Gen. Petraeus interview by MSNBC Brian Williams
Hi,
I managed to find the complete webcast of the interview Gen. Petraeus had with MSNBC's Brian Williams on Oct. 1st. Centcom's facebook page had a link to the Atlantic's page with segments of the webcast but not the entirely.
http://www.videonewslive.com/view/37...david_petraeus
Naomi
04 Mar 10 - General David Petraeus speech and Q&A period video
This video is about 60 minutes long, it focuses on Afghanistan and Canadian-American relations.
http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?d...=e&clipID=3704
How Petraeus Has Changed the Afghanistan War; What Happened in Khost?
How Petraeus Has Changed the Afghanistan War; What Happened in Khost?
Entry Excerpt:
How Petraeus Has Changed the Afghanistan War by Anna Mulrine at the Christian Science Monitor. "Gen. David Petraeus replaced Gen. Stanley McChrystal as head of U.S. forces in the Afghanistan war this year. One change he's made represents something of a gamble to some in the Pentagon."
Afghanistan War: How a Model Province Tumbled into Violence by Anna Mulrine at the Christian Science Monitor. "Khost Province had been a U.S. success story in the Afghanistan war. But poor local leadership, an influx of insurgents fleeing U.S. pressure elsewhere, and the proximity to Pakistan are stubborn challenges."
--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.
WSJ Op-Ed: A Fifth Star for David Petraeus
Op-Eds are proto-blogs, right?
So what's the Peanut Gallery think about this?
A Fifth Star for David Petraeus
By Pete Hegseth & Wade Zirkle
The Wall Street Journal
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Article link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...514563178.htmlOn a cold December evening in 1783 at Fraunces Tavern in lower Manhattan, Gen. George Washington bade farewell to his staff and resigned his command of the Continental Army. One hundred ninety three years later, on America’s Bicentennial, Congress posthumously promoted Washington to five-star “General of the Armies of the United States.”
Washington led the Continental Army against the British for eight years, the longest tenure for a combatant (wartime) commander in our history to be awarded a fifth star. But David Petraeus, who begins his eighth year as a combatant commander (presently as theatre commander in Afghanistan), will soon eclipse Washington’s tenure. In appropriate recognition of his long and extraordinary wartime service, the new Congress should authorize a fifth star for Gen. Petraeus, thereby promoting him to “General of the Army”—just below Washington’s rank of “General of the Armies” (plural).
After George Washington, the only other five-star “General of the Armies of the United States” was John Pershing, who was promoted to the rank after commanding U.S. forces in World War I. The nine remaining five star generals in our history were branch-specific commanders during World War II: Gens. Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, George Marshall, Omar Bradley and Henry Arnold were each “General of the Army.” Navy Adms. Chester Nimitz, William Halsey, Ernest King and William Leahy served as five-star “Fleet Admirals.” Each of these officers received the honor during wartime, with the exception of Halsey, who was awarded the fifth star three months after World War II ended, and Bradley, who was awarded his fifth star in 1950.
Like these great leaders, Gen. Petraeus’s breath of experience and outstanding results deserve to be recognized and honored. His wartime tenure began as the Commanding General of the 101st Airborne Division, responsible for over 10,000 combat troops during the initial invasion of Iraq. He led the 101st in an airborne assault into northern Iraq and then quieted the city of Mosul.
Gen. Petraeus then oversaw the creation and training of the new Iraqi Army, a Herculean task that was accomplished amid a rapidly deteriorating security situation. By the time he was through, he had stood up, equipped and trained over 100,000 Iraqi soldiers. They would be crucial in winning the peace in the years to follow.
In 2005, Gen. Petraeus led the Army’s command responsible for education and doctrine at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. There he wrote the Army’s manual on counterinsurgency operations. His COIN manual was the blueprint for the upcoming troop “surge,” which saved Iraq from the brink of calamity.
