"Replace Petraeus"-Fred Branfman

[bigdukesix101]

Just reading this 10 pager and I think it has some very valid points,anyone else reading this?

[Steve Blair]

Here's a link for those who might wish to read and comment:

article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-branfman/replace-petraeus-his-afpa_b_208272.html)

[Hacksaw]

This is moronic drivel:(

[Old Eagle]

Coupla points:
1. Huffington
2. Main source - Times
3. Pre-emptive declaration of defeat. Big Dave just took over a few months ago. Hasn't had the in-flow of resources, but let's say we're beaten anyway? I don't think so.

[IntelTrooper]

This is moronic drivel:(

Absolutely... who would take this remotely seriously? Despite being full of logical errors, Branfman doesn't even seem to have a remote grasp of what is going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan, nor how Petraeus (or anyone else, apparently) have influenced, or more importantly, not influenced tehse events. Anyone who has been following these developments knows that McChrystal's/Petraeus's strategy has not been fully implemented and even if they had, there hasn't been enough time to even gauge their effectiveness. As far as drone attacks, I'm on the fence over how much I agree with them but that doesn't necessarily mean they can be linked to Petraeus. There are other entities and dynamics at work besides the military one.

bigdukesix101 -- are you some kind of agent provocateur or do you actually fall for this crap?

[Ken White]

of little to no merit who culls the work of real journalists (not that most of them are terribly accurate...) and thinks he has great insights. Nearly as I can determine he's anti most everything.

This particular insight is even more specious than most because the 'strategy' Peteaus is accused of using is in fact a national strategy that was in place before Petraeus moved to CentCom. Civilians think that a person serving as the combatant commander is totally responsible for or in charge of everything that goes on in his AO. Those days disappeared about the time of the Civil War and it hasn't gotten better with each succeeding war.

It should be recalled the US is a huge ponderous Elephantocerous and that even the election of a new Administration and an announced 'new' strategy will take months to be implemented due that ponderous bureaucracy that has to be pointed in a new direction -- if it can be swung at all...

I'm not a Petraeus fan but that's a hit piece of little substance. One should also note that any statement of strategic success or failure in South Asia (or Iraq / the ME) is very premature; it will be years before any such assessment can be made with any accuracy -- by anyone.

Thanks for posting the link, Steve. Hopefully Bigdukesix101 wiill provide links to any future articles that arouse his curiousity.

Short version: What Hacksaw said...

[jmm99]

This article, if judged solely by content and not by source, is a collage of quotes (which may or may not be accurate or material) and statements which are at best unevidenced. E.g.,


His ill-conceived effort to deny Al Qaeda and the Taliban "safe havens" in Pakistan - through drone aircraft bombing and special forces' assassination and torture associated with General Stanley McChrystal, his new Afghan military commander - has backfired, driving the Taliban east into Pakistan where they have joined local allies to weaken the Pakistani government.

Mr Branfman offers no solutions to a difficult problem. One suspects that his bottom line is not that two generals should leave things Astan-Pstan; but that the US should leave Astan-Pstan. He does not address that hidden issue in his agenda.

[William F. Owen]

This is moronic drivel:(

That would form the bones of both an accurate and detailed conclusion in my view.

However the really stupid thing about this article is that there some very solid grounds to question a lot of the simplistic assumptions that say Iraq is won, and A'Stan can also be won - and can those things be ascribed to one man.

This guys just seems to lack the ability or insight to ask those questions in anything like an intelligent way

[Schmedlap]

I refuse to read anything on a political website - whatever its leanings - that purports to be serious analysis of an issue.

I don't go looking for murderers so that I can get stabbed. Likewise, I don't go looking for political activists so that I can soak up their influence. Political activists don't care about informing you. They see you as a means to an end and seek to fill your head with whatever information will influence you to contribute toward that end, with no regard for accuracy or honesty. No thanks.

[William F. Owen]

Likewise, I don't go looking for political activists so that I can soak up their influence. Political activists don't care about informing you. They see you as a means to an end and seek to fill your head with whatever information will influence you to contribute toward that end, with no regard for accuracy or honesty.

I can see that, and I rather agree. How do you feel about military activists? They exist, believe me.

[bigdukesix101]

I did not include a link because I was given a hard copy to read. I did not say I agreed but I still think there are valid points for consideration. Has anyone read "The Great Gamble"-Gregory Feifer and/or "Soviet-Afghan War"-Russian General Staff ?

[IntelTrooper]

I did not include a link because I was given a hard copy to read. I did not say I agreed but I still think there are valid points for consideration. Has anyone read "The Great Gamble"-Gregory Feifer and/or "Soviet-Afghan War"-Russian General Staff ?
What points are those? Can you summarize them? I don't feel like wading through Brenfman's link-o-mania to extract a few valid points.

[goesh]

The Huffington Post - says it all right there

[yamiyugikun]

Hi everyone,

Interesting thread! What I like about coming onto this board is that folks here analyze, question and assess what is put before you, questioning its rationale to see if whatever idea that is proposed is truly valid. This is true scholarship, reflection and learning:D After reading about Code Pink, I have lost respect for activists and I tend to avoid political websites too. I just saw the Revolutionary Workers' party on my campus again today. I think Marx and Lennon are really smiling now, lol.

Van, I read the review of the book about the Human Terrain debate that you posted on Amazon. Your review was very detailed, critiqued the book's weaknesses well and was very informative:) For myself as an academic, I keep my ideas to myself, I don't lecture/critique on an idea unless I really have knowledge about it, and my thoughts may help someone else.

