The NYT ran a couple of interesting companion pieces today, one on Gen. David Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, and the other on Robert Gates, Bush’s Defense Secretary. The pieces offered some insights into how they both perceive their responsibilities right now, particularly with regards to Iraq policy.
The pieces are worth reading, but a couple of tidbits jumped out at me. For example, this was in the Petraeus profile.
[F]or General Petraeus, being cast as the president’s white knight has been a mixed blessing. While he talks with Mr. Bush once or twice a week, in interviews he depicts himself as owing loyalty as much to Congress as the White House and stresses the downside, as well as the upside, of the military effort here.
His view, he says, is that he is “on a very important mission that derives from a policy made by folks at one end of Pennsylvania Avenue, with the advice and consent and resources provided by folks at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. And in September, that’s how I’m going to approach it.” Whether to fight on here, he says, is a “big, big decision, a national decision,” one that belongs to elected officials, not a field general.
Those are encouraging words, I suppose, but if they reflect Petraeus’ actual thinking, he might want to check in with his friends at the White House — because I think they have a very different idea about the future of the policy in Iraq.
The war will be shaped by the “advice and consent” of members of Congress? Not according to the president, who’s argued that lawmakers’ sole power is to give Bush money to execute whatever war policy he sees fit. Whether to keep troops in Iraq is a “national decision”? Not according to the Bush gang, which insists the decision is solely in the hands of the president, no matter what the electorate or its elected officials have to say about it.
The power is not in the hands of a field general? As it turns out, White House officials have been saying for weeks that whatever Petraeus says, goes (even if there is reason to question the general’s objectivity). Maybe the Bush gang can explain why Petraeus is off-message?
As for Gates, the NYT characterized him as a quiet, contemplative man who’s intent on considering a variety of perspectives.
In the debate about next steps on Iraq, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates does more listening than talking, rarely revealing his own views, except in clipped comments or the questions he asks at meetings.
Even in his private discussions with lawmakers, top aides and his own senior commanders, Mr. Gates says, he has avoided showing his hand about whether changes will be needed when the Bush administration completes its war strategy review next month.
In many ways, Mr. Gates is shaping up to be a pivotal figure in the debate. As an outsider who took over at the Pentagon only last December, and who has admirers in both parties, he may be the one person with the clout to persuade either President Bush or the Democratic-led Congress to compromise.
This, too, sounds very nice, but I had the same reaction as Ezra.
Reading this profile of Robert Gates, you’d get the impression he’s some sort of independent actor within the war debate — a quiet, thoughtful man who will, at some point, render an honest judgment that George W. Bush and the Democratic Congress will have to react to. You would not get the impression that this is but one more functionary who serves at the pleasure of the president, who won’t publicly speak his mind if his conclusions conflict with the administration’s favored path forward, and who, like Colin Powell and the Iraq Study Group before him, can be easily ignored in private.
Exactly. I’m delighted that Gates is contemplative, and for that matter, more open to reason than his predecessor. But the exercise of waiting for Gates to show his cards is pointless — Gates serves at the pleasure of the president and will follow the president’s orders. Does anyone seriously believe Bush will say, “Well, I was planning to stick with the status quo, but Gates seems concerned, so maybe I’ll change course”?
Of course not. Cheney has the policy, Bush has the authority, and Gates is executing the decisions made by his superiors. It’s not complicated.