How is it that you or the people arguing similarly to you always have such masterful command of a topic, while others are just completely ignorant of any deeper, more nuanced or more well developed understanding?
Does that really seem possible, or might you recognize this ad hominem attack and stop using it?
Further, why does a public hearing necessarily mean the disclosure of classified or sensitive military information? Aren’t there a host of things that should be discussed in a public hearing? Aren’t there a host of possible responses to questions that would disclose sensitive information? Do you have to be a student of the military of John Mace’s caliber to understand the answers to those silly questions?
Hm. I was wrong, some people do not understand that certain things are important to be kept secret for a period. For example, future plans and tactics, and the details of current plans and tactics. Executive summaries are certainly in the public’s interest to know, but there are details that belong outside of the entire assembly and in the subcommittees.
That said, the important thing is that this all be recorded and declassified as quickly as appropriate, that the senators have the ability to ask as many questions as necessary, and that they are fully briefed.
What Cervaise said. If Petraeus can’t answer without giving away sensitive information, he can tell them that, and he can answer that question in closed session.
But the main thrust of his presentation should be fit for public consumption: how well we’re doing, what the likelihood is that things will get better or worse, and why.
This is a democracy. If the American people can’t be convinced to support a war, we shouldn’t be in it. In a better world, this would be the Administration’s last shot at selling the American people on perseverance in Iraq, rather than a charade that, regardless of how it plays out, will lead to the same result: American troops in Iraq through at least some time in 2010, given the logistical challenges of withdrawal.
But even to maintain the charade, the “Petraeus report” should provide the American people with a sufficient basis for making that decision, even if the opportunity to do so is effectively denied them.
You’re the guy that thinks that the best person to report on the success and accomplishments of Gen. Petraeus is Gen. Petraeus, right? You’re really not qualified to comment on any of this - your simple perspective on just that one think makes that clear.
Have you got kids? Do you look at their report cards, or do you just assume that when they say they’re getting good grades that’s good enough for you?
Sure…there is always grandstanding and evasion. Excellent…I’m sure we’d get a good show out of it at least.
This is a serious question directed at all those who keep batting away at this point…do none of you understand how our government works? I’m seriously not trying to be demeaning or derogatory here.
The reason we HAVE a Congress and a Senate is to act as our representatives in these kinds of situations. THEY are supposed to be our ears and eyes, seeing the things we, the public, shouldn’t see because seeing it endangers us all.
If my simple perspective on this makes it clear to you, your ignorance of how our government makes it clear to me as well. I guess we are even, ehe?
Do you have kids? Do you jump in the classroom and take command, pushing the teacher aside? Do you take charge at the school, pushing aside the principal and setting school policy? Are you a citizen? Do you pick up a gun and go forth to fight crime and pushing aside the police, the courts, etc, taking down bad guys blam! blam! blam! ?
Um…hell no. The proper body for THAT is the Congress, based on our government. Petraeus’ proper job is to present them the info to make a reasonable evaluation. In order to do that, they need to have a private forum, away from the public eye, at least for the initial in-depth question and answer part…otherwise he will simply fob them off with ‘can’t answer that at this time, national security’. And THEY will simply preen for the cameras, making speeches and angling for votes, instead of doing their bloody jobs.
I admit I’ve lost the thread here. If Petraeus is grilled in both open and closed session, I don’t see a problem.
Anyway things are going smoothly. The whole point of these gymnastics was to postpone the tough withdrawal decisions until the next administration takes office, then blame the Democrats. Here’s the administration’s gameplan, as one reader speculated in December 2006:
Sounds about right, though logistical realities will mandate a troop wind-down next year. But those looking for an actual war strategy --as opposed to a holding pattern-- will have to wait until January 2009.
That depends an a characterization of GeeDub as a cool and calculating cynic, but I think the truth is that he’s a deluded fool. He’s not stalling to hand off his defeat, he’s stalling because he believes that victory is just out of reach, another few months, and it will begin to rain ponies…
No it’s not wrong, “open” means “public.” He is required to answer these questions in OPEN sessions as well as closed. I didn’t say he could ONLY do it in open sessions, but open (i.e. public) sessions ARE, in fact, legislatively required.
If the question is, “What intelligence do you have about arms caches around Baghdad, to the east, the west, the south, and the north somewhat, what are your sources for this intelligence, and how will you redeploy your forces to best respond to this information,” I would fully expect Petraeus to demur on the specifics. (And I would join the mockery of whichever lawmaker was stupid enough to make such an unanswerable inquiry, regardless of party affiliation.)
But there are questions he can and should answer in public that do not reveal sensitive military matters, but on which we expect he will be encouraged to waffle by his political masters, if the answers are likely to prove embarrassing to same. I’m talking about elegantly phrased variations on the theme of “so are we well and truly fucked or what,” of course: his opinion of the likelihood of improvement in the political situation, his assessment of troop morale and sustainability of current deployments, an evaluation of the history that has brought us to this sorry condition, and so on. I’m talking about the things we as citizens must know in order to grasp the big picture and make decisions about the leadership we want to employ for the next political cycle.
If Petraeus tries to hide behind the “that’s classified” excuse on questions that no reasonable individual would regard as needing secret information to answer, well, then we’ll know we really are well and truly fucked.
I’m looking forward to something else in this report. You see, the surge has been working incredibly well. Yet, for all its successes, it’s been held back by the Iranians and their dastardly influence. If only there were something we could do about them, if some visionary could relieve the burden on our troops, throw off the shackle of Ahmadinejad and let us promote democracy and peace! In the absence of such a figure, we must soldier forward…nudge nudge say no more
I am absolutely amazed at those who are arguing that the American public has no right to know the details of how the surge is or is not working. The whole point of having a functioning democracy is having a well-informed public that can make rational decisions about their governmental representatives. To say that once we elect our representatives, we should trust them to know what is best without being able to verify it ourselves is ludicrous. In a democracy, the people have the right to keep secrets from the government, but the government does not have the right to keep secrets from the people. Some of you would seem to be very comfortable giving in a totalitarian state where the government knows everything abut the people but the people know nothing about the government. Sheesh!
I’m absolutely amazed at this strawman argument. Actually, I’m glumly disappointed…as usual.
Did someone say that? Interesting.
You have the right to know all the names of every spy in, say, China? Amazing. I never knew! Its amazing to me that people who live in this country don’t actually understand how their own government works.
Oh well…as John Mace said earlier, I’m out of here. There is simply no sense continuing to bang my head against such arguments.
The White House would prefer if the good general only made reports in closed session, with the Secretaries of Defense and State presenting the open testimony/reporting to Congress.
And what could possibly be in this report that would fall into that classification ? And why should we trust these people that much ? They appear to have neither the wellbeing or desires of the American people in mind.
How is openess likely to do more harm than secrecy at this point ?