I've realized an obvious thing: we live today in a "victimology" culture, at least parts of civilian society I encounter, with people jumping on the bandwagon of identity politics. I've been reading parts of a great series on global war and conflict since the Vietnam era. Again, it's amazing what your professors don't teach in school.

Just a question, why do people continue to blame Gen. Petraeus? I try to follow his interviews and was reading the Gamble again. He seems like a very determined, intelligent and focused individual. Is it that some people are unhappy with their lives, or impatient and vent on him as a target?

Naomi

[jkm_101_fso]

Just a question, why do people continue to blame Gen. Petraeus? Is it that some people are unhappy with their lives, or impatient and vent on him as a target?

Because the Bush administration gets the credit for "The Surge" and Gen. Petraeus commanded the Iraq theater during that period, certain partisans will always be critical of him, regardless of how successful his commands are.

[bigdukesix101]

You mean the draft-dodging post deserting former Bush administration,right?

[Steve Blair]

You mean the draft-dodging post deserting former Bush administration,right?

We try to keep political rants to a minimum here.

But back to Naomi's post, I also suspect that there is always some outside observation tension when a general is encountered that doesn't fit the George C. Scott model (ie., his portrayal of Patton or Gen Turgidson ). I've noticed that historically the "rant" crowd has trouble with what they tend to call "warrior-scholars" or generals who have a deep intellectual and academic background. Maybe they consider them class traitors (in other words they should have followed the call of the book or pen and not of the sword). Note that I have no data to back this up...it's just an observation that seems to track back through the years (especially when one looks at the American military).

[Ken White]

What were the valid points to which you referred?

Haven't read either of the books but will pick up the Feifer book next time I hit the book store.

[Schmedlap]

I've read good reviews of the Feifer book, but I'm cheap so I'm waiting for it to come out in paperback.

[jmm99]

a personified dart board for some of those who are dissatisfied with past and present US foreign policy. Instead of attacking the policy and proposing an alternative solution (which is acceptable discourse), those of that ilk simply launch ad hominen attacks - and hope that some of the darts impress their viewing or reading audience. Since the audience usually consists of the same ilk, the behavior becomes self-reinforcing among that particular group - and they go happily on in their ignorant bliss.

I never bashed Pres. Bush despite the fact that I had strong disagreements with certain of his foreign and domestic policies. I expect to follow that same tradition with Pres. Obama. You salute the office, not the man. Which doesn't mean that one should keep silent (active military aside, who have constraints) about policies that you believe are not in the nation's best interests.

End discourse.

[120mm]

You mean the draft-dodging post deserting former Bush administration,right?

Actually I think the issue at hand are the people who are soon to find themselves banned for being bad posters.

Join the same day you start an awful thread, then start posting politically motivated vitriol.

I predict a tombstone in "Graveyard of the Banned" within the next 3 posts.

[Schmedlap]

Just a question, why do people continue to blame Gen. Petraeus? I try to follow his interviews and was reading the Gamble again. He seems like a very determined, intelligent and focused individual. Is it that some people are unhappy with their lives, or impatient and vent on him as a target?
Blame him for what? For a successful tour as MNF-I Commander? For conducting a review of the situation in Afghanistan and the surrounding region?

As for venting on him, I think it is important to look at who does this. They are generally (no pun intended) not individuals with any significant knowledge of the military or the profession of arms, nor are they "mainstream" in terms of typical views held by most Americans, nor are they even "mainstream" in terms of the typical views held by one end of the political spectrum. For example, you cited Code Pink. They are not "mainstream" leftists. They are extreme leftists - and probably regarded as an embarrassment whom most Democrats do not want to be publicly associated with. The right wing has its crazies, too. Whereas the left-wing crazies will come up with any reason to demonize a servicemember, the right-wing crazies will come up with any reason to excuse the conduct of a servicemember. Neither is productive. By any objective measure, General Petraeus has been an effective leader and demonizing him is absurd. When the story about Haditha was breaking, mainstream individuals were waiting for more information and hoping that it was not bad. The crazies were excusing the alleged conduct (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1644877/posts?page=6#6) regardless of whether it was legally justified. That is not productive (or sane, imo). By any objective measure, a squad wasting a bunch of unarmed civilians, in direct violation of the ROE, is morally reprehensible and excusing it is both harmful to our efforts to counter enemy propaganda and sends the wrong message to our troops. I don't think that we should view the weirdos on the left who slander Gen Petraeus any differently than we view weirdos on the right who are willing to excuse inexcusable conduct on the part of our servicemen.

When a pollster takes a poll, he tosses out the upper and lower extremes. Likewise I think it is also important, in discourse that can be politically charged, to toss out the left and right extremes. I don't know how to characterize the leanings of the "General Betray-us" weirdos as anything other than extreme and unworthy of anyone's attention.

[William F. Owen]

...is a personified dart board for some of those who are dissatisfied with past and present US foreign policy. Instead of attacking the policy and proposing an alternative solution (which is acceptable discourse), those of that ilk simply launch ad hominen attacks - and hope that some of the darts impress their viewing or reading audience.

On the money my man. - and that is not to say some on both sides of the debate seek dart board status! I would also say that if some feel that credit needs to be given for good things in Iraq, then it is too early and the credit seems to be going to the wrong folks.

