David Petraeus baiting, or is he switching? (photo: Department of Defense)

In interviews in recent weeks, Gen. David Petraeus has been taking a line on what will happen in mid-2011 that challenges President Barack Obama’s intention to begin a troop withdrawal from Afghanistan by that date. This new Petraeus line is the culmination of a brazen bait and switch maneuver on the war by the most powerful military commander in modern U.S. history.

It represents a new stage in the process by which Petraeus, abetted by his allies in the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, has appropriated much of the power over decisions on war policy that rightly belongs to the commander-in-chief.

President Obama agreed to the troop surge for Afghanistan last November on the explicit condition that Petraeus and the Pentagon agreed to begin handing over real responsibility for security to the Afghan army and begin a real drawdown of U.S. troops by July 2011. The account by Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter, based on interviews with those who participated in the meetings on Afghanistan last fall, shows that Obama was quite clear and determined about the war policy he wanted in Afghanistan:

There would be no nationwide counterinsurgency strategy; the Pentagon was to present a “targeted” plan for protecting population centers, training Afghan security forces, and beginning a real—not a token—withdrawal within 18 months of the escalation.

Alter reports precisely what happened in the climactic meeting of November 29, 2009:

Although Jane, Glenn and Digby have already weighed in smartly on this little tantrum from the President, I think it’s worth revisiting.

Democrats, just congenitally, tend to get — to see the glass as half empty. (Laughter.) If we get an historic health care bill passed — oh, well, the public option wasn’t there. [...] And gosh, we haven’t yet brought about world peace and — (laughter.) I thought that was going to happen quicker. (Laughter.)

This is of course, terrible politics. Ridiculing your base when you’re at you’re most vulnerable — right before the midterms  in your first term — is just criminally stupid.

But even leaving that aside, Obama’s chosen poor issues to flog liberals with. He’s unfortunately highlighted areas where the administration has lost the center.

The health care bill is unpopular. And it’s not unpopular because of the “professional left.” It’s unpopular because people really hate insurance companies and they’re now being forced to buy their shitty product, which they can’t afford. The public option, which was a workaround that problem, had broad, popular support – not just among glass-half-empty liberals. Doesn’t take a genius to figure out what happened.

As for mocking the idea of “world peace” — again, this is an area where the White House has lost the middle. The President’s choice to double-down in Afghanistan is deeply unpopular. Unless you think 57% of the country are pacifist peaceniks, it’s absurd to blame “Democrats” for the fact that your central national security initiative is failing with the public.

Americans simply don’t like health care reform and they don’t like the war. By using these two to chastise liberals, the President is also wagging his finger at the majority of the country.

Nice going.

It baffles me when people like Kevin Drum don’t get this.

Dick S. Fuld (photo: World Resources via flickr)

The bankruptcy case of Lehman Brothers grinds along.

1. Last April, Lehman proposed a plan of liquidation. It estimates that at some point years from now most creditors will receive varying amounts, ranging from 15 cents to 44 cents on the dollar, with a lucky few getting 100% but no interest.

Lehman claimed to have a net worth of $27.3 billion a few days before the filing. And that was after net write-downs on its assets of $5.6 billion. The financial statements filed with the Disclosure Statement show a negative net worth of $80.1 billion for Lehman and its controlled entities at June 30, 2009. Hmmmm.

2. Lehman sued JPMorgan Chase for billions arising from the steps JPMorgan took in the weeks before bankruptcy to get its hooks into the cash and marketable assets of Lehman. JPMorgan filed a Motion to Dismiss, which claims it took enormous risks in facilitating the trades of Lehman, and is outraged by the whole idea that one bankster might screw another one into the ground. This will give a flavor:

Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims simply recycle the allegations that JPMorgan improperly requested and withheld collateral from LBHI. The Complaint, however, does not identify any contractual provision that regulates the amount of collateral that JPMorgan was entitled to request, nor does it identify any provision that entitled LBHI to the immediate release of its collateral from JPMorgan. Likewise, plaintiffs’ claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cite no relevant contractual provision with which JPMorgan’s requests for collateral purportedly interfered. Moreover, plaintiffs’ claims for “billions of dollars in damages” are barred by LBHI’s contractual waiver of consequential damages.

Let me translate that from legal to English: