"Replace Petraeus"-Fred Branfman

[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 . 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.