Gen. Petraeus left Fort Leavenworth in 2007 to take his new playbook to Iraq, where he became commander of coalition forces. He engineered one of the most stunning turnarounds in the history of modern warfare. Within 18 months, the general and his troops defeated al Qaeda in Anbar, ended a civil war in Baghdad, sealed porous borders with Iran and Syria, and created a sense of normalcy in Iraq.
After succeeding in the face of near-unanimous doubt, Gen. Petraeus was promoted to commander of Central Command (Centcom) in 2008, where he would oversee a two-front war in Iraq and Afghanistan. His tour at Centcom was cut short, however, when President Barack Obama asked him to replace the dismissed Gen. Stanley McCrystal in Afghanistan. It was a step down on the career ladder for Gen. Petraeus—but he was the president’s last hope to turn around Afghanistan. Demonstrating classic statesmanship, Gen. Petraeus relinquished his more prestigious post at Centcom.
The U.S. war against terrorism is now the longest war in U.S. history, and Gen. Petraeus has clearly distinguished himself as a leader worthy of joining the ranks of Gens. MacArthur, Marshall and Nimitz. A promotion would properly honor his service—and it would also honor the troops he leads and has led. Today’s soldiers have fought as valiantly as any in American history, and they deserve recognition of their leaders. Congressional approval of a fifth star would demonstrate the nation’s commitment to their mission.
David Petraeus is also a soldier-statesmen who works with foreign diplomats and generals in hotspots across the globe. The prestige that would come with a fifth star would also likely help the U.S. in its negotiations with neighboring states—and show the enemies of freedom that we are fully committed to the war against terrorism.
It has been more than half a century since a U.S. general was awarded a fifth star. David Petraeus’s generalship has spanned 11 years, three presidents and seven Congresses. It is time to promote him to “General of the Army” and award him a fifth star. Our military deserves it, and he has certainly earned it.
-- Messrs. Hegseth and Zirkle are directors at Vets for Freedom. Mr. Hegseth served in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division, and will deploy to Afghanistan in 2011. Mr. Zirkle served two deployments to Iraq as a Marine infantry officer, and is a recipient of the Purple Heart.
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail
http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
Although I don't agree with some of the flowery statements and would argue that others have put just as much time and effort into these wars, I can't fault the argument of recognizing the stature that Petraeus has achieved - history will likely stick him up there with the other five stars.
Well....
Is General Petraeus going to also be simultaneously appointed as the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Or will the rank become official upon his retirement?
Because Petraeus will outrank him and/or the Army Chief of Staff otherwise. And all the combatant commanders. Won't that be awkward unless Petraeus is outside the normal chain of command?
Five star ranks were given during WWII partly for protocol reasons as Marshall, Eisenhower, Nimitz and MacArthur had to interact with and command foreign counterparts of higher rank than the prewar Army and American tradition had permitted, excepting General Pershing's special status as General of the Armies ( which he dispalyed as four gold stars) which gave him seniority even above the newly created five star ranks. Or six, had that rank been created, which was discussed but never came to pass.
Another reason was the magnitude of the conflict of WWII where 12 million Americans served in the armed forces. That was war on an epic scale.
Should five star ranks be handed out to dominant commanding generals or admirals in a war who have great successes? Probably, but very sparingly. If Petraeus manages a "win" (i.e. stabilizing ) in Afghanistan, I'd say that he has earned it but some thought needs to be given as to what assignment he will do next once he holds such a rare and exalted rank.
What about Stormin' Norman?
If I recall correctly 5 stars were also discussed for General Schwarzkopf. Would the same criteria apply to him? Definitely commanded more troops, although not for the same duration... What should the criteria be?
V/R,
Cliff
I can fault it. It's nonsense. Patraeus is in no measure even close to military achievements of men who like Abrams, or even the highly dubious George Patton who never got five-stars. To elevate him to the same rank and status as William T. Sherman, and MacArthur, would be a travesty.Originally Posted by Infanteer
If nothing else, Iraq and Afghanistan are minute conflicts compared to the Civil and Second World Wars, so what has he done to deserve even being discussed?
