Making Up Arguments

You may have seen reports of a "disagreement" between General David Petraeus and the Chief of Staff of the Army, General George Casey in the news recently. However, this isn't as big an issue as some in the leftymedia would want you to think it is. Military historian Frederick W. Kagan explains:

The actual disagreement between Casey and the other chiefs on the one hand and Petraeus and Odierno on the other is less obvious than drama-seeking news stories have made out. After the New York Times reported that Pace would advise the president to draw down tens of thousands of U.S. forces in Iraq next year, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs issued a public statement denying the claim. And a sensationalist article in the Wall Street Journal attempting to pit Casey against Petraeus nevertheless claimed that Casey wanted to pull six brigades out of Iraq by the end of 2008 — in other words, to return to pre-surge levels. That is what both Petraeus and Odierno have been suggesting that they would like to do as well, if it is possible. It is by no means clear from the public record, therefore, just how much space there actually is between the chiefs and the commanders in the field.
Let me summarize that in my own way:
  • General Casey says we need to pull six brigades out of Iraq next year.
  • General Petraeus says he would like to pull six brigades out of Iraq next year.
So where's the big argument?

Sure, there may be small disagreements over small issues, such as which brigades, and when they leave, but on the main point--pulling six brigades out--there seems to be agreement.

Of course, it should not be overlooked that the media is helping the Party of the Donkey portray General Petraeus as poorly as possible, as well as making the US presence in Iraq look bad at the same time.

One might hope for a media that didn't try to create controversy where it doesn't exist simply to assist one side of the political debate in this nation.