Merriam-Webster defines "sycophant" as:
a servile self-seeking flatterer
synonym see PARASITE
Call someone a sycophant and you accuse that person of being an ass-kissing suck-up and a leech of the worst kind. It is a word dripping with contempt.
It's the word that American Conservative magazine is using to describe Gen. David Petraeus in making the case that he has betrayed the country and the troops he commands by kissing up to the various political factions in Washington that he desperately wants to please.
Except, the article pointedly does not use the word "betray" or even refer to the MoveOn.org ad.
The general’s relationships with official Washington remain intact. Yet he has broken faith with the soldiers he commands and the Army to which he has devoted his life. He has failed his country. History will not judge him kindly.
Broken faith with his soldiers? That sounds like betrayal to me.
Failed his country? Is it possible to more harshly condemn an American general?
The article makes three main points:
- Petraeus is no Ike. He's not even U.S. Grant
- Bush has abdicated his responsibility and is hiding behind his general
- Democrats in Congress are enabling him and generally acting like sheep
Hard to tell much difference -- in tone if not in choice of words -- from the MoveOn ad.
So now, I'm wondering when the Senate of the United States is going to pass a resolution condemning American Conservative magazine. Surely, being called an ass-kissing suck-up is as bad, if not worse, than being accused of betrayal.
Or maybe some more invective is required:
David Petraeus is a political general. Yet in presenting his recent assessment of the Iraq War and in describing the "way forward," Petraeus demonstrated that he is a political general of the worst kind—one who indulges in the politics of accommodation that is Washington’s bread and butter but has thereby deferred a far more urgent political imperative, namely, bringing our military policies into harmony with our political purposes.
How about throwing in a few accusations of being in it for the money and the glory:
The Petraeus plan offers a little something for everyone, not least of all for Petraeus himself, who takes back to Baghdad a smidgen of additional time (his next report is not due for another six months), lots more money (at least $3 billion per week), and assurances that his tenure in command has been extended.
Or how about this:
Petraeus has chosen a middle course, carefully crafted to cause the least amount of consternation among various Washington constituencies he is eager to accommodate. This is the politics of give and take, of horse trading, of putting lipstick on a pig. Ultimately, it is the politics of avoidance.
So, let's review:
We have a mainstream conservative magazine article that calls Petraeus a "sycophant savior" in big bold type, says he is the worst example of a "political general," says he has broken faith with his own troops and failed America and has been busy putting lipstick on a pig.
Obviously the Senate needs to loudly condemn American Conservative magazine. They also need to make sure that our troops in Iraq do not have the chance to read this article, because it would surely demoralize them and doom the success of the Glorious Surge.
I'm holding my breath.