General Petraeus, General Betray Us, and Enlightened Self-Interest

Propaganda is generally accepted as a part of warfare. The enemy is routinely defamed.

The war on terror offers new angles on this traditional aspect of warfare, since different sides of the conflict are sometimes in the same country.

I'm not sure where The New York Times stands in this conflict.

On the one hand, enlightened self-interest, and proximity to one of the major targets in the jihad against the west, would suggest that The Times would support the side in this conflict that would permit its editors to live.

I'm sure that someone at The Times remembers the alternatively-free conditions imposed on Afghanis, during the Taliban's administration of that country.

Al Qaeda, and other Islamic organizations dedicated to stamping out the last millennium or so of changes in the social, legal, and political order, would probably not be quite as tolerant of the newspaper's editorial and advertising policies: at least, not as they are practiced.

The latest major incident involving The New York Times was the "General Betray Us" advertisement in September's paper.

I'm not so concerned about the price break MoveOn.org got. They should have been charged $142,083 for placing the ad on a specific day. Instead, they got the $64,575 'standby' rate, which means the paper picks the day an ad runs. Apparently Rudy Giuliani got the same price break. It looks to me like sloppy bookkeeping, or maybe a courtesy extended to special customers.

What is impressive about the "General Betray Us" ad is that it violated an internal Times policy against accepting advertising that made personal attacks.

As CNN's "Political Ticker" blog put it, "Clark Hoyt, who analyzes the paper's coverage as the 'readers' representative,' wrote, 'I think the ad violated The Times's own written standards, and the paper now says that the advertiser got a price break it was not entitled to.'"

And, more to the point, Hoyt wrote, again quoting the CNN blog, "... the paper's standards on an 'an internal advertising acceptability manual' that he quoted as saying, 'We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.'"

World-class foul-up?

Political shenanigans?

Propaganda?

I really don't know.

But I do know that, based on what fanatical Islamic groups have done in the past, if the fanatics win, The Times will change its editorial and advertising policy, or be destroyed.

For their sake, I hope that the people running The Times have been paying attention to what's at stake.

I've got fairly well-defined opinions about the MoveOn ad the paper that printed it, and the general who is trying to keep religious nut cases from killing them.

• "General Petraeus, General Betrayus, and Tolerance (September 11, 2007)"
• "American Senate Almost Makes Bold Statement About General Betrayus (September 20, 2007).")

Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.

American Senate Almost Makes Bold Statement About General Betrayus

"Another War-on-Terror Blog" isn't intended to be political. However, sometimes efforts to stop religious fanatics from killing people have to wade through politics.

Over a week ago, I posted "General Petraeus, General Betrayus, and Tolerance," about Senators making speeches at one of America's generals, and how a political action groups was making fun of the General.

It's arguable that it's the general's fault. He has a funny-sounding name. If he had a nice, American, name, like Aikin, or Carter, or Johnson, or Wilson, he wouldn't have been called "General Betrayus."

I'm inclined to see such mocking of a major military leader as one of the unpleasant side-effects of having a nation which allows free speech.

At any rate, someone in the Senate had the odd idea that the Senate should put some distance between itself and petulant outbursts like the "Betrayus" remarks.

That made sense to me. It's one thing for an advocacy group to sling mud at someone who is trying to preserve their right to insult him, and their lives, for that matter. It's another thing for one of the august legislative bodies to, by their silence, tacitly approve of such lack of respect.

The ruling party in the Senate didn't want to defend General Betrayus's integrity at first. Sorry, that's General Petraeus. See how a crack like that can squirm into everyday speech? Finally, though, after the Senate ruminated on the idea for a while, and let the legislative process work.

What came out was an amendment on the defense authorization bill.

Here's the Statement of Purpose for S.Amdt. 2934 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008): "To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces."

I really am impressed. They went on record with a strong condemnation of "personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces."

The measure passed 75-25. None of the ruling party's presidential candidates voted for the measure. Some ducked out, others voted against it.

I'll say this for the United States Senate: They let people know who the membership voted. The Senate's website posted U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session, where you can read how each Senator voted.

MoveOn.org, the political fund raiser and advocacy group that started the "Betrayus" thing with an ad in the New York Times, wasn't mentioned in the amendment, but it's still a remarkably blunt and clear statement.

How Dare General Petraeus Bring Facts to Congress?

General David Petraeus "is widely regarded as one of the brightest soldiers of his generation." As well as a remarkable knowledge of military history, he as the stamina to go on regular 10-mile runs with his troops. General Petraeus is "brilliant," according to Barry McCaffrey, a retired four-star general.

Aside from his mental and physical strengths, Petraeus has accepted the duty to defend America from its enemies.

He also must play along with the United States Congress.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden asked Petraeus if Iraq was closer than before the surge to getting its political parties to work together, and whether continuing the surge would stop killing between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds?

Perhaps becaue he was afraid that General Petraeus would give the wrong answer, Biden said, "the answer to both those questions is no."

Senator Christopher Dodd showed greater efficiency by putting an implied answer into his question. "What makes you possibly think that anything further like this is going to produce the results that anybody else has failed to do?"

That's tellin' 'im!

Senator Chuck Hagel seemed affronted that Petraeus and Bush administration official Crocker had something other than bad news about Iraq. "Where is this going to go?" Hagel asked. Being an astute politician, Hagel continued, "are we going to continue to invest American blood and treasure at the same rate as we are now? For what?"

Petraeus replied: "my responsibility as I see it is not to give a good picture, it is to give an accurate picture."

Shocking! Presuming to bring facts to Senators who obviously know all the answers already!

General Petraeus, General Betrayus, and Tolerance

As I write this, Senators are questioning General David Petraeus about the situation in Iraq.

In other words, they are taking turns making speeches as the General waits with military courtesy, on the off chance that a question will come his way.

I have thought, from time to time, that one of the best proofs of American strength and durability is the way this country has endured more than two centuries of Congressional action.

The General's presence in Congress has pointed out another aspect of America.

A lot of Americans have funny-sounding names.

That's understandable, since people from many different countries came here: some of them hardly the sort that you'd want at your country club. Take "Petraeus," for example. If he'd had a nice, normal, name, like Smith or Ainsworth or Stapleton, we wouldn't see statements like this:

• "Yahoo! Answers - Why do people blame 'Betrayus', he only read the report given to him by the Bush administration?"
• " GENERAL DAVID BETRAYUS PREPARES TO KICK OFF HIS 2012 PRESIDENTIAL RUN AS THE CANDIDATE OF THE PARTY OF PERPETUAL WAR"
• "O'Reilly, Betrayus, and the Truth"
• "General Betrayus reports"
• "SHOUT-OUT to Code Pink at the Betrayus farce!!!!!!"
• "The MacMinute Café: General Betrayus"

Reacting to the allegation that these statements represented some sort of insult, the majority party in Congress acted with the swift resolve that we have learned to expect. The ruling party said that they didn't want to consider disavowing the "General Betrayus" remarks at this time. Maybe later.

I can understand why the general has been renamed "Betrayus" by the best and brightest of those who seek their vision of a tolerant, open-minded, world. General Petraeus came to Capitol Hill with facts that they don't like.

And, instead doing something childish, like closing their eyes tight, sticking their thumbs in their ears, and humming real loud, many of the philosophical leaders of this country are acting like petulant high-schoolers, and making fun of of the messenger's surname.