Petraeus Leaked Misleading Story on Pullout Plans
http://www.truthout.org/021009A
"The political maneuvering between President Barack Obama and his top
field commanders over withdrawal from Iraq has taken a sudden new turn
with the leak by CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus - and a firm
denial by a White House official - of an account of the Jan. 21 White
House meeting suggesting that Obama had requested three different
combat troop withdrawal plans with their respective associated risks,
including one of 23 months." The Petraeus account, reported by
McClatchy newspapers Feb. 5 and then by the Associated Press the
following day, appears to indicate that Obama is moving away from the
16-month plan he had vowed during the campaign to implement if
elected. But on closer examination, it doesn't necessarily refer to
any action by Obama or to anything that
happened at the Jan. 21 meeting.
The real story of the leak by Petraeus is that the mostpowerful
figure in the U.S. military has tried to shape the media coverage of
Obama and combat troop withdrawal from Iraq to advance his policy
agenda - and, very likely, his personal political interests as well.
This writer became aware of Petraeus's effort to influence the
coverage of Obama's unfolding policy on troop withdrawal when a
military source close to the general, who insisted on anonymity,
offered the Petraeus account on Feb. 4. The military officer was
responding to the IPS story 'Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal
Decision' published two days earlier [link].
The story reported that Obama had rejected Petraeus's argument
against a 16-month withdrawal option at the meeting and asked for a
withdrawal plan within that time frame, and that Petraeus had been
unhappy with the outcome of the meeting.
It also reported that Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in
Iraq, and retired Army general Jack Keane, a close ally of Petraeus,
had both made public statements indicating a determination to get
Obama to abandon the 16-month plan.
The officer told IPS that, contrary to the story, Petraeus had
been "very pleased" with the direction of the discussions. He said
that there had been no decision by Obama at the meeting and no
indication that Obama had a preference for one option over another.
The military source provided the following carefully worded
statement: "We were specifically asked to provide projections,
assumptions and risks for the accomplishment of objectives associated
with 16-, 19- and 23-month drawdown options." That was exactly the
sentence published by McClatchy the following day, except that
"specifically" was left out.
The source also said Petraeus, Odierno and Ambassador Ryan Crocker
had already reached a "unified assessment" on the three drawdown
options and had forwarded them to the chain of command.
But a White House official told IPS Monday that the Petraeus
account was untrue. "The assessments of the three drawdown dates were
not requested by the president," said the official, who insisted on
not being identified because he had not been authorised to comment on
the matter. "He never said, 'Give me three drawdown plans.'"
McClatchy's Nancy Youssef reported a similar account from aides to
Obama. "Obama told his advisors shortly after taking office that he
remained committed to the 16-month timeframe," Youssef wrote, "but
asked them to present him with the pros and cons of that and other
options, without specifying dates."
That suggests that the only specific plan for which Obama
requested an assessment of risks was the 16-month plan, but that he
agreed to look at other plans as well.
The sentence given to this writer as well as to McClatchy bore one
obvious clue that the request for the assessments of three drawdown
plans did not come from Obama: the sentence used the passive voice. It
also failed to explicitly state that the request in question was made
during the meeting with Obama.
Petraeus did not respond to a request through the intermediary to
say who requested the studies and whether they had been proposed by
the military commanders themselves. McClatchy's Youssef also noted
that it is "unclear who came up with the idea..." of the 19- and 23-
month withdrawal plans.
By implying that Obama had requested the three plans without
saying so explicitly, the sentence leaked by Petraeus seems to have
been calculated to create a misleading story.
One of Petraeus's objectives appears to have been to counter any
perception that he is seeking to undermine Obama on Iraq policy.
Petraeus wishes to remain out of the spotlight in regard to any
conflict regarding withdrawal over the Iraq issue. "He has been very
careful to keep a very low profile," said the military officer close
to Petraeus, "because this is a new administration."
But the Petraeus leak also serves to promote the idea that Obama
is moving away from his campaign pledge on a 16-month combat troop
withdrawal, which has already been the dominant theme in news media
coverage of the issue. That idea would also justify continued sniping
by military officers at the Obama 16-month plan as too risky.
In a new book, 'The Gamble', to be published Tuesday, Washington
Post reporter Tom Ricks confirms an earlier report that in his initial
encounter with Petraeus in Baghdad last July, Obama had made no effort
to hide his sharp disagreement with the general's views. Obama
interrupted a lecture by Petraeus, according to Ricks, and made it
clear that, as president, he would need to take a broader strategic
view of the issue than that of the commander in Iraq.
Ricks, who interviewed Petraeus about the meeting, writes that
Obama's remarks "likely insulted Petraeus, who justly prides himself
on his ability to do just that..." That strongly implies that Petraeus
expressed some irritation at Obama over the incident to Ricks.
On top of the interest of Petraeus and other senior officers in
keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for as long as possible, Petraeus has
personal political interests at stake in the struggle over Iraq
policy. He has been widely regarded as a possible Republican
Presidential candidate in 2012.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
