So John McCain just claimed that General David Petraeus should have been Time’s Man of the Year. I know; it makes me want to vomit, too. Here is what he said:
“Time has named Vladimir Putin as their Man of the Year and of course you know he has named his successor. We knew the puppet show was going on, we just didn’t know who the puppet was. And my nominee for man of the year would have been one David Petraeus. I think he clearly deserved it because of his success.”
Right. Petraeus deserves to be man of the year because under his leadership, deaths in Iraq have gone down to 2005 levels (during which the war was also considered a failure, by the way). He has not secured Baghdad. He’s lost entire regions to Shi’ite militants. 600 civilians a month still die in Iraq from political violence. This is still the deadliest year in Iraq to date. The British have left. And there is absolutely no political progress. The Iraqi government is the third most corrupt government in the world.
So yeah, I think Petraeus has some work to do before running for Man of the Year.
McCain continued:
“Putin is going to cause us a lot of difficulties…I don’t think it’s going to be a return to the cold war, they don’t have the population…anything that would bring around the kind of military might that they once had, even with the petrodollars….but they are trying to reassert the Russian empire…and they are going to be a thorn in our side.”
Let’s try to follow this argument. Because Putin is going to reassert the Russian empire and oppose the US in some political avenues, the Russian president who has provided security (at the cost of liberty) does not (again) deserve his award.
It’s not American of the Year, it’s not soldier of the year. It’s person of the year. And Vladimir Putin’s accomplishments are more substantial than Petraeus’s. It’s like the difference between ‘great’ and ‘good’. “Great” is an amoral description of the scope of someone’s effect, ‘good’ is a moral description. Maybe Petraeus did some good in Iraq, but not enough to outweigh the effects of Putin’s consolidation of central power, his ability to stay in charge, and his ability to raise the importance of a once economically decimated country. It’s why I don’t get how Al Gore could ever have been Man of the Year. He helped organize the Bali conference, but that was a colossal waste of money and time. If in 2009 when the talks set real numbers for emissions cuts, Gore could be in the running.
This is not an endorsement of Putin’s actions, but McCain is complaining like a sophomore whose friend didn’t get to be prom King. Sorry John, he wasn’t qualified. Maybe next year.
Filed under: Politics
Rowling deserves it more than Petraeus too. Her books have touched the lives of tens of millions without killing people, bombing other countries, or torturing (unles you didnt like the endings). Plus, imagine the hilarity that would ensue if McCain commented on the Dumbledore incident. `Whoops, did I say that fantasy books are for homosexuals. Looks like our children wont be voting Republican!`
Then theres Al Gore. He`s a bit controversial to be sure, but I still think he outweighs Petraeus. The controversy itself has at least sparked some worthy debate. The Petraeus controversy sadly only sparked a censure of moveon.org by Congress. Way to champion those free speech rights, guys.
Of course, I think the headline `A Czar is Born` is more than enough to justify Putins victory. Classic.
I agree that Petraeus would have been a bad choice for person of the year, but I think Vladimir Putin is a revolting choice. Why Time thinks that brutal autocrats deserve to be person of the year is beyond me.
Oh, Please! Do some of you actually get out into the real world?
Petraeus is dealing effectively at eliminating the threat to Iraqis of people who think nothing of blowing up marketplaces, beheading children in front of their families, and using piano wire to cut the faces off of their former supporters. Another torture chamber run by these people was uncovered just the other day. And those aren’t ‘occupiers’ who are being dug out of the ground there.
Petraeus’s actions are saving lives- COalition and Iraqi- and may result in a stable Iraq. Overall deaths there hit their lowest level since people have actually been tallying them post-Sadaam. Putin is trying to bring back the old, harsh Russia; he hasn’t even succeeded at that yet, so his ‘accomplishment’ is far from complete (and hopefully never will be).
I have been in Africa and seen the impact of really evil people (the LRA, who practice cannabalism and utilize child soldiers; the Hutus, of Rwandan genocide fame, now slaughtering people in the Congo). And I have news for you; U.S. policy doesn’t create all or even most of them! We can’t stick our head in the sand and avoid them, like Ron Paul seems to think we can; the world is too small a place for that now.
Like I said, it’s not American-of-the-Year. It’s not Humanitarian of the Year either. Good lord, Petraeus may be making a horrible situation better, but Iraq is no playground filled with rays of sunlight. Get real, yourself.
Nothing about Time’s choice is an endorsement. It’s not a normative claim or a congratsulations. It is an admission of the person who has most moved the world, for good or evil. Hitler probably deserved to be Person of the Year sometime in the ’30s. It is the horrible reality that the actions of monsters sometimes outweigh those of the saints.
Hitler did get it in the ’30s. The point is not the selection as much as the naive comments and overall global philosophies I find among many Paul supporters. I mean, Rowlings???
Petraeus’ main effect has not been on America, it has been on Iraq itself. I think more than a few Iraqis would nominate him as man of the year themselves.
That would be Rowling, no s. I would also like to point out that I agree with the Paul supporters here that General Petraeus should not have been person of the year, and I’m not a Paul supporter nor do I agree with Paul’s foreign policy views. Disagreeing with you about the impact that General Petraeus has had on Iraq and/or whether or not that impact should qualify him for person of the year doesn’t make a person stupid, naive, etc.
Amazing how ‘unimportant’ Iraq has become since the surge began to work and disprove the naysayers. It sure seemed to be the most important world event when things weren’t going so well.
I would certanly contest that Petraeus has had a more important impact on the world than Rowling and would tend to question the realworld experience of those that contend otherwise.
Mike O, I myself don’t bother “questioning” their worldliness. Their callowness is writ in every line; every hyperbolic line.