General Petraeus: collection

[MattC86]

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

[Rob Thornton]

Matt,
I don't think most will say you are out of line - you phrased your question as a question and not as an attack or an indictment.

There certainly is a convergence point for policy and strategy, and the higher in the rank structure regarding a policy and the strategy for realizing it, the closer you are affiliated with it.

The very broad and general policy goal is to see Iraq to a point of stability where it can govern its own affairs, provide for its citizens and participate as a responsible state on the regional and international scene. By doing this we also help to prevent further instability in the region (such as Iran expanding a destabilizing influence & Non-state actors such as AQ or other terrorist organizations expanding into ungoverned spaces) and protect access to the strategic energy resources which are so vital across the world.

Certainly the MNF-I CDR bears some responsibility in meeting those "ends" by helping determine the "means" he'll use to do so. He also bears great responsibility for planning and implementing the "ways". The policy makers - really the administration - must approve the strategy as the tool used to realize the ends. The law makers must approve the appropriation and allocation of the "means" or funding and resources needed to pursue the ways. Congress and the President are of course elected officials - so enter in the people to go with the government and the military - the people get their window through the media.

This was all kind of what Clausewitz theorized in his secondary trinity (the people - the military and its leadership - the government) with regard to considering the nature of war. War makes no sense without its political context else why would you go to war if not for some political reason (usually involving fear, interests or honor).

At the level of war in which GEN Petraeus' operates - policy is part of it. Remember there was a political confirmation process for assigning him to lead MNF-I - politics entered early on. Every General Officer is charged with providing the elected officials their best and most honest military advice to inform policy questions, and although the President is in our Chain of Command - our oath is to preserve the constitution.

Also, I don't think the President has hung him out to dry. Tune in tonight for the President's speech and I think you'll see him take responsibility for the decision to continue the policy.

I hope that helps answer your question. Also for a good read on this pick up any book by Colin Gray.

Best regards, Rob

[skiguy]

Matt, you're not out of line, but I may be because I'm going to attack and indict..so I'll apologize in advance if I offend anyone. (or even get banned) And, yeah, I'm going to draw partisan lines in the sand here, because I'm that disgusted by what I've seen and heard.
By the way, I'm not in the military and I'm not one who blindly thinks the Bush administration has handled the war in Iraq well.

Petraeus and Crocker were attacked by EVERY f-ing democrat with every question they were asked. Yes, it's Bush's policy, but it's the General's and Ambassador's plan that is in effect, so it's perfectly understandable that they will both get a little defensive and try to "sell" it. I thnk it's disgusting how they're being treated. But that may just be me...because I think they are geniuses and nothing less. If anything is "bad" from this, it's the fact that the president handed them a mess. But I can't think of two (actually more, add Nagl, Kilcullen, and many more to the list) better people to fix things.

The democrats called them liars or worse. Those 2 demand respect and it's not given to them..not by the jackasses in Congress, Chris Matthews, Anderson Copper, the NY Times, et al. I'll watch Bush, but I'm not stayin up to watch my Senator Reed's rebuttal. I know it will just be a bunch of garbage because his thick head is already made up and no facts (like those he was given Monday and Tuesday) will change his mind.

What's wrong with this country is there is a certain, and unfortunately, large group that wish nothing more than failure because they hate their own president that much. And it's not just the war. They blame America for terrorists. They say the economy's bad when it's clearly not. I could go on, but I'll stop now before I get myself into more trouble than I probably already have.

[Watcher In The Middle]

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.

Uneasy about General Petraeus / AMB Crocker and their actions/testimony?

Not in the least. Look, these guys are the "on the scene" experts. Who Better? Actually, this type of thing happens all the time, just not on such a contentious issue.

Just as a single example, we (the federal government) has an upcoming auction of the 700 Mhz. spectrum (think extreme high speed wireless internet access). There's been tons (and I do means TONS) of testimony over the last few years, and probably more to come. And I can guarantee you that all of that "testimony" provided by all the different experts has all been carefully crafted around different sales pitches. In fact, that's one topic where the issue really should be more contentious, but isn't because the political leadership in both parties doesn't want it to be a contentious issue. That's not the case with Iraq - the leadership on both sides need it to be a contentious issue.

