Are The Bushies Torturing Gen. Petraeus?

It appears that the Bush administration is going all out to prevent Gen. Petraeus from doing any public speaking or writing in relation to the "Petraeus Report" that's due in September.

But once again, the Bush White House has failed. Don't they fail at everything? This time it's because of leaks. First, it got out that the White House would be writing the "Petraeus Report" rather than Petraeus. God knows why they want to write it themselves. It's not as if the White House has successfully managed a public relations campaign since the 2004 election. What could Petraeus have said to make the Bush administration look worse than they already look themselves? But that's what the White House wants and George Bush is still commander in chief. So, what the public will get will be the DOA (Dead on Arrival) White House version of the Petraeus Report.

Now it appears that the White House also sought to keep Petraeus from giving public testimony before a Congressional committee as mandated by this year's Iraq funding legislation. Another really smart move. Didn't the White House think the Dems would be eager to report that little nugget. But that also makes you wonder what Petraeus is reporting from the field that makes the White House so leary of having him appear before the public. If Petraeus was close to the Bush line, the White House would be eager to have him testify in public. An "on message" Petraeus would have hundreds or thousands of little war anecdotes at his fingertips to fend off the poorly informed questions of bloviating Democratic politicians. He'd be even an even better spokesman for the Republican view than Ollie North was during Iran Contra.

But now that the news has leaked out, it is likely that Petraeus is going to have to testify in public.

How, then, is the White House going to ensure that Gen. Petraeus keeps to the president's line on the success of the surge?

There are two overriding realities concerning the testimony of Gen. Petraeus from the Bush administration's point of view. Of course, Bush's people would have to view Petraeus' testimony as a matter of the highest national security priority. If the testimony of Gen. Petraeus runs too far against Bush administration views, it might result in Republican members of Congress caving in to Democratic demands for a withdrawal from Iraq and all the disastrous consequences the Bush team sees as flowing from that, including genocide in Iraq and another 9-11 attack on the U. S.

At the same time, it is highly likely that the Bush administration would follow conservative talk show hosts and the right-wing blogosphere and at least view Gen. Petraeus of having treason in his heart. It's important to remember that the right-wing, including the Bush administration, views opposition to the war as treason in the sense of "aiding and abetting the enemy." Ann Coulter's most recent column refers to war opponents as "the treason lobby," people like Newt Gingrich and Frank Gaffney have called for military tribunals to try dissenting politicians, and conservatives routinely refer to Bill Clinton as a traitor for leading anti-war demonstrations in London during the Vietnam era and John Kerry for testifying against the Vietnam war. If Gen. Petraeus spoke against the war in Iraq, people on the right would be obligated to treat that as treason as well. Given the stakes involved in any Petraeus testimony, they would also be obligated to treat him as a potential traitor. Perhaps it's the potential treason of Petraeus that has made it necessary in the minds of the Bush administration for them to prevent Petraeus from communicating to the general public.

But even if Gen. Petraeus intends to commit what the right views as treason, he is still the commanding American general in Iraq and the Bush administration will likely be forced to at least let him testify before a congressional committee.

The problem then is how to ensure that Gen. Petraeus tells the Congressional committees that the war is going much better now, that the U. S. should keep troop levels in Iraq at 160,000 for at least another six months, and that he much prefers the Republican position on the war.

Given that Gen. Petraeus is just as important in the Bush administration's mind to preventing another 9-11 as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was to pulling off the first 9-11, it seems likely that the Bush administration has already decided to hold Gen. Petraeus as an enemy combatant and to torture him until they can be sure that he'll give the "right" testimony before Congress. My understanding is that the Bush administration claims the right to hold anybody in the world who they suspect of collaborating with terrorism. Why couldn't Petraeus be held as a potential public collaborator with global terrorism? Maybe Petraeus is already in Guantanomo or Romania?

But how to get him to say the right things when he testifies. At most, there's only six weeks until Petraeus testifies. As a result, there isn't time for the 43 months of nearly complete sensory deprivation inflicted on Jose Padilla. Too bad. Given that Petraeus is not a Muslim, it's not likely that smearing menstrual blood on his face, making him wear women's underwear, forced nudity, or setting dogs on him will work either. Of course, interrogators could use "Palestinian hanging" (a crucifixion technique), hypothermia, or make Petraeus stand for hours at a time. But these techniques are oriented toward getting people to testify about things they know. They don't seem forceful enough to get someone like Petraeus to testify to a series of statements that he doesn't believe.

Perhaps the most favorable torture technique for guaranteeing the testimony of Petraeus is waterboarding. The technique is executed for short periods and is very intense. Consequently, all the Bush administration would have to do is to get Petraeus to understand that certain terms like "ten years to victory," "limited accomplishments," and "some progress" will be associated with further waterboarding and that more positive language will be associated with freedom from torture. It's a simple kind of negative reinforcement.

As for results? Look how well it's worked on Dick Cheney.