Listening on C-SPAN Radio as Gen. David Petraeus testified to Congress on Monday, it was obvious that the general's superior communication skills played an important role in his advancement.
Civilians perhaps do not adequately appreciate that America's top military commanders are extraordinarily well educated.
Gen. Petraeus is a good example of this fact. He is a 1974 West Point graduate, but also ...
General Petraeus was the General George C. Marshall Award winner as the top graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Class of 1983. He subsequently earned MPA and Ph.D. degrees in international relations from Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, and later served as an Assistant Professor of International Relations at the U.S. Military Academy. He also completed a fellowship at Georgetown University.Wonder how many of the members of Congress on that panel -- or how many of the journalists who covered the hearing -- have Ivy League doctorates?
The general's opening statement showed a master communicator at work. He started strong, demolishing with two sentences all the negative spin poured out by his critics prior to Monday's testimony:
At the outset, I would like to note that this is my testimony. Although I have briefed my assessment and recommendations to my chain of command, I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by, nor shared with, anyone in the Pentagon, the White House, or Congress.
So much for this being "the Bush report." And he was just warming up. After describing the decline in violence in Iraq, he then says:
One reason for the decline in incidents is that Coalition and Iraqi forces have dealt significant blows to Al Qaeda-Iraq. Though Al Qaeda and its affiliates in Iraq remain dangerous, we have taken away a number of their sanctuaries and gained the initiative in many areas.
We have also disrupted Shia militia extremists, capturing the head and numerous other leaders of the Iranian-supported Special Groups, along with a senior Lebanese Hezbollah operative supporting Iran's activities in Iraq. (Emphasis added.)
Brilliant strategic move there. First, he emphasizes that the war in Iraq is an integral part of the war against al-Qaeda, and then points out that his troops are also taking on -- and taking out -- exotic bad guys from Iran and Lebanon.
Notice that he makes these moves with sentences that are concise and specific -- facts, facts, facts -- keeping it short and clear. Brilliant tactician that he is, Gen.Petraeus anticipated that his testimony would be preceded by the pompous rhetoric of politicians and prepared his own statement so as to maximize the contrast.
Later, Gen. Petraeus supplies a razor-sharp three-sentence description of the basic situation:
The fundamental source of the conflict in Iraq is competition among ethnic and sectarian communities for power and resources. This competition will take place, and its resolution is key to producing long-term stability in the new Iraq. The question is whether the competition takes place more -- or less -- violently.
A very pragmatic statement. Rivalry between social groups is nothing unusual in human history. Avoiding "the violence of faction" was, as James Madison explained in Federalist 10, a basic object of our own Constitution. (Like Gen. Petraeus, Madison was a Princeton man.)
A couple thousand words later, Gen. Petraeus does what every communicator should do -- he finishes strong:
In closing, it remains an enormous privilege to soldier again in Iraq with America's new "Greatest Generation." Our country's men and women in uniform have done a magnificent job in the most complex and challenging environment imaginable. All Americans should be very proud of their sons and daughters serving in Iraq today.
People who suggest America's top military commanders are a bunch of brainless brutes are simply displaying their own ignorance. And speaking of MoveOn.org, their idiotic "General Betray Us" ad backfired like no other such stunt in recent memory. It was like watching a patrol of infantry trainees wander blindly into an L-shaped ambush manned by veteran troops. They were completely routed, once Americans got a chance to see for themselves the brilliant officer in charge of our troops in Iraq.
Here's a video highlight of the general answering questions during Monday's hearing, courtesy of Hot Air:
Study that lesson. Class dismissed.
-- Robert Stacy McCain, assistant national editor, The Washington Times
Comments (4)
If only our Congress had the intelligence to adapt to complex situations as dynamically and efficiently as our military in Iraq. Instead, they remain dogmatic toward a limited political power agenda without concern for what is best for this country. Perhaps General Petraeus can devise a plan for the sectarian division within this country.
Posted by Larry Stone | September 11, 2007 11:07 AM
It amusses me to think of any of these inquisitors attempting a briefing on an important matter for Gen Pretraus. I doubt they could get past the title page.
Posted by Wes Sawyer | September 11, 2007 11:27 PM
If General Petraeus can provide deterministic feedback toward staying, why can't the Democrats (Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) provide the same for withdrawing? Political benchmarks are not deterministic, they are relative and ambiguously open to interpretation. I know McNamara tried it with his body count in Vietnam, but failed because he was naive in his assumptions about the intelligence of the average conscripted American soldier. Our new military are professionals and General Petraeus analysis is based on his as well as their integrity.
Posted by Larry Stone | September 13, 2007 2:56 AM
I agree completely. Hillary certainly ran into a trap when she opened her mouth. Amb. Crocker was excellent, too.
Posted by Bohdan Balzic | September 15, 2007 8:02 PM