There is a reason he has been accorded a level, prior to now, of credibility that has not been extended to other commanders in this venture. He earned it by both word and deed. That that credibility level has gotten so high (possibly even too high, hence the inevitable chance of a backlash if he doesn’t turn things around dramatically enough, quickly enough) is why so many are attacking him. It wasn’t manufactured however, he earned it by saying and demonstrating how we were not approaching this thing correctly. He has his own opinio0ns and is willing to go out on a limb to make his views known. Remember the Yingling essay that roiled so many with its claims of dysfunctional promotional practices that kept the most effective officers from advancing? I pointed out at the time, he is part of the group of officers Petraeus has put together in their own little insurgency within the military. I speculated, and I believe it is true, that it was approved (if informally) by both Petraeus and MacMaster. Some military yes man we have here. He certainly doesn’t surround himself with them. Odierno, McMaster, Yingling, Kilcullen and more I could list are hardly the types to uncritically support this administrations methods or policies.

Petraeus may ultimately fail, and his analysis of the significance of the changes he sees can be dismissed if you wish as too optimistic, or flawed analytically. It will not however be because the facts are distorted to fit someone else’s talking points, and I have full confidence he will believe what he says. He has proven, as much as anybody can, that that is the way he operates.

I believe that Petraeus’s report has pretty much already been written. And that it will read an 80/20 positive report. The only thing that matters is that if it is true or not. And if his report is indeed inaccurate, it will matter not. For both wells have now been thoroughly fouled.
Be careful with that poison, Michael.

Ah, and there’s the rub. With the PTW arguments it doesn’t matter if what Petraeus says is true or not (although, there would be need to PTW if what he will say is false). The distinction between what I’m doing, and what the anti-war screechers are doing, is that I actually care what Petraeus has to say. I don’t know what he will report, and it’s not entirely clear to me that any current success resulting from the surge will be in place come September, or November, or at any time beyond that. However, it seems awfully callous and cynical (not to mention irresponsibly disrespectful) to dismiss our commander in the field before he’s even had the chance to deliver his report. He may be acknowledging positive trends right now, but that is because they are occurring. The man is a soldier first and foremost, and I’ve encountered no evidence that he would forsake the charges under his command just to paint a rosy picture for Congress. The very suggestion is slanderous.

Another difference between the PTW’ers and myself is that I’m absolutely hoping I’m wrong. I would be a happy man indeed to write as my September 15th blog post, “I WAS WRONG!”

As a recognition of a debate tactic, your assessment is spot on. But where the truth will lie, will determine where the ‘I told you so’s’ merit trophies.

But thanks for this little bit of ammunition.
When the report comes out, and Petraeus gives a positive report, and the nay sayer’s will say ‘I told you so’, you will come out and say ‘I told you so’.
I will be able to come out and say, “See, I told you so that MichaelW would say ‘I told you so’ about the people that said ‘I told you so’.”

And around and round we go.

Yeah, I’m saving this post.

Cheers.

Fair enough. You’re right that we’re both making predictions. But don’t you see any qualitative differences?

The feared speaker’s reputation and credibility will be directly challenged, most likely be recalling the PTW attacks and using them as evidence of the speaker’s unreliability. Very little, if any, time will be spent evaluating the speaker’s points on their merits. All that pre-emptive poison will be sloshed about quite liberally in order to kill whatever credibility survived the initial onslaught.

Very astute, Counselor. I’m sure this type of discernment has served you well when making arguments.

But what I see is a little bit of your own “PTW”.
You have thrown your own little “I told you so” right back at those who say “I told you so”.

For those anti-war types who would scoff at any positive analysis from Petraeus dismissing it as “I told you so” would immediately be followed by “See, I told so that they would say ‘I told you so’”.

And around and round we go. How productive.

I believe that Petraeus’s report has pretty much already been written. And that it will read an 80/20 positive report. The only thing that matters is that if it is true or not. And if his report is indeed inaccurate, it will matter not. For both wells have now been thoroughly fouled.
Be careful with that poison, Michael.

Petraeus is a political figure, like it or not, and like most political figures, he will affirm the beliefs of his political supervisors. And when he does, … and he will, I will be able to say ‘I told you so’. But that really doesn’t matter.
There is a remote possibility that Petraeus’s report will read an 80/20 negative report. And if that happens, … but it won’t, you will be able to say ‘I told you so’. But then of course I will be able to say ‘I told you so’. And around and round we go.

The only thing that matters is that if it is true or not.

As a recognition of a debate tactic, your assessment is spot on. But where the truth will lie, will determine where the ‘I told you so’s’ merit trophies.

But thanks for this little bit of ammunition.
When the report comes out, and Petraeus gives a positive report, and the nay sayer’s will say ‘I told you so’, you will come out and say ‘I told you so’.
I will be able to come out and say, “See, I told you so that MichaelW would say ‘I told you so’ about the people that said ‘I told you so’.”

And around and round we go.

Yeah, I’m saving this post.

Cheers.