The Washington Post

Petraeus, with plenty of practice, sticks to message

CIA Director David H. Petraeus, without the uniform, before the Senate Intelligence Committees this week. He also testified before a House panel. (Kevin Lamargue — Reuters)

After Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta generated confusion with his remarks on plans for the U.S. military drawdown in Afghanistan, Petraeus went into clean-up mode.

“First of all, let me just say that I think the, quote, announcement…was more than a bit overanalyzed, shall we say,” Petraeus told the House Intelligence Committee. With an acronym-heavy explanation, he went on to make it clear that the schedule of handing the fight off to Afghan forces wasn’t really going to change.

Petraeus then addressed the embarrassing leak of a classified NATO report that suggested the Taliban remains confident, if not downright bullish, that it will prevail in Afghanistan. The report was based on accounts from interrogations of Taliban fighters who had been taken into custody by coalition forces.

The report, Petraeus said, should have carried a disclaimer at the top warning that these detainees weren’t to be believed.

“It is very interesting to contrast” their assertions to interrogators “with their messages to each other prior to their capture,” the CIA director said. “We have insights into that as well, and in many cases they are, frankly, apprehensive.”

Petraeus also took the opportunity to dispel what he characterized as misunderstandings of his criticism of intelligence reports before he took off his U.S. Army uniform to become director of CIA.

It was true, Petraeus said, that he had sometimes found fault with analysts’ views of the trajectories of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But his complaint was mainly with the flawed processes analysts employed, not that their conclusions failed to track with U.S. military commanders’ views.

The problem was that analysts from the CIA and other agencies tended to stop gathering data and spend six to eight weeks crafting their assessments. By the time their reports were released, Petraeus said, the documents were out of date.

Four times he had disagreed with analysts’ conclusions, Petraeus said. “Twice I thought the assessment was too negative…Two other times, I felt that the community was actually too positive.”

Petraeus defended the latest comprehensive assessment of the war in Afghanistan, but did find fault with how the secret document has been portrayed.

“There’s been some mischaracterization in the press of this,” Petraeus said. Some reports said the document describes the war as a stalemate. “We did a word search for the word ‘stalemate,’” Petraeus said, adding that it’s “not in there.”

Greg Miller covers intelligence agencies and terrorism for The Washington Post.



Success! Check your inbox for details. You might also like:

Please enter a valid email address

See all newsletters

Show Comments
Most Read



Success! Check your inbox for details.

See all newsletters

Your Three. Videos curated for you.
Play Videos
Don’t be ‘that’ sports parent | On Parenting
Miss Manners: The technology's changed, but the rules are the same
A flood of refugees from Syria but only a trickle to America
Play Videos
John Lewis, 'Marv the Barb' and the politics of barber shops
Kids share best advice from mom
Using Fitbit to help kids lose weight
Play Videos
This man's job is binge-watching for Netflix
Transgender swimmer now on Harvard men's team
Portland's most important meal of the day
Play Videos
5 ways to raise girls to be leaders
How much can one woman eat?
The signature drink of New Orleans