[bigdukesix101]

I've been studying Iraq for so long (and it is FAR from over)its been a real pain to start over on Afghanistan, I've finished the 2 books mentioned and am half way thru "Descent into Chaos" (http://www.amazon.com/Descent-into-Chaos-Building-Afghanistan/dp/0670019704) -A.Rashid(best of the lot so far) and starting Kilcullen's 'Accidential Guerrilla." The new issue of Military Heritage has a good article (http://www.militaryheritagemagazine.com/afghanistan.html) on Russia's disaster in Afgh.

A quick thought: Gen. Petraeus wants to expand the Afghan Army to 134,000 and the police to 82,000 at a yearly cost of roughly 4B. Afgh TOTAL intake in taxes is $800m!

[IntelTrooper]

A quick thought: Gen. Petraeus wants to expand the Afghan Army to 134,000 and the police to 82,000 at a yearly cost of roughly 4B. Afgh TOTAL intake in taxes is $800m!
And the total intake in taxes won't increase until the security situation is stabilized and the government can project credible influence in most of the country. See how that works?

[Ken White]

A quick thought: Gen. Petraeus wants to expand the Afghan Army to 134,000 and the police to 82,000 at a yearly cost of roughly 4B. Afgh TOTAL intake in taxes is $800m!Was it Petreaus or his predecessor -- or was it McKiernan. Or the Staffs of if those two. Or was it State's idea -- or the Afghan government's idea? I think it very unlikely to be Petreaus' idea...

I'm still curious as to what you considered valid points in the Branfman article.

[JarodParker]

Somebody owes me 10mins of my life back. The article did not make sense at all. It reminds me of the last minute collages I used to make when I was in the 5th grade... it's just a bunch of ideas and quotes thrown together haphazardly.

I also didn't appriciate his tone; he makes it seem like Petraeus is personally sending out hit squads who machete Afghan civilians.

But in Afghanistan, the Petraeus strategy has undermined and humiliated pro-U.S. Afghan President Karzai, whose pleas to stop killing Afghani civilians have been ignored.

We get it, killing civilians in predator strikes is counterproductive but stating that 100 times and attempting tie that to non-related issues doesn't make for an effective argument.


Petraeus's strategy helped push the Pakistani military into a disastrous military operation that is strengthening its enemy over the long-term - As Kilcullen has noted "Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies must be defeated by indigenous forces -- not from the United States, and not even from Punjab, but from the parts of Pakistan in which they now hide. Drone strikes make this harder, not easier."(Times, May 17) All observers agree that if Pakistan is to be stabilized much of the Pakistani military will need to shift its priorities from defending against India and learn to wage an effective counter-insurgency war within Pakistan.

If not the Pakistani Army, what other indigenous forces are there? "The Waziristan militia"? Waging a counter-insurgency war within Pakistan is what they're doing now, isn't it? I doubt Petraeus would disgaree with "the observers" who agree believe that the focus should shift from defending against India to fighting the Taliban.

Ass-hat!

[Hacksaw]

This is moronic drivel:(

Not that I'm into quoting myself, but you should have believed my review at the front of the thread:cool:

However your review was worth reading if only for adding to my vocabulary I can use in somewhat mixed company....

Ass Hat has a ring to it :D

[Watcher In The Middle]

As far as a "position piece" goes, this one needs to be towed back to the shop for a total overhaul.

Being a poor dumb ole political type, I tend to look at this as a rehash of whatever emotional baggage can be assembled regarding both Afghanistan and Pakistan, and seeing how "We The People" will respond to it. Think of it as a political version of a "test drive".

Predicted Outcome (for "Test 01"): Blah

Primary Reason(s): Both Generals Petraeus and McCrystal have already made it very, very clear to anybody and everybody that this is going to be a long, tough, hard fight, but in their opinion it's winnable. From a political standpoint, these two both have a lot of "street creds" - attacking them is just not smart, because they both have very positive track records, and in political terms, that's a "guaranteed loser". So it's "Don't go there".

Secondly, all the political types are busy on other stuff which they have rated as much more important, and this stuff will just get in the way. So again, it's "Don't go there".

Overall Conclusion: Type of stuff you get on a slow news day.

[Mark Eichenlaub]

This just does not sound like a very good idea at all.

[Ken White]

This just does not sound like a very good idea at all.I'm unsure what doesn't sound like a very good idea. Do you mean the previous comment by Watcher in the Middle or your Blog.

[Mark Eichenlaub]

My blog? Huh?

I meant ditching Petraues.

[Ken White]

My blog? Huh?

I meant ditching Petraues.clarity but neither am I sure anyone other than Branfman on this thread is advocating ditching him, thus your answer to my question merely raises another question, I guess...

Why is it not a good idea?

[Mark Eichenlaub]

Intel Trooper nailed it.

[slapout9]

Ass Hat has a ring to it :D Yea that is pretty good;)

[Rose]

reading something that wasn't interesting and then writing this...

Hacksaw, I really should have listened to my elder here ;)

I generally go by my great-grandmother's saying and try not to assume mainly because I do not like making an ass out of myself, or other people but Brafman makes a significant amount. Lets examine these

1) "McChrystal was also known for running the worst torture chambers in Iraq at his "Camp Nama" ("Nasty Ass Military Area"), and forbidding the Red Cross access to them in violation of the Geneva Conventions. As the Times reported on March 19, 2006"

This is a very dangerous allegation to be throwing around off-handed. I mean, a top Military commander in Iraq committing torture would be something that would be front page news across the globe, right? So one would think that there would be empirical proof that Branfman would have against McChrystal right?

