general david petraeus
We live in an age when hardly a soul, it seems, cares that high-ranking, mission-unaccomplished officers have had leading roles in quagmire wars or even, in two prominent cases, saw their government service cease as a result of a career-ending scandal.
Several years ago after the Newtown massacre, when Adam Lanza took his rage out on a classroom defenseless students and teachers, I wrote a piece castigating a number of Democratic Senators who dug their heads into the sand and refused to close basic background check loopholes.
Most prognostication has it that Clinton needs to make herself more appealing by value-adding some measure of regional balance, shoring up a swing state or appeasing a needed demographic with a symbolic selection. Is David Petraeus the answer?
In the decades since the draft ended in 1973, a strange new military has emerged in the United States. Think of it, if you will, as a post-democratic force that prides itself on its warrior ethos rather than the old-fashioned citizen-soldier ideal.
When classified information gets in the hands of our enemies and rivals, bad things happen for our beleaguered intelligence forces. General Petraeus gets that it is wrong. But as Clinton blames Republicans for her woes on NBC's Meet the Press, it's clear she still just doesn't get it.
Neocons and elite media personalities who got everything wrong on Iraq now darken my TV screen telling me to ignore the invasion, the eight-year occupation, the lies about weapons of mass destruction, "mushroom clouds" becoming "smoking guns," the torture at Abu Ghraib prison and everything else, and pretend the war started with General David Petraeus's miraculous "surge" where everything was wonderful in Iraq until the "dove" Obama pulled the plug. It's a nice narrative if your goal is partisan advantage, but like so much else we've heard from policy elites regarding Iraq, it has nothing to do with reality.