You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
Petraeus Comes Through
2007-05-14
I found this the other day, but because it was late, didn't post it. I had mixed feelings in regards to General Petreaus's letter to the troops. Without ever serving in the military myself, but having family members or friends who have and hearing some of their stories, I can sympathize with soldiers having to face death every day and the emotions associated with it. In regards to Andrew Sullivan's comments, I felt even more uncertain as to their validity and implying the mis-management of this War on Terror. I remember a quote from years ago, that military plans are useful only up until the war starts.

There was a discussion of General Petraeus's document on Bill Bennett's show this morning. And thus my motivation to post this article. I would be interested in the thoughts of both Military and Non-Military.

Andrew Sullivan: It's a stunning letter. And it's one of the most important letters to come from a senior military official in a very long time. The very fact that it is necessary reveals the extent of the damage that Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney have done. But the fact that it is addressed to every service member in the field from their commander in the field shows that honor is not dead in the US military, and that repair is possible. Marty Lederman is right to detect some political interference. I suspect that Cheney insisted on inserting the word "frequently," to insist that torture is not always useless and unnecessary. But Petraeus is finally doing what no one has yet done in this war: he is asserting the immorality, illegality and dishonor of torture and abuse from a position of authority. It has taken six years to hear that clarity again, after the shameful stain of this president's record. Here's the letter in full:

10 May 2007

Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen serving in Multi-National Force—Iraq:

Our values and the laws governing warfare teach us to respect human dignity, maintain our integrity, and do what is right. Adherence to our values distinguishes us from our enemy. This fight depends on securing the population, which must understand that we—not our enemies—occupy the moral high ground. This strategy has shown results in recent months. Al Qaeda’s indiscriminate attacks, for example, have finally started to turn a substantial portion of the Iraqi population against it.

In view of this, I was concerned by the results of a recently released survey conducted last fall in Iraq that revealed an apparent unwillingness on the part of some US personnel to report illegal actions taken by fellow members of their units. The study also indicated that a small percentage of those surveyed may have mistreated noncombatants. This survey should spur reflection on our conduct in combat.

I fully appreciate the emotions that one experiences in Iraq.

I also know firsthand the bonds between members of the “brotherhood of the close fight.” Seeing a fellow trooper killed by a barbaric enemy can spark frustration, anger, and a desire for immediate revenge. As hard as it might be, however, we must not let these emotions lead us—or our comrades in arms—to commit hasty, illegal actions. In the event that we witness or hear of such actions, we must not let our bonds prevent us from speaking up.

Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary. Certainly, extreme physical action can make someone “talk”; however, what the individual says may be of questionable value. In fact our experience in applying the interrogation standards laid out in the Army Field Manual (2-22.3) on Human Intelligence Collector Operations that was published last year shows that the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees.

We are, indeed, warriors. We train to kill our enemies. We are engaged in combat, we must pursue the enemy relentlessly, and we must be violent at times. What sets us apart from our enemies in this fight, however, is how we behave. In everything we do, we must observe the standards and values that dictate that we treat noncombatants and detainees with dignity and respect. While we are warriors, we are also all human beings. Stress caused by lengthy deployments and combat is not a sign of weakness; it is a sign that we are human. If you feel such stress, do not hesitate to talk to your chain of command, your chaplain, or a medical expert.

We should use the survey results to renew our commitment to the values and standards that make us who we are and to spur re-examination of these issues. Leaders, in particular, need to discuss these issues with their troopers—and, as always, they need to set the right example and strive to ensure proper conduct. We should never underestimate the importance of good leadership and the difference it can make.

Thanks for what you continue to do. It is an honor to serve with each of you.

David H. Petraeus
General, United States Army
Commanding
Posted by:Delphi2005

#9  Please add a stinker alert flag whenever linking to Andy Buttboy
Posted by: Captain America   2007-05-14 19:17  

#8  St. Andrew of the Bleeding Rectum Heart has devolved to pure BDS. His writing was NEVER top-notch. He's not worthy to start Mark Steyn's computer
Posted by: Frank G   2007-05-14 18:48  

#7  Let it suffice to say that the sooner Sullivan's dangerous habits catch up to him, the better. I personally wouldn't mind seeing the Taliban have a go at him.
Posted by: Mac   2007-05-14 17:35  

#6  This is too bad. It means petraeus is the wrong man for the job.

He is telling the troops not to act if in doubt. Like many others, he confuses soldier with policeman. Police are supposed to know the law, soldiers are supposed to kill.

By squashing initiative on the ground he guarantees defeat.
Posted by: flash91   2007-05-14 17:24  

#5  Andrew Sullivan has been obsessed with Abu Ghraib and other alleged mistreatment of prisoners by American soldiers for three solid years. He simply will NOT let it go, even though the individuals responsible were charged with misconduct, and the disciplinary process begun, even BEFORE the Abu Ghraib story was turned into a "scandal" by Seymour Hersch.

And when it did, and Sullivan went ballistic over it, I had a strong suspicion that had Bush not already broken Andrew's tender, adoring heart by coming out against gay marriage, Andrew would have treated Abu Ghraib as exactly what it was: an anomoly.

As to Petraeus's letter, it is hardly "stunning"; as best I can tell, it does no more than reiterate U.S. military policy that has been in effect since long before Sullivan ever even heard of Abu Ghraib. (My youngest son spent 2004 guarding detainees at the Camp Bucca prison, so that's what I'm going from.)

Andrew Sullivan has all the integrity of a jilted lover, which is ALL he is. Before Bush took his stand on gay marriage he could do no wrong in Andrew's eyes; since then, he can do no right.

Stop thinking with your dick, Andrew.

Posted by: Dave D.   2007-05-14 17:10  

#4  Oh, it's Andrew Sullivan. The man who adored President Bush's response to 9/11 up until the day he didn't support gay marriage, Mr. Sullivan's pet issue for very personal reasons. Then Mr. Sullivan turned on a dime, and became as waspishly nasty as he is very capable of being. The man has even less understanding of matters military than I, and somehow less of political realities as well, which takes some doing, especially for someone who's been at the top of the journalism profession for decades. He's a brilliant writer, and I'm sure his boyfriend thinks he's wonderful, but he's nothing like the top caliber thinker he believes himself to be. Nothing like Bill Moyers in terms of being pretentious and duplicitious, though a good deal more self-deludingly sanctimonious.
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-05-14 16:33  

#3  This is a command heading check, nothing more. As the frustration rises and the desire to win grows he must insure we stay on track. There is no Bush bashing here, those that say it is need to stfu. Funny how people read what they want to in a letter. Next his letter on sexual harassment will be how bush hates women. This sulivan guy needs to tighten up his tin foil hat a bit.
Posted by: 49 Pan   2007-05-14 15:54  

#2  And I don't see it as an indictment of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, so I guess I don't consider it "stunning", either. I know it was part of my kid's training.
Posted by: Bobby   2007-05-14 15:23  

#1  Petraeus reiterates the fact that they are the only ones that are expected to play by the rules. Nice pep talk, but he's not getting shot at in the Green Zone.
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2007-05-14 14:35  

00:00