"There, American soldiers made one of the Iraqi government's torture chambers into their own interrogation cell ... According to Pentagon specialists who worked with the unit, prisoners at Camp Nama often disappeared into a detention black hole, barred from access to lawyers or relatives, and confined for weeks without charges. `The reality is, there were no rules there,' another Pentagon official said ... The C.I.A. was concerned enough to bar its personnel from Camp Nama that August ... Since 2003, 34 task force members have been disciplined in some form for mistreating prisoners ..."

Really? That's all you have? They made a former torture chamber into an interrogation room... Wait, prisoners were held without charge, whoops forgot to mention the failure to give the 'criminals' their Miranda rights. Gotta let them go... Mistreating prisoners? Okay, lets see the reports and the ways they were mistreating as was attempted in Abu Ghraib

Eye witness testimony... "Jeff"
"By his reckoning, at least half of the prisoners were innocent, just random Iraqis who got picked up for one reason or another. Sometimes the evidence against them was so slight, Jeff would go into the interrogation without even knowing their names."

Really? Innocent people can be arrested? Good god, how could the military do such a thing, its not like LAPD or NYPD has never arrested someone who turned out to 'innocent' nor could Branfman be bothered to present some of the reasons one could be picked up for.

--Question for the members here as I know a limited amount amount about interrogation. Isn't it helpful to know the names of the 'prisoner' that one would be interrogating before you walk in? Be provided any information at all to use to ones advantage? Thanks

Continues with this line of attack with this:
"He killed, assassinated, and tortured countless Iraqis for five years with total impunity. Were international law applied to his activities, he might well be investigated for war crimes rather than rewarded for them. Placing him in charge of 58,000 U.S. troops will ensure that such practices will not only continue but be geometrically increased. "

In a war zone, an effect way of neutralizing ones enemy is to kill them correct? Assassinating people like Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi is helpful when you are trying to decapitate the enemy leadership. Admiral Yamamato anyone? Should FDR, Secretary of the Navy Knox, Admiral Nimitz and Admiral Halsey Jr be remembered for being 'war criminals' for assassinating a senior leader of the Japanese during WWII? Are they? No, and No. Again, the accusation of torture without proof that it even occured, or that he ordered it. Show me the orders, reports, etc.

(This one gave me a giggle)
2)Obama should not follow the military's lead.

"The Obama Administration could be capsized by a combination of likely losses in the "Af/Pak" theater and a popular Petraeus resigning, blaming Obama for "not listening to his military commanders"."

Isn't this a direct contradiction of the entire premise? Obama is spending too much time listening to the military, yet Petraeus could feel that he isn't listening enough? Tangent here, but isn't that a critique of the Bush Administration and SecDef Rumsfeld in that the civilians had too much control of the military? If that is the case, wouldn't Petraeus along with a plethora of other officers have resigned THEN? Shouldn't Branfman be applauding Obama for not making the same mistake that Bush made?

"Obama's main hope of political survival should his Middle East policy fail, as appears likely, is to claim he was following the military's lead. This may also explain why he has reversed himself and adopted such Bush policies as military tribunals and preventive detention."

Okay, I understand CvC to an extent to which I will boldly go and paraphrase him. War is to be subordinate in nature to the political instrument, by which it belongs purely to the reason. K, then tell me why if Obama made it the directive that Afghanistan should not be used as a safe haven for any terrorist attacks on the homeland, why this is wrong:

"Petraeus has driven the Taliban east into Pakistan, where they have joined forces with local jihadi forces and gained increasing amounts of territory"

"So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That is the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: we will defeat you."- President Obama, March 27, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/us/politics/27obama-text.html

So, he has confronted the Taliban in Afghanistan and pushed them into Pakistan whereby he has forced the Pakistani army to fight the Taliban, and fulfill his pledge to make the war more than just America's war.

"There is an uncompromising core of the Taliban. They must be met with force, and they must be defeated." - President Obama, March 27, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/us/politics/27obama-text.html

Just like to note that for such a supporter of Obama, he fails to criticize him for these policy changes, instead choosing to go after David Petraeus because he is perceived as grasping victory from the jaws of defeat in Iraq under Bush. As noted before by JKM, partisans will always be critical of him, regardless of how successful his commands are.

3) Petraeus's strategy has forced the Taliban into the Swat valley where it is engaging the Pakistani military

"Petraeus has driven the Taliban east into Pakistan, where they have joined forces with local jihadi forces and gained increasing amounts of territory"
"The Swat Valley is part of Pakistan proper, and the consolidation of Taliban forces there represented a major setback to U.S. and Pakistani interests. Pakistani government weakness there forced it to hand over effective control of the Valley including the imposition of Shariah law, to its enemies."

I do not see the problem with forcing the Taliban to agitate the Pakistani government if it forces the military to actively fight the Taliban and put pressure on the ISI to stop supporting them as well.

