"Replace Petraeus"-Fred Branfman

[bigdukesix101]

Just reading this 10 pager and I think it has some very valid points,anyone else reading this?

[Steve Blair]

Here's a link for those who might wish to read and comment:

article

[Hacksaw]

This is moronic drivel

[Old Eagle]

Coupla points:
1. Huffington
2. Main source - Times
3. Pre-emptive declaration of defeat. Big Dave just took over a few months ago. Hasn't had the in-flow of resources, but let's say we're beaten anyway? I don't think so.

[jmm99]

This article, if judged solely by content and not by source, is a collage of quotes (which may or may not be accurate or material) and statements which are at best unevidenced. E.g.,

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 associated with General Stanley McChrystal, his new Afghan military commander - has backfired, driving the Taliban east into Pakistan where they have joined local allies to weaken the Pakistani government.

Mr Branfman offers no solutions to a difficult problem. One suspects that his bottom line is not that two generals should leave things Astan-Pstan; but that the US should leave Astan-Pstan. He does not address that hidden issue in his agenda.

[bigdukesix101]

You mean the draft-dodging post deserting former Bush administration,right?

[Steve Blair]

You mean the draft-dodging post deserting former Bush administration,right?

We try to keep political rants to a minimum here.

But back to Naomi's post, I also suspect that there is always some outside observation tension when a general is encountered that doesn't fit the George C. Scott model (ie., his portrayal of Patton or Gen Turgidson ). I've noticed that historically the "rant" crowd has trouble with what they tend to call "warrior-scholars" or generals who have a deep intellectual and academic background. Maybe they consider them class traitors (in other words they should have followed the call of the book or pen and not of the sword). Note that I have no data to back this up...it's just an observation that seems to track back through the years (especially when one looks at the American military).

[120mm]

You mean the draft-dodging post deserting former Bush administration,right?

Actually I think the issue at hand are the people who are soon to find themselves banned for being bad posters.

Join the same day you start an awful thread, then start posting politically motivated vitriol.

I predict a tombstone in "Graveyard of the Banned" within the next 3 posts.

[IntelTrooper]

This is moronic drivel

Absolutely... who would take this remotely seriously? Despite being full of logical errors, Branfman doesn't even seem to have a remote grasp of what is going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan, nor how Petraeus (or anyone else, apparently) have influenced, or more importantly, not influenced tehse events. Anyone who has been following these developments knows that McChrystal's/Petraeus's strategy has not been fully implemented and even if they had, there hasn't been enough time to even gauge their effectiveness. As far as drone attacks, I'm on the fence over how much I agree with them but that doesn't necessarily mean they can be linked to Petraeus. There are other entities and dynamics at work besides the military one.

bigdukesix101 -- are you some kind of agent provocateur or do you actually fall for this crap?

[William F. Owen]

This is moronic drivel

That would form the bones of both an accurate and detailed conclusion in my view.

However the really stupid thing about this article is that there some very solid grounds to question a lot of the simplistic assumptions that say Iraq is won, and A'Stan can also be won - and can those things be ascribed to one man.

This guys just seems to lack the ability or insight to ask those questions in anything like an intelligent way

[Schmedlap]

I refuse to read anything on a political website - whatever its leanings - that purports to be serious analysis of an issue.

I don't go looking for murderers so that I can get stabbed. Likewise, I don't go looking for political activists so that I can soak up their influence. Political activists don't care about informing you. They see you as a means to an end and seek to fill your head with whatever information will influence you to contribute toward that end, with no regard for accuracy or honesty. No thanks.

[William F. Owen]

Likewise, I don't go looking for political activists so that I can soak up their influence. Political activists don't care about informing you. They see you as a means to an end and seek to fill your head with whatever information will influence you to contribute toward that end, with no regard for accuracy or honesty.

I can see that, and I rather agree. How do you feel about military activists? They exist, believe me.

[Hacksaw]

This is moronic drivel

Not that I'm into quoting myself, but you should have believed my review at the front of the thread

However your review was worth reading if only for adding to my vocabulary I can use in somewhat mixed company....

Ass Hat has a ring to it

[slapout9]

Ass Hat has a ring to it

Yea that is pretty good

[Rose]

reading something that wasn't interesting and then writing this...

Hacksaw, I really should have listened to my elder here

I generally go by my great-grandmother's saying and try not to assume mainly because I do not like making an ass out of myself, or other people but Brafman makes a significant amount. Lets examine these

1) "McChrystal was also known for running the worst torture chambers in Iraq at his "Camp Nama" ("Nasty Ass Military Area"), and forbidding the Red Cross access to them in violation of the Geneva Conventions. As the Times reported on March 19, 2006"

This is a very dangerous allegation to be throwing around off-handed. I mean, a top Military commander in Iraq committing torture would be something that would be front page news across the globe, right? So one would think that there would be empirical proof that Branfman would have against McChrystal right?

