7 September General Petraeus Letter to Troops of MNF-I
7 September General Petraeus Letter to Troops of MNF-I
HEADQUARTERS
MULTI-NATIONAL FORCE – IRAQ
BAGHDAD, IRAQ
APO AE 09342-1400
7 September 2007
Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and Civilians of Multi-National Force-Iraq
We are now over two-and-a-half months into the surge of offensive operations made possible by the surge of forces, and I want to share with you my view of how I think we’re doing. This letter is a bit longer than previous ones, since I feel you deserve a detailed description of what I believe we have – and have not – accomplished, as Ambassador Crocker and I finalize the assessment we will provide shortly to Congress.
Up front, my sense is that we have achieved tactical momentum and wrested the initiative from our enemies in a number of areas of Iraq. The result has been progress in the security arena, although it has, as you know, been uneven. Additionally, as you all appreciate very well, innumerable tasks remain and much hard work lies ahead. We are, in short, a long way from the goal line, but we do have the ball and we are driving down the field.
We face a situation that is exceedingly complex. Al Qaeda, associated insurgent groups, and militia extremists, some supported by Iran, continue to carry out attacks on us, our Iraqi partners, and the Iraqi civilians we seek to secure. We have to contend with the relentless pace of operations, the crushing heat, and the emotions that we all experience during long deployments and tough combat. And we operate against a backdrop of limited Iraqi government capacity, institutions trying to rebuild, and various forms of corruption. All of this takes place in a climate of distrust and fear that stems from the sectarian violence that did so much damage to the fabric of Iraqi society in 2006 and into 2007, not to mention the decades of repression under Saddam’s brutal regime. Tragically, sectarian violence continues to cause death and displacement in Baghdad and elsewhere, albeit at considerably reduced levels from 8 months ago, due, in large part, to your hard work and sacrifice together with our Iraqi counterparts.
In spite of these challenges, our operations – particularly the offensive operations we have conducted since mid-June – have helped produce progress in many areas on the ground. In fact, the number of attacks across the country has declined in 8 of the past 11 weeks, reaching during the last week in August a level not seen since June 2006. This trend is not just a result of greater numbers of Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces; it also reflects your determination, courage, and skill in conducting counterinsurgency operations. By taking the fight to the enemy, you have killed or captured dozens of leaders and thousands of members of Al Qaeda-Iraq and extremist militia elements, you have taken many of Al Qaeda’s former sanctuaries away from them, and you have dismantled a number of their car bomb and improvised explosive device networks. By living among the population with our Iraqi partners, you have been holding the areas you have cleared. By helping Iraqis reestablish basic services and local governance, you have helped exploit the security gains. And by partnering closely with Iraqi Security Forces, you have been strengthening Iraqi elements that will one day have sole responsibility for protecting their population. Indeed, while Iraqi forces clearly remain a work in progree, Iraqi soldiers and police are very much in the fight, and they continue to sustain losses that are two to three times our losses.
We are also building momentum in an emerging area of considerable importance – local reconciliation. Local Iraqi leaders are coming forward, opposing extremists, and establishing provisional units of neighborhood security volunteers. With growing Government of Iraq support, these volunteers are being integrated into legitimate institutions to help improve local security. While this concept is playing out differently in various areas across Iraq, it is grounded in a desire shared by increasing numbers of Iraqis – to oppose extremist elements and their ideologies. This is very significant, as many of you know first-hand, extremists cannot survive without the support of the population. The popular rejection of Al Qaeda and its ideology has, for example, helped transform Anbar Province this year from one of the most dangerous areas of Iraq to one of the safest. The popular rejection has helped Coalition and Iraqi Forces take away other areas from Al Qaeda as well, and we are seeing a spread of this sentiment in an ever-increasing number of Sunni areas. Now, in fact, we are also seeing a desire to reject extremists emerge in many Shi’a areas.
The progress has not, to be sure, been uniform across Baghdad or across Iraq. Accomplishments in some areas – for example, in Ramadi and in Anbar Province – have been greater than any of us might have predicted six months ago. The achievements in some other areas – for example, in some particularly challenging Baghdad neighborhoods and in reducing overall civilian casualties, especially those caused by periodic, barbaric Al Qaeda bombings – have not been as dramatic. However, the overall trajectory has been encouraging, especially when compared to the situation at the height of the sectarian violence in late 2006 and early 2007.
Many of us hoped this summer would be a time of tangible political progress at the national level as well. One of the justifications for the surge, after all, was that it would help create the space for Iraqi leaders to tackle the tough questions and agree on key pieces of “national reconciliation” legislation. It has not worked out as we had hoped. All participants, Iraqi and coalition alike, are dissatisfied by the halting progress on major legislative initiatives such as the oil framework law, revenue sharing, and de-ba’athification reform. At the same time, however, our appreciation of what this legislation represents for Iraqi leaders has grown. These laws are truly fundamental in nature and will help determine how Iraqis will share power and resources in the new Iraq. While much work remains to be done before these critical issues are resolved, the seriousness with which Iraqi leaders came together at their summit in late August has given hope that they are up to the task before them, even if it is clearly taking more time than we initially expected.