"On the military side, you're starting to see some recognition just in the last few days that the obsession with India as the mortal threat to Pakistan has been misguided, and that their biggest threat right now comes internally...And you're starting to see the Pakistani military take much more seriously the armed threat from militant extremists." -President Barrack Obama
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SP437584.htm

I know first link is timestamped the 1st of June, but the second one is from May 15th. Grabbed them from a quick google search
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1189981/Valley-war-Taliban-says-Pakistan.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1182385/Terrified-Taliban-fighters-shave-beards-attempt-evade-Pakistan-army.html

Okay, its understandable (barely) that he didn't know the Taliban were on the defensive and losing territory. But on May 15th, its reported that "Taliban terrorists, after shaving off their beards and cutting their hair, are fleeing from the area, the military said in a statement." IMHO, he is just trying to portray AF/PAK as untenable. I have read (unfortunately, but for debate cases you kinda have to) other rubbish from him in the past in which he claimed Iraq was not winnable, yet we are (it appears) on the path to victory in the years to come. He could have done the exact same thing I did and quickly googled it, but then again it wouldn't be the unbiased NY Times.

[Rose]

4) Ignores history

"His ill-conceived effort to deny Al Qaeda and the Taliban "safe havens" in Pakistan - through drone aircraft bombing and special forces' assassination and torture"

After reading the Russian General Staff's The Soviet Afghan War: How a Superpower Fought and Lost, along with Bear Went over the Mountain : Soviet Combat Tactics in Afghanistan and Afghan Guerrilla Warfare : In the Words of the Mujahideen Fighters, I had the impression that a major problem was that Pakistan served as the safe haven for the mujahideen, its logistical supply line and its advocate on the world stage. This is very similar today, except the Taliban's CaC is in Quetta, Pakistan and the absence of a broad national resistance to the invaders, amongst other things.

I would argue (and I believe nearly everyone here) that one can learn from mistakes made in previous wars and conflicts (hence lessons learned seminars, studies and publications) so the mistakes made are not repeated. The lessons Petraeus learned in Iraq are then applicable to an extent. Iraq is dissimilar to Afghanistan, with the main characteristic they share (thin at best) is that they are 'fake' (drawn up by Europeans, not reflective of tribal identity, cultural heritage or religious denominations) Muslim nations, with Muslim being loose as Iraq is predominately Shia and Afghanistan predominately Sunni. I heard this a number of times at Ft. Leavenworth when I was there researching my exhibition for honors the past six months.

I could go on about how he again contradicts himself when Branfman says
"By attacking Pashtuns in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, Petraeus is increasing local support for a radical Islamic entity combining 13 million Afghani and 28 million Pakistani Pashtuns located on either side of the artificial Durand Line dividing Afghanistan and Pakistan" but I really do not have the patience to take any more writing about how contradictory and unsound that article was. Really, if it is the border is an artifical line seperating peoples of the same tribe and Qwam in instances, then why would we expect anything else? Recent history would predict this, from Iraq to the former Yugoslavia where once an oppressive government fell, ethnic groups wanted independent states.

There are many more contradictions, illogical statements and assumptions without evidence intended only to inflame the anti-war left, but I have run out of steam and patience after 150 minutes of writing about his article.

Why didn't I listened to Hacksaw.. wasted time:(
*links are just to verify where I got the quotes, old habit from Debating
**I apologize for the long post, but I got carried away before I stopped

[Bill Moore]

The General's past "Iraqi surge" strategy is irrelevant to this question. Past military victories do not guarantee future success, and indeed often make it less likely given the human tendency to repeat the past.

In response to Ken's question, I think the author made one valid point (opinion, not fact) indicated above. Every thread needs its contrary individual (punching bag), and I generally volunteer for that role :D. I think Ken has even broken a couple of my ribs over the past two years, and Wilf has given me a couple of black eyes, but still in the arena.

Unfortunately, as you have all identified there is no substance to this article whatsoever. I read the author's bio, and he has been prone to extreme anti-U.S. bias since the conflict in SE Asia. It simply amazes me that these so called truth seekers for humanity completely neglect to tell their audience about the impact of the deliberate atrocities commited by the communists, Taliban, Saddam, and the Al Qaeda on the people. Instead they solely focus on our mistakes, which will always be part of war, thus mischaracterizing our intent with unfounded conspiracy theories. Fred lives in a make believe world, but unfortunately some feel he is a legimate reporter.

If you're going to author articles there should be some standard of supporting your arguments with facts. I wish more Soldiers would bring charges against these authors for slander. There is no requirement for the press to agree with the government, and I personally like a press that keeps the gov in line, but that isn't the same as a press that spreads mistruths to achieve an agenda. This isn't limited to the left leaning press, the right leaning press is guilty also, but in general the left leaning news organizations are far worse.

It is high time that the American people start activist groups to keep the press in line and demand accurate reporting. Opinion pieces that piss half their audience off are good press if they're expressed as opinion pieces, and in fairness Fred's piece was an opinion piece, but he crossed the line when he slandered two general officers with lies and assumptions that have no foundation in known facts.

[George L. Singleton]

I note factually that the Pakistani miliary is making headway against the Taliban and al Qaida. Even bin Laden is upset at the Pakistan government and military progress to have risked being discovered with his latest voice tape via that Arab rag, al Jazeera.

Event are still building up for us, the Allies to fuller force going into 2010, and it is very much premature to judge there...but thus far, I see very effective pincher movements Afghan and Pakitani sides of the border.

Huffington is not just a moron, she is a slut sensationalist, along with her kindred nut cases.

[Bill Moore]

I note factually that the Pakistani miliary is making headway against the Taliban and al Qaida.

Saw a report today that the barber business in recently liberated areas of SWAT is booming. The people are joyous and celebrating their liberation from the Taliban. There big complaint is it took too long for the government to respond.