"There, American soldiers made one of the Iraqi government's torture chambers into their own interrogation cell ... According to Pentagon specialists who worked with the unit, prisoners at Camp Nama often disappeared into a detention black hole, barred from access to lawyers or relatives, and confined for weeks without charges. `The reality is, there were no rules there,' another Pentagon official said ... The C.I.A. was concerned enough to bar its personnel from Camp Nama that August ... Since 2003, 34 task force members have been disciplined in some form for mistreating prisoners ..."

Really? That's all you have? They made a former torture chamber into an interrogation room... Wait, prisoners were held without charge, whoops forgot to mention the failure to give the 'criminals' their Miranda rights. Gotta let them go... Mistreating prisoners? Okay, lets see the reports and the ways they were mistreating as was attempted in Abu Ghraib

Eye witness testimony... "Jeff"
"By his reckoning, at least half of the prisoners were innocent, just random Iraqis who got picked up for one reason or another. Sometimes the evidence against them was so slight, Jeff would go into the interrogation without even knowing their names."

Really? Innocent people can be arrested? Good god, how could the military do such a thing, its not like LAPD or NYPD has never arrested someone who turned out to 'innocent' nor could Branfman be bothered to present some of the reasons one could be picked up for.

--Question for the members here as I know a limited amount amount about interrogation. Isn't it helpful to know the names of the 'prisoner' that one would be interrogating before you walk in? Be provided any information at all to use to ones advantage? Thanks

Continues with this line of attack with this:
"He killed, assassinated, and tortured countless Iraqis for five years with total impunity. Were international law applied to his activities, he might well be investigated for war crimes rather than rewarded for them. Placing him in charge of 58,000 U.S. troops will ensure that such practices will not only continue but be geometrically increased. "

In a war zone, an effect way of neutralizing ones enemy is to kill them correct? Assassinating people like Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi is helpful when you are trying to decapitate the enemy leadership. Admiral Yamamato anyone? Should FDR, Secretary of the Navy Knox, Admiral Nimitz and Admiral Halsey Jr be remembered for being 'war criminals' for assassinating a senior leader of the Japanese during WWII? Are they? No, and No. Again, the accusation of torture without proof that it even occured, or that he ordered it. Show me the orders, reports, etc.

(This one gave me a giggle)
2)Obama should not follow the military's lead.

"The Obama Administration could be capsized by a combination of likely losses in the "Af/Pak" theater and a popular Petraeus resigning, blaming Obama for "not listening to his military commanders"."

Isn't this a direct contradiction of the entire premise? Obama is spending too much time listening to the military, yet Petraeus could feel that he isn't listening enough? Tangent here, but isn't that a critique of the Bush Administration and SecDef Rumsfeld in that the civilians had too much control of the military? If that is the case, wouldn't Petraeus along with a plethora of other officers have resigned THEN? Shouldn't Branfman be applauding Obama for not making the same mistake that Bush made?

"Obama's main hope of political survival should his Middle East policy fail, as appears likely, is to claim he was following the military's lead. This may also explain why he has reversed himself and adopted such Bush policies as military tribunals and preventive detention."

Okay, I understand CvC to an extent to which I will boldly go and paraphrase him. War is to be subordinate in nature to the political instrument, by which it belongs purely to the reason. K, then tell me why if Obama made it the directive that Afghanistan should not be used as a safe haven for any terrorist attacks on the homeland, why this is wrong:

"Petraeus has driven the Taliban east into Pakistan, where they have joined forces with local jihadi forces and gained increasing amounts of territory"

"So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That is the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: we will defeat you."- President Obama, March 27, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/us...bama-text.html

So, he has confronted the Taliban in Afghanistan and pushed them into Pakistan whereby he has forced the Pakistani army to fight the Taliban, and fulfill his pledge to make the war more than just America's war.

"There is an uncompromising core of the Taliban. They must be met with force, and they must be defeated." - President Obama, March 27, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/us...bama-text.html

Just like to note that for such a supporter of Obama, he fails to criticize him for these policy changes, instead choosing to go after David Petraeus because he is perceived as grasping victory from the jaws of defeat in Iraq under Bush. As noted before by JKM, partisans will always be critical of him, regardless of how successful his commands are.

