Rudyard Kipling"
āWhen you're left wounded on Afganistan's plains and
the women come out to cut up what remains, Just roll to your rifle
and blow out your brains,
And go to your God like a soldierā
General Douglas MacArthur"
āWe are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction.ā
āIt is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it.ā āOld soldiers never die; they just fade away.
āThe soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and be the deepest wounds and scars of war.ā
āMay God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't .ā āThe object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.
āNobody ever defended, there is only attack and attack and attack some more.
āIt is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.
The Soldier stood and faced God
Which must always come to pass
He hoped his shoes were shining
Just as bright as his brass
"Step forward you Soldier,
How shall I deal with you?
Have you always turned the other cheek?
To My Church have you been true?"
"No, Lord, I guess I ain't
Because those of us who carry guns
Can't always be a saint."
I've had to work on Sundays
And at times my talk was tough,
And sometimes I've been violent,
Because the world is awfully rough.
But, I never took a penny
That wasn't mine to keep.
Though I worked a lot of overtime
When the bills got just too steep,
The Soldier squared his shoulders and said
And I never passed a cry for help
Though at times I shook with fear,
And sometimes, God forgive me,
I've wept unmanly tears.
I know I don't deserve a place
Among the people here.
They never wanted me around
Except to calm their fears.
If you've a place for me here,
Lord, It needn't be so grand,
I never expected or had too much,
But if you don't, I'll understand."
There was silence all around the throne
Where the saints had often trod
As the Soldier waited quietly,
For the judgment of his God.
"Step forward now, you Soldier,
You've borne your burden well.
Walk peacefully on Heaven's streets,
You've done your time in Hell."
David Petraeusās resignation marks the end of one of the great
postwar military and government careers ā his successful surge in Iraq
being analogous to and as impressive as Matthew Ridgwayās salvation of
Korea or Shermanās sudden taking of Atlanta that saved Lincolnās and the
Union cause before the 1864 elections. In a book due out in late
spring, The Savior Generals, I argue that his achievements were
comparable to those of the best of historyās maverick commanders who
were asked to save wars deemed lost ā and did. But for now, the
explanation of Petraeusās resignation unfortunately raises more
questions than it answers, in a number of significant ways:
1) Fairly or not, questions will be raised why this Washington-style
Friday-afternoon resignation occurred after rather than before the
election ā a question that does not necessarily suggest that Petraeusās
did not take the proper nonpartisan course. But just days after this
Tuesday, we are already beginning to hear of all sorts of āsuddenā news:
the Iranian attack on a U.S. drone; the plight of the Hurricane Sandy
victims (400,000 still without power? gas rationing, tens of thousands
homeless, exposure to cold?, etc.) as much more severe than we were led
to believe; the sudden publicity of the āfiscal cliffā; and the Benghazi
hearings. In that unfortunate politicized landscape comes the Petraeus
bombshell.
2) We were beginning to sense that the crime of Benghazi (not
listening to pre-attack requests for increased security; not sending
help immediately from the annex to the besieged consulate; not rushing
in additional military forces during the hours-long attack) and the
cover-up (inventing the video narrative of a spontaneous demonstration
gone wild to support a pre-election administration narrative of an
impotent al-Qaeda, a successful Libya, a positive Arab Spring, and a
cool, competent Commander in Chief, slayer of bin Laden, and architect
of momentous Middle East change) were not the entire story of the
9/11/2012 attack: Why was there a consulate at all in Benghazi, given
that most nations have shut down their main embassies in Tripoli? Why
was there such a large CIA contingent nearby ā what were they doing and
why and for whom? Why did the ambassador think he needed more security
when so many CIA operatives were stationed just minutes away? What was
the exact security relationship between the annex and the consulate, and
why the apparent quiet about it? Who exactly were the terrorist
hit-teams, and did they have a particular agenda, and, if so, what and
for whom? All these questions had not been answered and probably would
have been raised during the scheduled Petraeus testimony ā which is
apparently now canceled, but why that is so, no one quite knows. And if
Hillary Clinton departs, and perhaps Susan Rice and James Clapper as
well, then the principals of the decision-making chain leave with more
questions raised than answered. We are sort of back to a Watergate-like
timeline of a scandal raised but not explored in a first term, only to
blow up in the second.
3) If rumors are true that the liaison may have involved biographer
Paula Broadwell, co-author of an extremely favorable biography of
Petraeus, then there are additional ethical issues that, fairly or not,
call into question Broadwellās bona fides as an author and the portrait
of Petraeus in her warmly received book. And if the FBI was involved,
then additional questions arise over the reasons they also became
interested ā when, why, how, and on whose prompt?
4) Because of both Petraeusās sterling reputation and his high
office, infidelity takes on greater importance than if it were ā how
absurd to write this ā merely that of a lesser figure like Bill Clinton,
whose serial miscreant conduct was taken for granted, even when he was a
sitting president. If the affair occurred while Petraeus was general,
it contradicted the code of military justice; if while at the CIA, it
posed a potential security breach.
5) For most of us, however, Petraeus is forever frozen as the hero of
2007ā8, when, battered by the congressional hearings (Hillary Clintonās
āsuspension of disbeliefā) and ad hominem attack ads in the New York Times
(āGeneral Betray USā), he nonetheless pressed ahead and broke the back
of the insurgency ā in part due to his competence, his unmatched
reputation, and the talented circle around him. After he came down from
Olympus in 2008, his subsequent billets in Afghanistan and at the CIA
took on political significance, given the Obama administrationās
paradoxical and obsessive desire to affect his career by keeping him
close by, and yet failing to appoint him as chairman of the Joint
Chiefs, or supreme NATO commander ā appointments that were offered to
those of lesser stature. In 2007, the Left went after him as a āBush
generalā; in 2009, the Right was disappointed in him for his sudden
close, personal relationship with Obama; the truth was always that he
sought to serve his country regardless of politics. National Review
