General Petraeus: collection

[Tukhachevskii]

"Quit" and "step down" are totally inaccurate characterizations, and LTG Rodriguez is not GEN Petraeus' deputy, he is a subordinate commander.

I think that, after 16 months in theater (on this tour), GEN Petraeus will become the CJCS when ADM Mullen retires in Oct.

I think that, after 24 months in theater (again, on this tour), LTG Rodriguez will get promoted, but I don't know where he will go.

There are a number of options to replace both officers. For GEN Petraeus, top choices include GEN Odierno (currently CG, JFCOM, which is going away) and GEN Austin (currently CG, USF-I, which is also going away, although the timing for GEN Austin doesn't work.

As far as LTG Rodriguez is concerned, they have already announced that LTG Scaparotti (currently CG, I Corps) will take over
http://www.nwguardian.com/2011/01/06...tions-for.html
Since LTG Scaparotti followed LTG Rodriguez as CG, 82nd ABN (and CG, RC-East), including serving as RC-East under LTG Rodriguez, I don't see that there will be too many issues.

Thanks for the clarification redleg.

[Bob's World]

These guys have both served long and well. It is time for a more civilian-led strategy that is more able to take down the sanctuary that we have built around the Karzai government (per the COlonial INtervention Mannual, FM 3-24) and put the hard pressure where it really needs to be. Not drone strikes into the FATA, but rather 'striking" at the drones in Kabul who designed and run this government behind the protection of the Coalition.

More likely a Marine will be named, and he will continue the same focus, but with more emphasis in killing that element of the populace that feels greater afinity with the Taliban than with their own government; and press for a "decent interval" of suppression that allows us to declare "victory" and slip away...

[carl]

More likely a Marine will be named, and he will continue the same focus, but with more emphasis in killing that element of the populace that feels greater afinity with the Taliban than with their own government;

Don't they try to limit the killing of elements of the population with great affinity for Taliban & company to those who shoot at us, plant bombs and send night letters-or have they loosened the rules of engagement lately?

[Bob's World]

Don't they try to limit the killing of elements of the population with great affinity for Taliban & company to those who shoot at us, plant bombs and send night letters-or have they loosened the rules of engagement lately?

They do try, but they are all afghan civilians. How much of one's populace must one kill, or have some foreign military kill on one's behalf in order to gain their support?

No nuance of ROE changes the nature of the combatants. All are civilians, and only a portion take up arms. Those with arms are the surface of the iceberg of those who share the same perspective but that take less agressive roles, or choose to wait and see. The problem with an ROE that focuses on blowing the top off of the iceberg is that it merely enables more of the iceberg to emerge, while adding ice to the water, making the base larger.

[carl]

How much of one's populace must one kill, or have some foreign military kill on one's behalf in order to gain their support?

Couldn't this question be turned around to apply to Taliban & company in that they often resort to savage terror to gain and maintain control of areas, there are a number of Pakistanis in their ranks and they are supported heavily by a foreign military (the Pak Army/ISI)?

[Bob's World]

Couldn't this question be turned around to apply to Taliban & company in that they often resort to savage terror to gain and maintain control of areas, there are a number of Pakistanis in their ranks and they are supported heavily by a foreign military (the Pak Army/ISI)?

Sounds like we are in the middle of a big messy family squabble, aren't we?

The Taliban do not have "clean hands" and no one here argues that they do. Nor does anyone argue that a border was drawn by white men that breaks the Pashtun populace into those who are "Afghan" and those who are "Pakistani" (much as if someone came and painted a line through the middle of your home and divided your family.) Neither of those lines mean much to the divided party.

Does Pakistan support the Taliban cause? Of course they do, it is in their interest to do so. Does the U.S. support the (formerly pro-Russian) Northern Alliance cause? Of course we do, it is in our interest to do so; or at least was in those heady days post 9/11.

But if this is about the interests of the people of Afghanistan perhaps we should take a more neutral role and promote solutions that serve the entire populace, not just the half we jumped in bed with (against the half we were in bed with when the Soviets were the occupiers).

