[R-G] Petraeus Leaked Misleading Story on Pullout Plans

[Anthony Fenton]

POLITICS-US:  Petraeus Leaked Misleading Story on Pullout Plans
Analysis by Gareth Porter*
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45720

WASHINGTON, Feb 9 (IPS) - The political maneuvering between President  
Barack Obama and his top field commanders over withdrawal from Iraq  
has taken a sudden new turn with the leak by CENTCOM commander Gen.  
David Petraeus - and a firm denial by a White House official - of an  
account of the Jan. 21 White House meeting suggesting that Obama had  
requested three different combat troop withdrawal plans with their  
respective associated risks, including one of 23 months.

The Petraeus account, reported by McClatchy newspapers Feb. 5 and then  
by the Associated Press the following day, appears to indicate that  
Obama is moving away from the 16-month plan he had vowed during the  
campaign to implement if elected. But on closer examination, it  
doesn't necessarily refer to any action by Obama or to anything that  
happened at the Jan. 21 meeting.

The real story of the leak by Petraeus is that the most powerful  
figure in the U.S. military has tried to shape the media coverage of  
Obama and combat troop withdrawal from Iraq to advance his policy  
agenda - and, very likely, his personal political interests as well.

This writer became aware of Petraeus's effort to influence the  
coverage of Obama's unfolding policy on troop withdrawal when a  
military source close to the general, who insisted on anonymity,  
offered the Petraeus account on Feb. 4. The military officer was  
responding to the IPS story 'Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal  
Decision' published two days earlier [link below].

The story reported that Obama had rejected Petraeus's argument against  
a 16-month withdrawal option at the meeting and asked for a withdrawal  
plan within that time frame, and that Petraeus had been unhappy with  
the outcome of the meeting.

It also reported that Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in  
Iraq, and retired Army general Jack Keane, a close ally of Petraeus,  
had both made public statements indicating a determination to get  
Obama to abandon the 16-month plan.

The officer told IPS that, contrary to the story, Petraeus had been  
"very pleased" with the direction of the discussions. He said that  
there had been no decision by Obama at the meeting and no indication  
that Obama had a preference for one option over another.

The military source provided the following carefully worded statement:  
"We were specifically asked to provide projections, assumptions and  
risks for the accomplishment of objectives associated with 16-, 19-  
and 23-month drawdown options." That was exactly the sentence  
published by McClatchy the following day, except that "specifically"  
was left out.

The source also said Petraeus, Odierno and Ambassador Ryan Crocker had  
already reached a "unified assessment" on the three drawdown options  
and had forwarded them to the chain of command.

But a White House official told IPS Monday that the Petraeus account  
was untrue. "The assessments of the three drawdown dates were not  
requested by the president," said the official, who insisted on not  
being identified because he had not been authorised to comment on the  
matter. "He never said, 'Give me three drawdown plans'."

McClatchy's Nancy Youssef reported a similar account from aides to  
Obama. "Obama told his advisors shortly after taking office that he  
remained committed to the 16-month timeframe," Youssef wrote, "but  
asked them to present him with the pros and cons of that and other  
options, without specifying dates."

That suggests that the only specific plan for which Obama requested an  
assessment of risks was the 16-month plan, but that he agreed to look  
at other plans as well.

The sentence given to this writer as well as to McClatchy bore one  
obvious clue that the request for the assessments of three drawdown  
plans did not come from Obama: the sentence used the passive voice. It  
also failed to explicitly state that the request in question was made  
during the meeting with Obama.

Petraeus did not respond to a request through the intermediary to say  
who requested the studies and whether they had been proposed by the  
military commanders themselves. McClatchy's Youssef also noted that it  
is "unclear who came up with the idea..." of the 19- and 23-month  
withdrawal plans.

By implying that Obama had requested the three plans without saying so  
explicitly, the sentence leaked by Petraeus seems to have been  
calculated to create a misleading story.

One of Petraeus's objectives appears to have been to counter any  
perception that he is seeking to undermine Obama on Iraq policy.  
Petraeus wishes to remain out of the spotlight in regard to any  
conflict regarding withdrawal over the Iraq issue. "He has been very  
careful to keep a very low profile," said the military officer close  
to Petraeus, "because this is a new administration."

But the Petraeus leak also serves to promote the idea that Obama is  
moving away from his campaign pledge on a 16-month combat troop  
withdrawal, which has already been the dominant theme in news media  
coverage of the issue. That idea would also justify continued sniping  
by military officers at the Obama 16-month plan as too risky.

In a new book, 'The Gamble', to be published Tuesday, Washington Post  
reporter Tom Ricks confirms an earlier report that in his initial  
encounter with Petraeus in Baghdad last July, Obama had made no effort  
to hide his sharp disagreement with the general's views. Obama  
interrupted a lecture by Petraeus, according to Ricks, and made it  
clear that, as president, he would need to take a broader strategic  
view of the issue than that of the commander in Iraq.

Ricks, who interviewed Petraeus about the meeting, writes that Obama's  
remarks "likely insulted Petraeus, who justly prides himself on his  
ability to do just that..." That strongly implies that Petraeus  
expressed some irritation at Obama over the incident to Ricks.

On top of the interest of Petraeus and other senior officers in  
keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for as long as possible, Petraeus has  
personal political interests at stake in the struggle over Iraq  
policy. He has been widely regarded as a possible Republican  
Presidential candidate in 2012.

Petraeus evidently believed the White House was promoting a story that  
made him look like the loser at the Jan. 21 meeting. "I imagine the  
White House is not too happy that this information is out there," said  
the military source, referring to the Petraeus account he had provided  
to IPS.

Obama is obviously treading warily in handling Petraeus. His concern  
about Petraeus's political ambitions may have been a factor in the  
decision to bring four-star Marine Corps Gen. James Jones in as his  
national security adviser.

"I've been told by a couple of people that one of the reasons for  
Jones being chosen was to have him there as a four-star to counter  
Petraeus," says one Congressional source.

*Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist  
specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition  
of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the  
Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.

(END/2009)