Commentary on Petraeus and Moveon Controversy from Media Matters
What follows is a link to an article from Media Matters with an excellent analysis of the controversy generated by the MoveOn.org ad in the New York Time featuring General Petraeus.
My thanks goes to an old friend of mine from Kansas City for pointing out the article.
Personally, I'm unhappy with the ad. I'm unhappy because someone failed to "Red Team" this ad. By that I mean that MoveOn failed to consider the possible ripple effects of running the ad and seeing the sweet opportunity they provided their opposition. The factual content of the ad is lost in the slur.
I'm also unhappy because the ad seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding that I thought Americans had gotten past in the post Vietnam years. What I'm talking about is the fact that soldiers don't get to choose which wars they fight and they must obey the lawful orders of their superiors. If Petraeus gets "guidance" to present a briefing showing data with a particular bent to it, then he is following orders. The responsibility falls on members of Congress to have the intelligence and experience to ask questions about data from other sources so the full picture is revealed. So the lesson that should have been learned is that if you are unhappy with a policy being executed by the military, then complain to the politicians who control the military, not the military itself.
If MoveOn wanted to have an impact, then my suggestion would have been to question why the Secretary of Defense wasn't briefing as the Commander in Chief's (CIC) representative. The Commander is responsible for everything his command does and fails to do. Why is he hiding behind a General Officer who works for him? The answer is that this Commander has no credibility. The Commander's equivalent in the civilian world is a CEO.
If a CEO had lost credibility in a major corporation like this, what would happen? The Board of Directors would fire that CEO, if it had any idependence and guts. The stockholders would demand it.
In this case, the Board of Directors is the Congress and the American Voters are the stockholders. Many wonder what it's going to take to get this Congress to do what's necessary. But, oh yeah, they were on the way to do that and they got shut out. See my entry about why Bush let Libby off the hook.
Anyway, here's the link.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709220002?f=h_top
My thanks goes to an old friend of mine from Kansas City for pointing out the article.
Personally, I'm unhappy with the ad. I'm unhappy because someone failed to "Red Team" this ad. By that I mean that MoveOn failed to consider the possible ripple effects of running the ad and seeing the sweet opportunity they provided their opposition. The factual content of the ad is lost in the slur.
I'm also unhappy because the ad seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding that I thought Americans had gotten past in the post Vietnam years. What I'm talking about is the fact that soldiers don't get to choose which wars they fight and they must obey the lawful orders of their superiors. If Petraeus gets "guidance" to present a briefing showing data with a particular bent to it, then he is following orders. The responsibility falls on members of Congress to have the intelligence and experience to ask questions about data from other sources so the full picture is revealed. So the lesson that should have been learned is that if you are unhappy with a policy being executed by the military, then complain to the politicians who control the military, not the military itself.
If MoveOn wanted to have an impact, then my suggestion would have been to question why the Secretary of Defense wasn't briefing as the Commander in Chief's (CIC) representative. The Commander is responsible for everything his command does and fails to do. Why is he hiding behind a General Officer who works for him? The answer is that this Commander has no credibility. The Commander's equivalent in the civilian world is a CEO.
If a CEO had lost credibility in a major corporation like this, what would happen? The Board of Directors would fire that CEO, if it had any idependence and guts. The stockholders would demand it.
In this case, the Board of Directors is the Congress and the American Voters are the stockholders. Many wonder what it's going to take to get this Congress to do what's necessary. But, oh yeah, they were on the way to do that and they got shut out. See my entry about why Bush let Libby off the hook.
Anyway, here's the link.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709220002?f=h_top
Comments