US interests are best served by stability; and stability is best served by finding common ground and shared governance that represents the entire populace equitably. Sure in the past we have jumped on various sides of the problem to swing results to favor specific results we desired. Once to oust the Soviets, and against to oust AQ. Time to shift our efforts to become more centrist and equitable if it is truly stability that we seek.

Reasonable minds can differ of course, but this is how I see it.

[wm]

Reasonable minds can differ of course, but this is how I see it.

Not sure that my mind counts as reasonable, but I do differ, to some degree, with the following

US interests are best served by stability.

I think a more accurate assertion would be that nation states' interests in general, and those of the US in particular, are best served by predictability. Stability may well be one category of predictability, but I'm not so sure it is the only one. Some forms of instability are also predictable (like radioactive decay). A quiesant populace may appear to be stable, but that could be quite a distortion, as I think recent events in Egypt have pointed out. One would prefer to know,I think, whether a current level of stability (or instability) is likely to persist, and if so, for how long.

The US political process is predictable but it is rather far from stable, what with the potential turnover of significant portions of the governing elite at all levels every 2-6 years.

One optimizes one's interests by minimizing one's risks. The best way to minimize risk is to have a high level of certainty (that is, predictability) regarding future outcomes and consequences deriving from current actions.

[carl]

Sounds like we are in the middle of a big messy family squabble, aren't we?

No, it sounds more like we are in a violent civil war with lots of innocent people being killed, sometimes because they don't to do what some pathological teenager wants them to do fast enough or because a village mullah has decided he knows God's will better.

The Taliban do not have "clean hands" and no one here argues that they do. Nor does anyone argue that a border was drawn by white men that breaks the Pashtun populace into those who are "Afghan" and those who are "Pakistani" (much as if someone came and painted a line through the middle of your home and divided your family.) Neither of those lines mean much to the divided party.

The border is a reality that is recognized by both sides, grudgingly maybe on the Afghan side but it isn't seriously contested. I would guess the Pakistanis are rather more concerned about maintaining it as it is more than anybody.

The point of your Pashtun comment is to suggest that the Pakistanis aren't foreigners coming over to Afghanistan to kill locals on behalf of Taliban & company. From what I read, the Afghans know full well who is a Pakistani coming over to mess around in somebody else's neighborhood, not to mention various volunteers from over the ocean who show up from time to time.

You might want to change your "white men" reference to "europeans". My auntie was a missionary for decades in Pakistan. She was as fair skinned as the daughter of an Irishman could be. The Pakistanis always used to ask her if she was a Pathan.

Does Pakistan support the Taliban cause? Of course they do, it is in their interest to do so. Does the U.S. support the (formerly pro-Russian) Northern Alliance cause? Of course we do, it is in our interest to do so; or at least was in those heady days post 9/11.

But if this is about the interests of the people of Afghanistan perhaps we should take a more neutral role and promote solutions that serve the entire populace, not just the half we jumped in bed with (against the half we were in bed with when the Soviets were the occupiers).

You suggest "this" is about the interests of the Afghans. And you mention the Taliban & company's cause. That cause is from what I read an Islamist Afghanistan ruled by Kandaharis, not much evidence that it will be much different from what it was pre-2001. Most of the Afghans disliked that intensely and don't want it to come back.

You also say the Pak Army/ISI supports the cause of Taliban & company. Now, the Pak Army/ISI supports a cause which most Afghans view as inimical to their interests, and since you say we should promote solutions that serve the entire populace, shouldn't we therefore oppose the Pak Army/ISI's support for Taliban & company? This might possibly dovetail with our interests, since the Taliban was in charge of most of Afghanistan they hosted a group that killed 3,000 of our people and have never renounced that group.

In your parenthetical I think you are slanting things a bit. We, by deferring to the ISI, backed with most of the money the most religious muj groups. Gulbuddin and the boys comes to mind. And I believe Ismail Khan over there in Herat killed a lot of Russ. The Taliban doesn't like him at all. Also I might add that Massoud was the key leader in the Northern Alliance. He was not pro-Russian either judging by the number of their bodies he left on various battlefields. Not simple these things.