In the coming months, our coalition’s countries and all Iraqis will continue to depend on each of you and on our Iraqi counterparts to keep the pressure on the extremists, to help security and strengthen the rule of law for all Iraqis, to work with the Government of Iraq to integrate volunteers into local security and national institutions, to assist with the restoration and improvement of basic services, and to continue the development of conditions that foster reconciliation. For our part, Ambassador Crocker and I will continue to do everything in our power to help the Prime Minister and the Government of Iraq achieve the meaningful results that will ensure that your sacrifices and those of your comrades help produce sustainable security for Iraq over the long term. A stable and secure Iraq that denies extremists a safe haven and has a government that is representative of and responsive to all Iraqis helps protect the vital interests of our coalition countries. A stable and secure Iraq will also benefit Iraq’s citizens and Iraq’s neighbors alike, bringing clam to a region full of challenges and employing iraq’s human capital and natural resource blessings for the benefit of all.
As I noted at the outset of this letter, over the next few days, Ambassador Crocker and I will share with the U.S. Congress and the American people our assessment of the situation in Iraq. I will also describe the recommendations I have provided to my chain of command. I will go before Congress conscious of the strain on our forces, the sacrifices that you and your families are making, the gains we have made in Iraq, the challenges that remain, and the importance of building on what we and our Iraqi counterparts have fought so hard to achieve.
Thanks once again for what each of you continue to do. Our Nations have asked much of you and your families. It remains the greatest of honors to serve with you.
Sincerely,
s/
David H. Petraeus
General, United States Army
Commanding
GEN Petraeus and Political Salesmanship
I am very nervous about starting this thread and asking this, one because I know many of you are active military (and some have GEN Petraeus in their chain of command), and two because it's pretty politically sensitive, but all the political hoopla surrounding Congress, the White House, the American people, and GEN Petraeus/Ambassador Crocker the last few weeks has made me too curious not to ask. All that jazz about curiousity and the cat. . .
Anyway, is anyone else uneasy about GEN Petraeus and what he is doing in the United States? I personally feel that the administration has ceded it's Constitutional responsibilities as top policy-makers/policy strategists and has, in effect, "hid" behind GEN Petraeus and made the COIN/surge "strategy" (really a tactical reorientation in my mind) Petraeus' strategy rather than what it is, Bush's policy.
By ceding that responsibility, they have also passed GEN Petraeus the buck on "selling" the war. Now this is tricky, because I understand the importance of IO in any COIN situation (and the usual difficulties of fickle popular support for wars in the United States - or any liberal democracy), and I know some responsibility for IO falls to GEN Petraeus anyway. And most of what little I saw from his testimony was excellent - I particularly liked how he did not say whether MNF operations in Iraq are making America safer - but his appearances on Fox or on Katie Couric were cheerleader-esque appearances in some ways, and make me think that he's doing a lot of salesman work while he's here.
What especially bothers me is his op-ed from just before the 2004 election about the Iraqi Security Forces, which, as shown by events of the next years, was (to my admittedly non-expert perspective) debatable at best and patently false at worst. That editorial from a serving military officer smacked of political salesmanship, and I am worried that he is doing much of the same currently. I wonder what anyone else thinks of this blurring of political and military responsibilites.
I hope this was not too out of line, and if it was, I apologize.
Matt
Another Civilian's .02 worth
I am not in the least bit uneasy or bothered with General P. talking to Congressional leaders and the rest of the nation in the manner he did. The 'old man' , the Commander of OUR troops, not Bush's troops, not the troops of Congress but the troops of We The People should come home and speak directly to us as he did. There was a time in our history that the people and press didn't expect this but no longer. He stood tall and informed the nation of what the situation is over there. We need alot more straight talk like General P. gave us and considerably less innuendo, perception, pereceived perception, political correctness,opinion polls, punditry, insinuation and general bull s***. I am puzzled why anyone would feel uneasy about a commanding General of any outfit under any circumstances addressing We The People.
There are plenty of lies and game playing on both
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tequila
The President's speech, IMO, was pretty much the same pile of horse hockey that has come out his mouth since 2003.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
Flat out lies here. No oil law or even agreement. No de-Baathification law. What local "reconciliation"? Reconciliation has to involve Iraqis reconciling with Iraqis, not Iraqis agreeing to stop killing Americans in exchange for duffel bags full of cash.
Skiguy - Your post is quite reasoned compared to what was running through my head watching my CINC sit and lie to my face on national TV. Again.
sides of the aisle; both Parties are being pretty irresponsible about Iraq in all aspects IMO. I'd also suggest that US (Bipartisan) attempts to impose things like de-Baathification and an oil law are going to be resisted by some due to sheer xenophobia.