[yamiyugikun]

One of the questions I had before is why do a lot of Americans continue to hate and blame America? I think it comes from the post-modern disillusionment this country has been living in since World War II. In art history I noticed, the focus of a lot of modern art became the theme of "death, decay, darkness etc," whereas Western art from the Renesannce focused on the eternal, the spiritual the beautiful. This preoccupation with death and decay is largely a modern phoenomena it seems from my study of art history. Then what really cemented the post-modern disillusionment was the Vietnam War, possibly. You got the liberal realists who were pessesmists, many of whom became liberal professors hiding out in academia. From the liberal realists, people then get further divided into identity politics, seeing themselves as separate minority groups who blame society completely for their problems. Seeing the criminal as a victim of society, rather than the criminal's bad behavior that got him/her in trouble is another symptom of post-modern thinking.

I know I've thrown out theory, but this is my way of trying to understand why the times we live in don't make sense and people continue to blame America. Life isn't perfect, it never will be, but what makes this country great, is that we believe there a better future is possible.

[Majormarginal]

I know nothing of art history. Another verification of the preoccupation you write of. I've always had a fascination with abandoned urban sites. I think they are called brownfield sites.
One of the questions I had before is why do a lot of Americans continue to hate and blame America? I think it comes from the post-modern disillusionment this country has been living in since World War II. In art history I noticed, the focus of a lot of modern art became the theme of "death, decay, darkness etc," whereas Western art from the Renesannce focused on the eternal, the spiritual the beautiful. This preoccupation with death and decay is largely a modern phoenomena it seems from my study of art history. Then what really cemented the post-modern disillusionment was the Vietnam War, possibly. You got the liberal realists who were pessesmists, many of whom became liberal professors hiding out in academia. From the liberal realists, people then get further divided into identity politics, seeing themselves as separate minority groups who blame society completely for their problems. Seeing the criminal as a victim of society, rather than the criminal's bad behavior that got him/her in trouble is another symptom of post-modern thinking.

I know I've thrown out theory, but this is my way of trying to understand why the times we live in don't make sense and people continue to blame America. Life isn't perfect, it never will be, but what makes this country great, is that we believe there a better future is possible.

[Blackjack]

Here are a few things I thought about after wasting some of my lunch hour reading that article.

Whos Command, Who's Strategy?
Throughout the article the author incorrectly holds General Patreaus responsible for percieved failures in Afghanistan as CENTCOM Comander. The chief problem with many of these accusations is that General Patreaus did not assume command of CENTCOM until 31 October 2009. The policy of using UAVs for kinetic strikes in Pakistan has been a matter of policy since 2004. How can a commander be held responsible for the actions of a higher headquarters strategy, let alone a higher headquartes he was not in command of?

Another thing we should ask ourselves here. Is it truly the strategy of General Patraeus? No, it is simply the continuation of a strategy that existed prior to his command of CENTCOM that has been in place since 2004, and approved by both President Bush, and President Obama. General Patraeus chose to continue the policy, but the approval for the policy came with the stamp of approval from the current, and former POTUS as well as the DCI and JCS.

The Swat Valley
The push into Pakistan's core by the Taliban is in part the result of religious and tribal friction coupled with a weak Pakistani central government. A corrupt intelligence agency that has strong ties to the Taliban and other Islamist entities does not help matters.

The quotes from the Times, regurgitated by Fred Bramfren, suggests kinetic strikes by UAVs as the primary cause of the Taliban's movement into the Swat Valley. The article fails to mention any other reasons why the Taliban may have wished to move into the Swat Valley. For example, the fact that the Swat Valley is home to some of the most lucrative emerald mines in the world. Mines the Taliban started exploiting as soon as they got a foothold in the valley.

Another good reason for the Taliban to move into the Swat Valley is the key stratigic location. The valley would provide an excellent base of operations site for any future attacks on Islamabad. It could also be used as a logistics hub for operations in Afghanistan and Kashmir. In fact, the Taliban invaded neighboring provinces in violation of the ceasefire a short time afer it was signed.

The Taliban were already strong in Pakistan, propped up by the ISI and other officials in nearly every sector of the Pakistani government who could not protect their own people. And that is the best case scenerio. The worst case scenerio is that the Tlaiban has the tacit support of the people.

A Look at the Warizistan UAV Strikes.
Let us take a more in depth look at just one of these UAV strikes, which occurred on April 19 2009 and was reported by the BBC on 20 April 2009. The strike was targeted against a top Taliban commander's compound in Warizistan. Warizistan has long ties to the Taliban and other groups belligerent to the US.

It may not be comfortable, or populer, but given the ambiguous nature of what is and is not a combatant that the entire Warizistan district could reasonably be considered a belligerent party engaged in war against the United States, and it's interests in the Af/Pak area of operations.
Through experience and observation I have come to the conclusion that relatives and neighbors of the various terrorist entities as their version Combat Support and Service and Support elements of the vast majority Mujahideen groups. This would make them legitimate military targets would it not?

Another possibility here is that the residents of Warizistan are being held hostage in their own lands by the Taliban, and other groups hostile to the US. Some 200 makiks have appearently been killed after makign attemppts to oust the Mujahideen from their lands. If this is the case the Pakistani government should make attempts to free them from the Taliban. Either way Pakistan is sailing away on the failboat when it comes to dealing with their own internal problems.

[jmm99]

It may not be comfortable, or populer, but given the ambiguous nature of what is and is not a combatant that the entire Warizistan district could reasonably be considered a belligerent party engaged in war against the United States, and it's interests in the Af/Pak area of operations.

