response to a challenge by Glenn Greenwald, General David Petraeus has had an interview with Alan Colmes. (It’s unfortunate that Greenwald was apparently unaware of the interview, as he’s failed to note it on his blog–either to alert readers in advance or to acknowledge it subsequently.) The criticisms of Colmes and Greenwald make clear that war opponents on the left are preparing for a positive progress report in September by trying to undercut Petraeus’s credibility. The Colmes interview constitutes a good preview of the criticisms Petraeus is likely to face surrounding his September 15 report to Congress. (Listen to it at the link above, or read the transcript here.) Echoing Greenwald, Colmes asks Petraeus to respond to allegations that he is essentially, a cheerleader for the war who is unable to render an objective opinion on progress in Iraq. When Colmes asks the general about statements of progress in Iraq dating to 2004 for example, Petraeus says:
…And in fact if you go back and look at those you’ll find that generally those reports of progress were also tempered by reports of caution and measured statements. Some of what we did was undone by a variety of different events that tragically transpired… I think, tragically, the progress that was made in the Iraqi security force arena and again, I think if you look at what I provided at those times, that there were acknowledgments, it was literally always a term of qualified optimism or what have you and it depended on continued progress and continued efforts in certain areas but the sectarian violence of 2006 very sadly undid an awful lot of what had been achieved in previous years and as you know, it spiraled out of control to levels that were really horrific and tore the very fabric of Iraqi society in the latter part of 2006 and into early 2007.
It’s worth recalling that General Petraeus was confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 81-0. No senator expressed concern during the floor debate on his nomination that his impartiality was suspect. None said that his reports ought to be regarded with suspicion due to any perceived reputation for seeing Iraq through rose-colored glasses. In fact, Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin complimented him on his commitment to fair reporting on benchmarks:
He said: I am going to regularly report to Congress on whether this new strategy is working and whether these so-called benchmarks which the Iraqis have allegedly agreed to, representing their commitments–when will they produce troops; will those troops, in fact, be subject to political pressure; will the Iraqis come through with the commitments relative to the financing of reconstruction? He is going to report to us on all the commitments which the Iraqis have made, all the benchmarks which are supposed to be met. I take him at his word. He is an honorable man, and that is an important representation, again, made at his initiative.
And those who portray Petraeus as some unalloyed optimist may forget his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in January:
The Army general who would carry out President Bush’s new war plan urged a skeptical Congress and American public Tuesday to be patient but acknowledged “the situation in Iraq is dire.” “None of this will be rapid,” Lt. Gen. David Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee at his confirmation hearing. “The way ahead will be neither quick nor easy, and there undoubtedly will be tough days,” he said. Gen. Petraeus, the incoming military commander in Iraq, said that he’ll have only the minimum number of U.S. and Iraqi soldiers needed to bring security to Baghdad and that he’s concerned about the reliability of some of the Iraqi forces… Gen. Petraeus said he’d give Congress regular progress reports and promised “to tell my boss if I believe that the strategy cannot succeed at some point.”
And after the administration’s first progress report–provided to Congress just a few weeks ago–members of Congress did not criticize it for an inaccurate description of the situation. Instead, they tended to argue that there was little hope for further progress. That hardly supports the charge that Colmes, Greenwald, and others seem eager to pin on Petraeus–that their is a disconnect between his view of the war and the facts on the ground.
