| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Another Surge Convert: Major General John Batiste |
| 2007-12-08 |
| Michael Goldfarb's blog is well worth a frequent visit - he was one, along with Bob Owens, that first called out TNR on the Beauchamp debacle. In today's Washington Post, Pete Hegseth, executive director of Vets for Freedom, has coauthored an op-ed with...wait for it...Major General John Batiste. Batiste, you will remember, is the formerly "antiwar" general who spoke out against Donald Rumsfeld, and who, until recently, was a Board Member of VoteVets.org (the antiwar MoveOn.org vets front group). Today he joins Hegseth to write: First, the United States must be successful in the fight against worldwide Islamic extremism. We have seen this ruthless enemy firsthand, and its global ambitions are undeniable. This struggle, the Long War, will probably take decades to prosecute. Failure is not an option. Second, whether or not we like it, Iraq is central to that fight. We cannot walk away from our strategic interests in the region. Iraq cannot become a staging ground for Islamic extremism or be dominated by other powers in the region, such as Iran and Syria. A premature or precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, without the requisite stability and security, is likely to cause the violence there -- which has decreased substantially but is still present -- to cascade into an even larger humanitarian crisis. Third, the counterinsurgency campaign led by Gen. David Petraeus is the correct approach in Iraq. It is showing promise of success and, if continued, will provide the Iraqi government the opportunities it desperately needs to stabilize its country. There are two stories here: 1) A formerly anti-war general flips on supporting the war, and now believes Petraeus has the right strategy; and 2) Batiste has left VoteVets.org, and the antiwar movement, and joined up with the pro-troop, pro-surge, pro-victory Vets for Freedom. The antiwar movement has lost one of its most powerful voices today, and it will be interesting to see whether they turn on one of their own, or come around to the view, supported by a preponderance of evidence, that the surge is working. |
| Posted by:Frank G |
| #8 I'm reading it too, ZF - not Batiste's best showing, is it? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-12-08 21:00 |
| #7 I just read "House to House" which is covers the experiences of Army Staff Sergeant David Bellavia in Iraq. In that book, Batista comes off as one of Hackworth's perfumed princes, as he demands that infantry who have just come off the line after 11 days of all fighting, no showers, no hot meals and no sleep get themselves cleaned up for a photo op with him. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-12-08 20:42 |
| #6 ...So now we know exactly how long it takes for a General to figure out which way the wind is blowing. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2007-12-08 19:41 |
| #5 I should remember, but can't, whether this guy was one of those "anti-war" types who actually were more opposed to the old Non-Campaign (my term) than they were to seeking some measure of success in Iraq. The redeeming aspect of the former generals I have in mind was that they offered specific, concrete critiques and criticism. This aspect failed to excuse their criminal stupidity in allowing themselves to be used the way they were, and in general to display such carelessness in stepping into the most vicious and stupid political environment ever seen. But at least they had SOMETHING to say other than "whhaaa, we're not happy, life is hard, whaaaa, etc.", which is about all we've heard for the past 4 years from most "critics". |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-12-08 19:35 |
| #4 I prefer the cynical motivation. He lacks a personal sense of direction and has sensed which way the wind is blowing. Do not trust such a man, but take great pleasure in the tweaking this "change of mind" will make among our internal enemies |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-12-08 18:22 |
| #3 Interesting change of heart. We can only speculate on the motivation. The nicest spin seems to be "finally came to his senses" which is not exactly flattering. So was Batiste anti-Rumsfeld because the the war or because of the whole transformation/net-centric warfare thingie? |
| Posted by: SteveS 2007-12-08 18:16 |
| #2 it is no longer politically useful to be anti-war. They lost in their attempt to hurt Bush by being anti-war. Now they are all going to jump on the band wagon and ride in on the Victory parade. They are just disgusting. Really, they are. Since being a liberal means having no convictions, they will on get on the same page here soon enough. |
| Posted by: Whomong Guelph4611 2007-12-08 16:18 |
| #1 Hurah. Wouldn't trust him as far I can throw an anvil. (2 metres) |
| Posted by: Thomas Woof 2007-12-08 16:04 |