Leaving aside any issues of Paki sovereignty over that part of FATA, there is no doubt that AQ-Taliban and associated groups (following the construct of the 2001 AUMF) constitute a "Power" to the armed conflict in the Wari agencies. Where those designated "hostile forces" have control of territory and populace, that territory and populace are belligerent to us - just as Germany and Japan were belligerent nations in WWII. However, as you also point out, they (the general populace) may be more an occupied population than active supporters of the hostile forces (so, are they Germany Proper, Occupied France or something in between ?).

No matter which scenario is fact, the Laws of War still require distinction between combatants and civilians (much more difficult where the combatants melt into the civilians); and consideration of proportionality in targeting (e.g., to eradicate a given group of combatants, how many civilians will be killed ?). Thus, the Wari agencies cannot be a free fire zone.


Through experience and observation I have come to the conclusion that relatives and neighbors of the various terrorist entities as their version Combat Support and Service and Support elements of the vast majority Mujahideen groups. This would make them legitimate military targets would it not?

I'd say that infrastructure - the informal "Combat Support and Service and Support elements" - should be considered combatants; but then I agreed with that aspect of the Phoenix program. To be candid, I think that is a minority position - at least legally.

I am curious about what the folks here think of that - not so much as a legal point (although it can be argued that way); but as a metter of military ethics and military practicality. How do you distinguish these infrastructure folks from the rest of the population - assuming that you can legally target them ? I suppose intelligence, intelligence & intelligence.

The various Gitmo and Bagram detainee cases could impact all of this. These cases are not that important in and of themselves. But, their rules as to the status of "captures" should be the same as for status allowing or not allowing "kills". So far, there seems a tendency to distinguish between armed combatants and unarmed supporters - and to consider the latter as being civilians (not subject to "kill rules"; and subject to detention only if guilty of a crime).

[slapout9]

I'd say that infrastructure - the informal "Combat Support and Service and Support elements" - should be considered combatants; but then I agreed with that aspect of the Phoenix program. To be candid, I think that is a minority position - at least legally.

I am curious about what the folks here think of that - not so much as a legal point (although it can be argued that way); but as a metter of military ethics and military practicality. How do you distinguish these infrastructure folks from the rest of the population - assuming that you can legally target them ? I suppose intelligence, intelligence & intelligence.



That is why I keep talking about the 3F's Family,Friends and Finances criminal/gangs are exactly like that. It is also how you fill out the 5 rings map as opposed to the traditional way if you want to understand the system in an unconventional/covert type situation.

[Blackjack]

I am curious about what the folks here think of that - not so much as a legal point (although it can be argued that way); but as a metter of military ethics and military practicality. How do you distinguish these infrastructure folks from the rest of the population - assuming that you can legally target them ?

That is the question I keep asking myself about these situations. To me, Lawfare is foolish and suicidal in the current small wars that western powers are engaged in. What do you do with the member of a group like HIG who goes out and attacks a convoy with an SVD in the morning, and is sheltered by his family in the evening? What do you do when the village leaders, or tribal leadership are sheltering the man? How do you deal with the four guys in the UK or US who send him $1,000 USD a year to buy ammunition, take care of his family, etc. Al lwhile he is trying to kill ISAF troops, HTT persons and contractors? Do we have to rethink the ethics of warfighting because of these types of enemies and their supporters?

These are soem questions with no easy answer and they bothered me last night. I really need to have a long, hard think on it again.

[jmm99]

but they really go to the core of whatever approach is taken to these violent non-state actors (irregular fighters and their supporters), whether that approach be solely kinetic (direct actions), or totally populace-centric (isolating the bad guys from the population via non-violent means), or a combination of both.

This discussion has been going on in the military law world since the JAG School published its treatise on irregular combatants in the 1959 JAG Treatise (http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/treatise.pdf), A TREATISE ON THE JURIDICAL BASIS OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN LAWFUL COMBATANT AND UNPRIVILEGED BELLIGERENT (JAG School 1959).

Questions of law and ethics came to the fore in the GVN Pacification Program (1967-1972), which included CORDS and Phoenix. Brigadier General Tran Dinh Tho, author of "The Cambodian Incursion", Washington DC: U.S. Army Center of Military History, 1979, earlier (1977) wrote "Pacification", which can be downloaded in its entirety here (http://www.counterinsurgency.org/Tran/Tran.htm). Chapter 4 (4 RVN-US Cooperation and Coordination in Pacification (441 KB pdf) deals with Phoenix and related programs.

Contrary to popular belief, the Phoenix term "neutralize" (used of VC infrastructure) did not exclusively mean "kill". The program was a "kill, capture or convert" program, which during 1967-1972 had very close to a 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3 "kill, capture or convert" ratio.

The greatest problem with Phoenix was positive and reliable identification of who the VC infrastructure were. False IDs in a COIN situation are obviously counter-productive. The negative results in the program were used, of course, to discredit it and the entire CORDS effort.

You might consider reading these old resources, which dealt with very similar questions to those that we see now in Astan.

[slapout9]

is sheltered by his family in the evening? What do you do when the village leaders, or tribal leadership are sheltering the man? How do you deal with the four guys in the UK or US who send him $1,000 USD a year to buy ammunition, take care of his family, etc. Al lwhile he is trying to kill ISAF troops, HTT persons and contractors? Do we have to rethink the ethics of warfighting because of these types of enemies and their supporters?

These are soem questions with no easy answer and they bothered me last night. I really need to have a long, hard think on it again.