3) Petraeus's strategy has forced the Taliban into the Swat valley where it is engaging the Pakistani military

"Petraeus has driven the Taliban east into Pakistan, where they have joined forces with local jihadi forces and gained increasing amounts of territory"
"The Swat Valley is part of Pakistan proper, and the consolidation of Taliban forces there represented a major setback to U.S. and Pakistani interests. Pakistani government weakness there forced it to hand over effective control of the Valley including the imposition of Shariah law, to its enemies."

I do not see the problem with forcing the Taliban to agitate the Pakistani government if it forces the military to actively fight the Taliban and put pressure on the ISI to stop supporting them as well.

"On the military side, you're starting to see some recognition just in the last few days that the obsession with India as the mortal threat to Pakistan has been misguided, and that their biggest threat right now comes internally...And you're starting to see the Pakistani military take much more seriously the armed threat from militant extremists." -President Barrack Obama
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SP437584.htm

I know first link is timestamped the 1st of June, but the second one is from May 15th. Grabbed them from a quick google search
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...-Pakistan.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...stan-army.html

Okay, its understandable (barely) that he didn't know the Taliban were on the defensive and losing territory. But on May 15th, its reported that "Taliban terrorists, after shaving off their beards and cutting their hair, are fleeing from the area, the military said in a statement." IMHO, he is just trying to portray AF/PAK as untenable. I have read (unfortunately, but for debate cases you kinda have to) other rubbish from him in the past in which he claimed Iraq was not winnable, yet we are (it appears) on the path to victory in the years to come. He could have done the exact same thing I did and quickly googled it, but then again it wouldn't be the unbiased NY Times.

[Ken White]

of little to no merit who culls the work of real journalists (not that most of them are terribly accurate...) and thinks he has great insights. Nearly as I can determine he's anti most everything.

This particular insight is even more specious than most because the 'strategy' Peteaus is accused of using is in fact a national strategy that was in place before Petraeus moved to CentCom. Civilians think that a person serving as the combatant commander is totally responsible for or in charge of everything that goes on in his AO. Those days disappeared about the time of the Civil War and it hasn't gotten better with each succeeding war.

It should be recalled the US is a huge ponderous Elephantocerous and that even the election of a new Administration and an announced 'new' strategy will take months to be implemented due that ponderous bureaucracy that has to be pointed in a new direction -- if it can be swung at all...

I'm not a Petraeus fan but that's a hit piece of little substance. One should also note that any statement of strategic success or failure in South Asia (or Iraq / the ME) is very premature; it will be years before any such assessment can be made with any accuracy -- by anyone.

Thanks for posting the link, Steve. Hopefully Bigdukesix101 wiill provide links to any future articles that arouse his curiousity.

Short version: What Hacksaw said...

[bigdukesix101]

I did not include a link because I was given a hard copy to read. I did not say I agreed but I still think there are valid points for consideration. Has anyone read "The Great Gamble"-Gregory Feifer and/or "Soviet-Afghan War"-Russian General Staff ?

[IntelTrooper]

I did not include a link because I was given a hard copy to read. I did not say I agreed but I still think there are valid points for consideration. Has anyone read "The Great Gamble"-Gregory Feifer and/or "Soviet-Afghan War"-Russian General Staff ?

What points are those? Can you summarize them? I don't feel like wading through Brenfman's link-o-mania to extract a few valid points.

[goesh]

The Huffington Post - says it all right there

[yamiyugikun]

Hi everyone,

Interesting thread! What I like about coming onto this board is that folks here analyze, question and assess what is put before you, questioning its rationale to see if whatever idea that is proposed is truly valid. This is true scholarship, reflection and learning After reading about Code Pink, I have lost respect for activists and I tend to avoid political websites too. I just saw the Revolutionary Workers' party on my campus again today. I think Marx and Lennon are really smiling now, lol.

Van, I read the review of the book about the Human Terrain debate that you posted on Amazon. Your review was very detailed, critiqued the book's weaknesses well and was very informative For myself as an academic, I keep my ideas to myself, I don't lecture/critique on an idea unless I really have knowledge about it, and my thoughts may help someone else.

I've realized an obvious thing: we live today in a "victimology" culture, at least parts of civilian society I encounter, with people jumping on the bandwagon of identity politics. I've been reading parts of a great series on global war and conflict since the Vietnam era. Again, it's amazing what your professors don't teach in school.

Just a question, why do people continue to blame Gen. Petraeus? I try to follow his interviews and was reading the Gamble again. He seems like a very determined, intelligent and focused individual. Is it that some people are unhappy with their lives, or impatient and vent on him as a target?

Naomi