What they are really doing (and actually it's smart politically), is that they want both GEN Petraeus / AMB Crocker out there on the record FIRST, not later. Because if the Congress Critters went first and then the real experts came later, well you'd have a whole lot of evidence laid out there for God & Everyone to see exactly how bright/dumb their elected pol's really are. And we're talking a "Whole Lot of Ugly" here......

Think of it as an avoidance of a congressional replay of "RatherGate". Only this time, it would be all about Iraq if you didn't have both GEN Petraeus / AMB Crocker out there on the record FIRST. Can you imagine the havoc (and the fun) the blogs and the new media would have with a target as big as Congress showing their collective ignorance?

If the WH didn't have both of them report first, Congress (if they were thinking) would have insisted upon it.

So no, it's really unlikely there's a problem here.

[Rob Thornton]

Matt,

Click here for the text of the President's Speech

I think the President did a good job of distinguishing the lanes, taking responsibility, articulating the rationale at the different levels.

His speech was more informed I believe as a result of the AMB Crocker/GEN Petraeus report, and the report issued by Gen (R) Jones' commission. This is a responsibility of those who serve to inform policy with their best advice. I think this week's events show how things can work (and work well) when the pieces are linked.

Best regards, Rob

[tequila]

The President's speech, IMO, was pretty much the same pile of horse hockey that has come out his mouth since 2003.

Particularly pathetic portions highlighted:

Anbar province is a good example of how our strategy is working. Last year, an intelligence report concluded that Anbar had been lost to al-Qaida. Some cited this report as evidence that we had failed in Iraq and should cut our losses and pull out. Instead, we kept the pressure on the terrorists. The local people were suffering under the Taliban-like rule of al-Qaida, and they were sick of it. So they asked us for help.

To take advantage of this opportunity, I sent an additional 4,000 Marines to Anbar as part of the surge.

A sad attempt take credit where he is due absolutely none at all. As our very own Cavguy has noted, the surge had little to nothing to do with the Anbar sheikhs.

One year ago, much of Baghdad was under siege. Schools were closed, markets were shuttered, and sectarian violence was spiraling out of control. Today, most of Baghdad"s neighborhoods are being patrolled by coalition and Iraqi forces who live among the people they protect. Many schools and markets are reopening. Citizens are coming forward with vital intelligence. Sectarian killings are down. And ordinary life is beginning to return.

Ordinary life if you count life with no power, no jobs, and few schools reopened. He forgot to mention that much of Baghdad's Sunni population has been killed or has fled the city.

One year ago, Shia extremists and Iranian-backed militants were gaining strength and targeting Sunnis for assassination. Today, these groups are being broken up and many of their leaders are being captured or killed.

Or continuing their careers in the Iraqi security forces or the Iraqi government. If we captured or killed these groups true leaders, we'd end up killing much of the democratically elected Iraqi leadership.

Yet Iraq"s national leaders are getting some things done. For example, they have passed a budget. They are sharing oil revenues with the provinces. They are allowing former Baathists to rejoin Iraq"s military or receive government pensions. And local reconciliation is taking place. The key now is to link this progress in the provinces to progress in Baghdad. As local politics change, so will national politics.

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.

[skiguy]

I feel for you, Tequila. I do wish Bush just said "Listen to what Petraeus and Crocker said. They know more than I do and will take care of my and Rumsfeld's screw ups."

But since we're talking about lying, let's look at Senator Reed's (Democrat RI) rebuttal. (From this point on, Reed will be referred to as CAN'T-and never-will-Reed-FM 3-24)

When the President launched the surge in January, he told us that its purpose was to provide Iraqi leaders with the time to make that political progress.

But now, nine months into the surge, the President's own advisers tell us that Iraq’s leaders have not, and are not likely to do so.

Yes, 9 months is such a long, long time. (well, apparently it is for a certain U.S. political party). Things are not all fine (and no one is saying that) but there is noted and undeniable progress in ONLY 9 months.

That is why our plan focuses on counter-terrorism and training the Iraqi army.

Our plan??? If this wasn't so laughable I would be sick to my stomach. Their only plan is a complete withdrawal of all troops NOW. Only this, and this alone, will make them happy.

It engages in diplomacy to bring warring factions to the table and addresses regional issues that inflame the situation.

Did he (they) even LISTEN to or HEAR any of Petraeus's and Crocker's testimony?? With this statement, I think the answer is clearly no.

[Ken White]

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.