My reaction to Gen. Petraeus's dissertation...

[William F. Owen]

I said the U.S. military should go further and recommend against d) wars that are unlawful under treaties and e) wars that are unjust under some framework that would need to be developed.

"Recommend?" - Interesting use of language. Surely if "unlawful" you mean prohibit.
Why develop a "framework" that can only have the effect of limiting your options to enforce your nations desired policy? Seems pretty "out there" to me.

[George L. Singleton]

From time to time folks come onto the SWJ without introducing themselves which leaves their comments without a foundation of exactly where they are coming from.

Being 'anti-war" says you are in the wrong place to start with to write on SWJ. Warfare is a means and arm of foreign policy, always has been, always will be. The world of reality tells you and all of us so. Fact.

For example 9/11, coupled with my 31 years in the active and reserve forces, and some years in NYC international banking, and writings in overseas newspapers and academic journals (foreign and domestic) were spelled out in my self intro when I first came onto SWJ. I served in Pakistan, as an example, from 1963-1965, as a young USAF officer at the old US Embassy in Karachi, as the Liaison Officer for the then US Air Base at Badabar, just outside Peshawar, and traveled years ago in Afghanitan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Libyia, too, etc, etc.

Mr. Boyle, as Mr. Owen wrote in the open you, too, like us all, need to do a courteousy background introduction. But if you just want to slap on some opinions without the courteousy of an introductory hello first, perhaps you do need to find another venue instead of SWJ, whose clear and polite norms are the same for all of us, me included.

In terms of pure political science, international organizations and standards stand first upon any nation's, including the US, political objectives, goals, and needs related to the total global scene, not vice versa.

Foreign or even internal attacks on law and order and civilizied society such as 9/11 require no justification for self defense and pursuit of the attackers beyond what the world has from 9/11 to this day seen to be the case.

If you want to help mankind, find the means to stop the Islamist driven maniacs who are murdering fellow Muslims and all others worldwide today "in the name" of a religion whose defintion is "peace" but whose misguided practice by some Islamists is "sheer violence, murder and havoc."

The norms of world society do not allow for such and maybe you and any fellow thinkers of your view(s) need to get over there and show them how to observe, obey, and follow the international treaties and norms of world law and order you wish to have in place where the fighting is now.

By the way, be careful not to step on the bodies of young boys and girls used as suicide bombers, of school teachers murdered in the girls schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan...which schools back in the 1960s operated safely in a law and order society over there. And be sure not to polute the environment when your body is blown to bits by terrorist planted and detonated IUDs along the public roads, where many innocent civilian body parts are found all too often. This really messes up public cleanliness and santitation.

St. Edmunds Episcopal School in Peshawar educated Khan Abdul Ghaffer Khan the Muslim leader of the original 20th century Pakhtuns, if you will, "freedom movement" without any attempt to proselite him into being a Christian. He remained a Muslim of the peaceful sort as was Mr. Ghandi in India. You remember Mr. Ghandi, who was murdered by a religious terrortist?

George L. Singleton, Colonel, USAF, Retired

[ToddBoyle]

Mr. Singleton, your message, and many other messages on this board are absolutely poliitcal. In fact, the only reason I visited this board was that it popped up in Google as a discussion of Petraeus' dissertation. Having read the entire 343 page dissertation and finding it absolutely political, from end to end, discussing whether to fight, how to fight, and who to fight. This board has a bad case of group-think. I would have to be a masochist to try to carry on a discussion here. The discussion is about SUBJECT. Your position is tantamout to making all discussion ad-hominem first, with the subject matter secondary.

[Surferbeetle]

In fact, the only reason I visited this board was that it popped up in Google as a discussion of Petraeus' dissertation. Having read the entire 343 page dissertation and finding it absolutely political, from end to end, discussing whether to fight, how to fight, and who to fight. This board has a bad case of group-think. I would have to be a masochist to try to carry on a discussion here.

Todd,

SWJ could be likened to a modern-day digital Salon where the qualities of ideas and opinions matter. I for one enjoy considering and discussing opinions other than my own in a, for lack of a better phrase-gentlemanly manner, and hope that you are able to do so as well.

Having served with the General I find that your characterization of him does not square with my observations. Like some here I have also read a Noam Chomsky work or two, and I recognize that it would not further the spirit of intelligent discussion by resorting to name calling of those I disagree with.

In the interests of furthering polite discourse I will volunteer that I am an Iraq-war veteran and a civil engineer in the civilian world. I have not yet read GEN Petraeus' dissertation but will make a point of starting it today and perhaps we can discuss it further at a later date.

Steve

[Schmedlap]

This board has a bad case of group-think. I would have to be a masochist to try to carry on a discussion here.

I would not judge the board on the basis of an experience on one thread. Conveying something in written word is a bit more difficult than in person, so it is easy to misinterpret people - especially if you are new to the board and do not know anything about any of the participants. That is one reason for the request that individuals give some sort of introduction. It aids in the flow of the discussion.

If you look at the majority of responses to your posts, you will see that most of us are genuinely curious about your position and/or responded fairly tactfully to your specific points. A few posts were not as tactful. I'm not sure why you chose to focus on those. Some of us even asked questions based upon your points. You chose to focus on the responses that you found no substance in. That is unfortunate, but hardly an indictment of the board. This board is what you make of it.

In regard to group think. Wow. Run a search for "Gentile Nagl" or "COIN conventional" as a couple examples. If this board suffers from group think, then Dick Cheney and Nancy Pelosi are best friends.

[George L. Singleton]

I am noting that warfare historically is and has always been an arm of foreign policy of all nations, great or small.