The 'not invented here' syndrome is not at all a US peculiarity and our overweening egos trying to tell the Iraqis what to do was always going to be, er, um, problematic...
Politicians lie and obfuscate, it's in the job description. I've lived through 12 US Presidents -- every single one of them has "lied to the American people" on national security issues. I'm pretty sure the next few will do the same regardless of Party.
A Clarification, Perhaps?
Thanks all for the responses (and reassurances I wasn't completely out of line), and especially to Jedburgh for covering my
I want to make clear I don't take issue with any of the testimony given to Congress. That was well done by both GEN Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, performing the necessary duty of reporting to Congress (and, by extension, the American people) even if the clowns in Congress - and frankly the population at large - has already made up their mind.
My issues stem from what I perceived to be an abdication of normal constitutional responsibility on the part of the President. I know in the military community it is considered important that a President listen to his military commanders, but the President is the ultimate policy-maker, not the military officer, no matter how impeccably qualified as he (in the case of Petraeus) may be.
As unfit as the comparison may seem, GEN MacArthur was fired by Truman because he was essentially taking CinC responsibilities and making policy himself. Obviously Petraeus is not in the same vein, but perhaps in reverse - Bush has made his policy entirely dependent upon what Petraeus says. As such, Petraeus has to hit Fox News and Katie Couric to, in effect, sell the war. That's what the 2004 op-ed (linked in my first post) did as well - and I think that op-ed was fairly inaccurate, with full hindsight.
Maybe I'm seeing a difference that doesn't actually exist between reporting the state of the war and selling a policy, because I don't think I'm making it clear in my posts. . . in that case thanks for bearing with me. . .
Matt
Clarification can save the Nation...
Generals can be called by Congress to testify. So can Staff Sergeants, Privates, Admirals and any other citizen -- and they have been for years, there's nothing new in Petraeus testifying.
I fail to see any abdication of constitutional responsibility by the President. He has no obligation to testify in front of Congress and if the Congroids want more knowledge of an executive branch program, then the appropriate person from the correct Executive agency is sent to testify -- as long as the President agrees that executive privilege is not being violated (and obviously in the case of Petraeus, he did not so believe). Petraeus testifying is Constitutionally no different than the Chief of the US Forest Service or the Deputy Commissioner of the IRS testifying. That's the way the system is supposed to work.
The President is indeed the policy maker. He has the ultimate responsibility for all the executive agencies do or fail to do. There are several thousand programs operation every day in the executive branch of the US government. No one person can ever hope to have detailed knowledge of many, much less most -- and certainly never all -- of those programs; thus the government is a heirarchial organization and the President has to delegate authority. He has done that, the policy and the responsibility remain with the president.
The President is a fomer figher jock, short term type; he has no knowledge of ground warfare. That's the Army's job. They recommend a course of action, the President nods and that becomes his policy. The Army is the executive agent and has been delegated the authority -- not the responibility, that cannot be delegated -- to execute the action. The system generally works and it did in this case.
MacArthur was not fired for making policy himself -- he was fired for vocally, constantly and publicly advocating a policy that was not that of the US government. A quite different thing and well within the President's authority.
Petraeus did not have to go on TV (and should not have, nor should Bush have made his speech last Thursday, both IMO). That he did so is an indicator that he realizes this Administration is the worst in recent history in getting their message out and he tried to help 'em out a bit. That's above and beyond -- even if he did make the tactical error of going on Fox before a more 'neutral' source. No big thing. :cool:
General Petraeus recalled...
not necessarily a one trick pony
You can be more than one thing. You can be an expert in conventional and unconventional war. Officers and senior enlisted of high caliber and flexible mindset are what is needed. In the Marine Corps we have legendary leaders who started out in irregular conflicts and rose to great success in conventional wars. Smedley Butler, Chesty Puller, Dan Daily, to name but a few. Warfighting can be complicated but it is not so difficult that it cannot be understood on its many levels. My opinion on the choice of Petraus is that he is intelligent, talented and he has an eye for spotting talent. He is the flexible officer capable of adapting to his environment. If the Iranians stormed across the Iraqi border in waves of armor and infantry I expect he would deal well with that just as he is dealing well with COIN. Placing a top notch GO in charge of a board is the right thing to do.
GEN Petraeus to head CENTCOM
... with LTGEN Odierno to be MNF-I commander.
Interesting to see what impact if any this will have on Afghanistan and Iran policy.
In recognition of finally understanding what your signature says
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SWJED
... roundup on the new appointments
at SWJ.
I simply say this:
Canis timidus vehementius latrat quam mordet (not a response to you in particular but the way I would respond to some who threatens to hurl stones at my head:D)
Carpe Dium:D
AND for the others in the group
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules :cool: