Dissing Military Decorations is Still a Smear

I noted previously that the radical left eschewed a dramatic pre-testimony smear of General Petraeus this year. Given the backlash MoveOn.org generated last September, perhaps the lefties smartened up a bit this time around.

Well, actually, no.

It turns out Matthew DeBord, an unafflliated "writer," in today's Los Angeles Times, offers a stomach-turning diss of Petraeus' military decorations:

Gen. David H. Petraeus may be as impressive a military professional as the United States has developed in recent years, but he could use some strategic advice on how to manage his sartorial PR. Witness his congressional testimony on the state of the war in Iraq. There he sits in elaborate Army regalia, four stars glistening on each shoulder, nine rows of colorful ribbons on his left breast, and various other medallions, brooches and patches scattered across the rest of the available real estate on his uniform. He even wears his name tag, a lone and incongruous hunk of cheap plastic in a region of pristine gilt, just in case the politicians aren't sure who he is.

That's a lot of martial bling, especially for an officer who hadn't seen combat until five years ago. Unfortunately, brazen preening and "ribbon creep" among the Army's modern-day upper crust have trumped the time-honored military virtues of humility, duty and personal reserve.

Think about any of the generals you've seen in recent years -- Norman Schwarzkopf, Barry McCaffrey, Wesley Clark (all now retired) and others -- and the image you'll conjure no doubt includes a chest full of shimmering decorations. In Petraeus' case, most of them don't represent actual military action as much as they do the general's devotion to the institution of the U.S. Army and vice versa. According to an annotated photograph produced by the Times of London last year, the majority of ribbons on Petraeus' impressive "rack" were earned for various flavors of distinguished service. As brave as he may be and as meritorious in general, is all that ostentation the best way to present the situation in Iraq to an increasingly war-skeptical public?

Of course, Petraeus' goal is not just to make simple, soldierly arguments before Congress -- it is to dazzle, at least initially, with the blazing imagery of rank. What, after all, are mere Brooks Brothers suits on the members of Congress in the face of a fighting man's laurels? Some of the showiness can be attributed to regulations: The official uniform of the Army is to be worn in a very specific manner, and the brass have an obligation to live up to their billing by showing plenty of ... well, brass. On the other hand, if you're wearing four stars, you surely have some say when it comes to matters of peacockery.

Notice the "minimal combat" slur at the beginning of the second paragraph: ... an "officer who hadn't seen combat until five years ago."

For those who are engaged in the debates over the war, DeBord's cheap shot here is a slyly ramped-up version of the "chicken hawk" slur, which is normally reserved for neocon Kaganites alleged to be sitting in cushy D.C. media offices while real grunts are getting mashed in the maw of America's "endless wars."

No, here we have a new twist: An actual, even unbelievable, attack on the martial fitness of our top U.S. commander in Iraq. But the argument's more crude than compelling. Notice how DeBard distorts the historical record to make only military leaders of THIS WAR eligible for the "ribbon creep" dismissal:

The greatest military leaders, in the age of organized national armies, have often conspicuously modified the official requirements of the uniform, even in the most public of settings....

George Patton was flamboyant, in his jodhpurs and riding boots, but he backed it up in battle after battle. His legend derived equally from brilliant tactics and an outrageous wardrobe.

Frankly, I'd think it was undignified if Petreaus was under-decorated in attending a major hearing on the war's progress before the U.S. Senate's Foreign Relations Committee, one of the most powerful oversight bodies in the Congress.

Look closely at the Patton example, however: The general was known to sport a pearl-handled Colt .45 on his side, which to some might have itself been a bit grandish, but "he backed it up" in battle after battle?

DeBord might want to rethink his historical analogies.

General Petraeus is the primary author of the Army's new counterinsurgency strategy, which is proving so effective that current U.S. military experience is revolutionizing operational doctrine for 21st century battle. Not only that, folks in some quarters are talking about America's strategic comeback last year as one of the greatest military reversals in the history of the American armed forces!

Sixteen months after President Bush ordered the change in strategy, the surge has earned a place among the most important counteroffensives in U.S. military annals.

Thus, in some ways, DeBord's commentary exceeds the unscrupulous backstabbing of MoveOn.org. The "Betray Us" ad was sick enough, although we at least saw an explicit antiwar agenda attached to it. With DeBord's opinion, we see a smear delivered that just slides in subterraneously, bludgeoning a degree of disrespect that serves no other purpose than to bolster an already influential anti-military culture that's debilitating American military readiness.