"Political" at least in my case in referring to you focuses on your statement that you are an antiwar activitist. You could use that statement you made, by expanding upon it, to introduce yourself, if you want to try to come into reasoned discussions here.

The sum of many published egg heads on this site, several of whom are earned PhDs, is a vast font of knowledge and not to be taken lightly, in my view.

Here is a summary overview of the guy you alledge to have done a quick read of to categorically condemn him and his researched, knowledgable by academic and first hand experiences:

General David Howell Petraeus, USA (born November 7, 1952) is the 10th and current Commander, U.S. Central Command. Petraeus previously served as Commanding General, Multi-National Force - Iraq (MNF-I) from January 26, 2007 to September 16, 2008. As Commander of MNF-I, Petraeus oversaw all coalition forces in Iraq. Petraeus was the General George C. Marshall Award winner as the top graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College—class of 1983. He subsequently earned a M.P.A. degree (1985) and a Ph.D. degree (1987) in International Relations from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. He later served as Assistant Professor of International Relations at the U.S. Military Academy and also completed a fellowship at Georgetown University. He has a BS from the U.S. Military Academy—class of 1974—from which he graduated as a distinguished cadet (top 5% of his class).

Petraeus has garnered numerous accolades in recent years. In 2009, he received the Union League Club of Philadelphia's Abraham Lincoln Award, the National Father's Day Committee's Father of the Year Award, National Committee on American Foreign Policy's George F. Kennan Award, the National Defense Industrial Association's Eisenhower Award, the Office of Strategic Service's William Donovan Award, the No Greater Sacrifice Freedom Award, the Atlantic Council of the United States'Military Leadership Award, and the Congressional Medal of Honor Society's Distinguished Citizen Award. In 2008, a poll conducted by Foreign Policy and Prospect magazines selected Petraeus as one of the world's top 100 public intellectuals. Also, the Business Executives for National Security awarded Petraeus their 2008 Eisenhower Award. Also in 2008, the Static Line Association named Petraeus as its 2008 Man of the Year, and Der Spiegel named him "America's most respected soldier." As 2008 came to a close, GQ Magazine (December 2008) named Petraeus as the "Leader of the Year: Right Man, Right Time", Newsweek named him the 16th most powerful person in the world in its December 20, 2008 edition, and Prospect magazine named him the "Public Intellectual of the Year". In 2007, Time named Petraeus one of the 100 most influential leaders and revolutionaries of the year as well as one of its four runners up for Time Person of the Year. He was also named the second most influential American conservative by The Daily Telegraph as well as The Daily Telegraph's 2007 Man of the Year. In 2005, Petraeus was selected as one of America's top leaders by US News and World Report.

[IntelTrooper]

The discussion is about SUBJECT. Your position is tantamout to making all discussion ad-hominem first, with the subject matter secondary.

You're coming into a relatively small, largely experience-driven community. You don't necessarily need to divulge your name, but where complete anonymity may be valued elsewhere (4chan.org), it isn't here. I, for one, don't see why experienced professionals (as many of our posters are) should be compelled to spend their time responding to random amateurs off the Internet. So it's a respect thing. If you want to respect the norms of this community, provide a brief introduction. If you don't, don't be surprised if you are treated accordingly.

[jmm99]

we end the "introduction" digression.

Mr Boyle's "bio" can be accessed very easily by using Google Advanced Search - "Todd Boyle" + any one of "antiwar", "military industrial complex" or "military recruiting" - from which, you can watch his videos and see what he looks like, etc. Mr Boyle does not claim or enjoy anonymous status.

Mr Boyle's posts (and questions raised) did cause me last nite to DL the Petraeus Thesis (1989; so a bit dated, and on a timeline with a number of later 1980s books on "lessons learned" from Vietnam). That tome is 19mb+ and on a dialup modem took a while. It also does not allow cut and paste.

I managed to get up to 1973 before quitting at 0500 this morning. So far, I find that I am (still today) a member of the "Never Again School" and have been such since the Korean War. Consistently.

What the thesis has proved so far (to me) is that the military has not stuck its nose into what I call "political questions" - which has been the subject matter of a number of threads here (that is, the non-partisan political nature of the modern US military - wasn't always that way, see Linn and others).

I have no idea where this thread is going - and less on where it "should" go. As Ted once told me, (paraphase) let the thread develop by members' input. So, we'll see.

Regards to all

Mike

[Surferbeetle]

...we end the "introduction" digression.

I managed to get up to 1973 before quitting at 0500 this morning. So far, I find that I am (still today) a member of the "Never Again School" and have been such since the Korean War. Consistently.

What the thesis has proved so far (to me) is that the military has not stuck its nose into what I call "political questions" - which has been the subject matter of a number of threads here (that is, the non-partisan political nature of the modern US military - wasn't always that way, see Linn and others).

Mike,

What can I say, people are interesting...

...organizational decision making has been heavily covered...I am currently on page 61 of the dissertation...Laos 1961...at this point I can say that it's well written and I appreciate the extensive and interesting footnotes....

Regards,

Steve

[George L. Singleton]

While stationed at the US Embassy in Pakistan, in the pre-MATS/MAC, et al world, when we only had Air Logistics Service, I controlled all US Air traffic in behalf of the upcountry base at Peshawar into and out of West Pakistan.

Thus I occasionally, only a Lieutenant (non-rated) you understand, manifested myself to inspect and check out the routes.

Thus I was able to take an ALS flight into and back from Rangoon, then Burma, the last such flight before they closed Burma to the rest of the world. Bought some nice narrow width 100% silk ties, was gawked at by a bunch of local military folks (guards etc.) and did not RON there...Burmese military wanted us in and out same day.

Not worth much but an odd bit of old history vs. today's still closed to the outside world "Burma" in it's renamed format.