GENERAL PETRAEUS’ REPORT TO CONGRESS AND PRESIDENT BUSH: Did The President's Surprised Visit To Iraq Have A Hidden Purpose?

(Photo: Sunday Times-UK)

Perhaps, I am just too cynical and mistrusting of politicians and the Bush administration, specifically. But there is nothing like seeing the “commander-and-chief” on international news arriving in the war zone , as was the scene last week. Quite naturally, there was a telling moment in one's mind viewing projected images of the president actually placing himself in harm’s way, whether perceived or real, to get-supposedly-a first-hand look at the situation, pat the troops on the back, while getting a lot of news coverage with a perfect backdrop for photo opportunities at the same time. And, no doubt, ultimately, with optimistic hope of influencing in his favor the outcome of General Petraeus’, US commander in Iraq, report to Congress(?).

Unquestionably, a visit by the President to the front lines is the right thing to do during times of war and continuous loss of US American lives, coupled with being a good morale booster for the troops as well. But the timing is “especially’ troubling when General Petraeus is to provide a report to Congress this week on progress of the surge in troops that was first launched earlier this year (two announced troop surges, January and May , respectively).

Again, could it be that Mr Bush’s primary motive and hidden agenda was to simply try in a subtle manner to influence or mitigate the General’s report? A face-to-face, eyeball-to-eyeball communication is of utmost importance when one wants to convey a message as to what one would like to be presented which will be favorable to one’s policies and objectives. Thus, wishing that the general will desist from revealing his true gut feelings, while not lying, but not being totally up front and candid either. In essence, a clear message was probably subtly given to the general: “I need your help if we are to [stay the course] and not [cut and run], as many in the Congress want.” That is more-or-less what the trip’s message was actually meant to send, in my experienced opinion.

You see, only rarely do leaders, whether military or civilian, have to give direct-explicit orders; merely hint by implying, firmly- and at times adding humor- what he or she would like to see as an outcome. So who knows what was discussed in private, out of the eyes of the vigilant and hungry media? Bottom line: was Mr Bush’s trip, perhaps, bordering on an obstruction of a Congressional hearing; I thought to my suspicious mind?

My understanding is that General Petraeus is honorable, ethical, patriotic and independent-minded. And as a professional military officer and leader, he will not place his loyalty to the President above what is best for the country, the troops, and the Constitution. In simple terms, all indications are: "he is to be trusted." Let’s all pray that he “stays the course” and follows the dictates of his moral and ethical character, as his established reputation so portrays him to be. You decide!