You are right about it being a moral question. I would ask who's population are we supposed to protect?....it was supposed to be Americans!!!!!! that is why we started all this to begin with. We may have to set priorities and make hard choices very soon that should have been made before we started all this and we should have made emergency amendments to the legal agreements we are in because of the extreme nature of our enemy.

[jmm99]

the GCs, as accepted by the US, if applied according to the nature of the armed conflicts and the hostile forces involved in those armed conflicts, are not a huge problem.

What has been a problem is adaptation to the situations in which we have been involved. Since 9/11, the US (both Bush II and Obama administrations) has sought to develop a coherent set of rules to deal with the irregular combatants we face. Like any learning process (e.g., consider the development of national policies in the Cold War, from Truman through Reagan), it has had its ups and downs.

We are still very much in the early "lessons learned" stage in development of the Law of War (LOAC) applicable to violent non-state actors and their supporters.

I can't imagine negotiating a common set of "emergency agreements" with the members of the various coalitions since 9/11 - much less with the other High Contracting Parties to the GCs and the various NGOs that would stick in their two cents worth.

[Jason Fritz]

If any of you got to the point where he takes Kilcullen's and Exum's statements waaay out of context and then still proceeded to read on, then you wasted your time.

Kilcullen (and uncited co-author Exum) was calling U.S. Drone policy a strategic error. This guy claims Kilcullen was calling U.S. policy a strategic error. This is so factually incorrect that it crosses the line of journalism and into propoganda. I don't care what his political affiliations are, he is wrong in this regard.

After such a breach of integrity as this, I would think further consideration and discussion of this topic is pointless.

[slapout9]

I can't imagine negotiating a common set of "emergency agreements" with the members of the various coalitions since 9/11 - much less with the other High Contracting Parties to the GCs and the various NGOs that would stick in their two cents worth.

jmm, I wouldn't negotiate, I would make a statement saying we will do our best to follow them (laws) but, the enemy has no regard for any laws and is attempting to seek a military advantage by subverting them. If civilians cooperate and shield and support our enemies we will do what we need to do to protect our interest and population not anyone else's. As an example Malaya was never called a "War" it was called the Emergency and any laws and or polices that needed to be changed were changed until things were brought under control.

[jkuehn]

Articles like this serve a very important function for anyone frequenting a list like this, they give you a good peak into how diverse people think, how they make their assumptions (mostly subconciously) and they reflect opinions which often go unchallenged, or worse excepted as reasoned analysis, in the circles they travel. Such ideas, as painful as they may be and as painful as it may be to engage their owners (like the Branfman guy), MUST be engaged. Remember, they tend to think much the same of many of us...although I would hope we would be polite in our discourse with them. One problem, of course, with this approach is that sometimes these folk confuse engagement with validation. So one has to choose one's engagements carefully. sounds a bit like war, doesn't it?

jkuehn
Fort Leavenworth.

[RTK]

I've been studying Iraq for so long (and it is FAR from over)its been a real pain to start over on Afghanistan, I've finished the 2 books mentioned and am half way thru "Descent into Chaos" (http://www.amazon.com/Descent-into-Chaos-Building-Afghanistan/dp/0670019704) -A.Rashid(best of the lot so far) and starting Kilcullen's 'Accidential Guerrilla." The new issue of Military Heritage has a good article (http://www.militaryheritagemagazine.com/afghanistan.html) on Russia's disaster in Afgh.

A quick thought: Gen. Petraeus wants to expand the Afghan Army to 134,000 and the police to 82,000 at a yearly cost of roughly 4B. Afgh TOTAL intake in taxes is $800m!

I did the study abroad program and got my Associates degree in Iraq thanks to the United States Army Cavalry exchange program. My first semester started in 2003. How about yours?

I agree with 120mm. Those who start BS posts and don't answer the questions presented to them usually find themselves in another thread. A thread that has giant rocks (perhaps a metaphor) with people's names on them.

Good luck.

[Tom Odom]

I did the study abroad program and got my Associates degree in Iraq thanks to the United States Army Cavalry exchange program. My first semester started in 2003. How about yours?

I agree with 120mm. Those who start BS posts and don't answer the questions presented to them usually find themselves in another thread. A thread that has giant rocks (perhaps a metaphor) with people's names on them.

Good luck.


Hey mate

I was up by your old stomping ground in Tal Afar last week.

Best
Tom

[RTK]

Hey mate

I was up by your old stomping ground in Tal Afar last week.

Best
Tom

Tom!

Hope the old neighborhood is in tip top shape.

Life's good just south of y'all down here in the Magic Kingdom.

Stay safe.

RTK

[Charles Martel]

The writer's woolly-headedness is evident when he uses the "supposed success of the surge [in Iraq]" to denigrate GEN P's previous accomplishments then argues that previous success are not indicative of future success. If previous success is not a guide, how about previous failure? By the author's standard, GEN P actually is qualified, but his thesis is that P is not ... What a load.

[Greyhawk]

I haven't read the article yet. Does the author provide a list of three or so Generals who would do better at CENTCOM, supported with resume points and quotes? Does he explain where the CENTCOM commander fits in the chain of command? Or is it assumed the average Huffington Post reader is well acquainted with these mundane details?

But seriously folks... there are those who see Petraeus as political candidate, and tremble at the thought. (More so than at the thought of AfPakIraq in flames.) I suspect our author is one, I believe we'll be seeing more in the future. Pity, that.