Friday, January 26, 2007

Kate O'Beirne

Ms. O'Beirne is right on with this piece


The Senate has unanimously confirmed General Petraeus to take command
of U.S. forces in Iraq to implement the new mission in Baghdad with the help of
additional forces. Rather than back a non-binding resolution of
disaproval, why didn't the gutsy Senators, like Chuck Hagel, who are riding the
surf of public opinion opposed to the troop surge and taking on a president with
approval ratings at the freezing level vote aginst General Petraeus'
confirmation? Their convictions hold that he has endorsed a wholly
unjustified escalation and will be leading troops on a futile
mission. They want a role in the conduct of the war and with the need
to win Senate confirmation of Gen. Petraeus the Constitution has given them
one, but they have taken a pass. Because Gen. Petraeus is an
experienced, credentialed, credible advocate of the new strategy, Senators
have no interest in tangling with him. When you're playing at being a
military strategist you sure don't want to go up against the real thing, so
better to have an unpopular commander-in-chief be the face of the new mission
rather than the veteran general who will be in command.