The Petraeus Bamboozle: A Likely Success?

Since this week brings us the much-anticipated (?) war debate, let's look back...

Last spring, the always gullible media wrote numerous stories about Republicans confronting President Bush and warning him that, come September, they "will desert him on the war." It was in reality just another stalling tactic, meaning to say 'Oh don't worry angry populace, it's okay we're acquiesing now, because in September we'll end the war.' Of course, approaching September, they needed a new PR strategy to a) kick the Iraq can down the road some more, and b) make everyone forget all of the above.

That strategy can be summed up in two words... General Petraeus.

The Bush White House masterfully built the narrative of Gen. Petraeus as an independent-minded heroic figure, who would save the war. And the press ate it up, with nary a mention of how Petraeus was promoted because he was the General whom Bush found most enthusiastic about his surge idea. Soon, columns appeared all over, insisting that there could be no questioning the war until Gen. Petraeus came back in September. Republican senators and congressmen flooded the pundit shows with that message, stating things like "I’m going to wait till he comes back [to form an opinion]" and "God bless General Petraeus."

And when the LA Times revealed last month that the much-heralded 'Petraeus report' "would actually be written by the White House," it went initially unmentioned by other outlets.

Quickly, however, false stories of 'progress' grew harder to swallow, while the White House dangled kabuki troop drawdown promises over America's head.

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum has a good post on how successful this is likely to be-

Petraeus has been slowly and methodically carrying out an extremely disciplined military campaign with a very precise goal: gaining support for ... the surge...

...And it's worked. Even though there's been no discernable political progress, minimal reconstruction progress, and apparently no genuine decrease in violence, he's managed to convince an awful lot of people that the first doesn't matter, the second is far more widespread than it really is, and the third is the opposite of reality.

Well, reality is a pesky thing, who's got time for it? Drum continues-

Five months ago Petraeus was guaranteeing to wavering Republicans that they'd see progress in August, precisely the month when the PR campaign was scheduled to go into high gear. Today he's issuing dire warnings about al-Qaeda hegemony and nine-dollar gas if we leave, circulating bio pages that let his staff know whether they're dealing with friend or foe among visiting congress members, and insisting repeatedly that violence is down in classified briefings where he doesn't have to publicly defend his figures.

If these don't sound like the actions of an honest broker to you, they don't to me either.

Republicans falling in line on this makes sense, as this was always their baby to start with. But Democrats (should) know better. But they're likely to be bamboozled here too. Why? It doesn't seem they really believe the hype. Or are they scared that President Bush will yell at them again and say they hate the troops?

Either way, these circles we keep going around in are depressing as hell.