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Sherman was not a five star.
I also think the notion is not a good one. I can't see the purpose. Perhaps if there actually is a decisive victory at some point rather than stabilize-and-disengage.
Zenpundit raises compelling arguments
against awarding GEN Petraeus 5 stars - practical ones. In WW II American 4 stars were clearly outranked by British Field Marshals. Imagine how Montgomery would have dealt with Ike as a 4 star after he (M) had been promoted to FM. Today, that issue does not exist. But who is the senior American officer, a 5 star field commander or the 4 star CJCS (senior officer by law)? Nice sentiment, not practical or necessary.
Cheers
JohnT
Ranks should not be rewards.
Give him a Schwartzkopf-like victory parade in NYC IF he wins a war.
Respice te, hominem te memento.
Just to note, it is incorrect to refer to any person holding the grade of ''General of the Armies of the United States'' as a ''five star general''. No official insignia for the grade was ever established. The only persons who can be reasonably referred to as ''five star generals'' are the five officers who actually held the grade of ''general of the army''.
Also, to note, it is incorrect to refer to Pershing and Washington as the only persons to ever hold the grade of ''General of the Armies of the United States''. Ulysses S. Grant. William Sherman and Philip Sheridan also held the grade. The legislative act of 1866 which established the grade of ''General of the Army of the United States'' referred to it as a revival of the office previously established for Washington. The grade held by Grant, Sherman and Sheridan is entirely distinct from, and senior to, the ''four star'' rank of modern full generals, and being equivalent to the grade held by Washington and Pershing, is senior to the ''five star'' grade of ''general of the army''.
As for the merits of the proposed promotion, I see no grounds for that. Petraeus has performed well in two relatively small-scale COIN-centric wars but no decisive victory yet has been obtained in either conflict. Promotion to a rank held by senior leaders in a global-scale war hardly seems merited. And frankly, the implied comparison between Washington, a man leading a newly forming nation in a desperate struggle for independence, and Petraeus, a theater commander fighting terrorists and insurgents in far-off lands is entirely absurd.
Looks like the majority agrees - No 5th Star for David Petraeus!
I agree. the stage is too small to support the weight that honor would grant.
FT Interview Transcript: General David Petraeus
FT Interview Transcript: General David Petraeus
Entry Excerpt:
FT Interview Transcript: General David Petraeus: General David Petraeus, the commander of NATO and U.S. forces in Afghanistan, spoke to Matthew Green, the Financial Times Afghanistan and Pakistan correspondent, at his headquarters in Kabul on February 6.
--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.
Talking to General Petraeus
Talking to General Petraeus
Entry Excerpt:
In an exclusive interview with NATO TV, ISAF Commander General David Petraeus says he expects violence to increase again this year as he continues his counter-insurgency campaign across Afghanistan but he is seeing signs of discord appear within the Taliban.
--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.
General Petraeus 'to quit as Afghanistan commander'
General David Petraeus is expected to leave his role as commander of US and Nato forces in Afghanistan as part of changes to be introduced by the Pentagon.
"Quit" is not the best word to describe this.. . . speculation on his next role has also included becoming Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the post from which Mike Mullen is expected to retire in October. There have also been suggestions that he could become Defence Secretary.
Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary said: "I can assure you General Petraeus is not quitting as ISAF commander, but nor does he plan to stay in Afghanistan forever. Obviously he will rotate out at some point, but that point has not yet been determined and it will not occur anytime soon. Until then, he will continue to ably lead our coalition forces in Afghanistan."
Apparently his deputy Rodriguez may also step down. If so what would that do for unity of command (and the stragey laid out for the theatre)? And, perhaps more pertinently, who would replace Petreaus if/when he does go and what efefct would that have on the war effort?
"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.
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...
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks