General Petraeus: collection

[SWJED]

Moderator's Note

I have merged forty three threads and renamed this thread - it reflects my practice when a practitioner's views and consequent debate merit being in one place. A few threads have been excluded, such as those about his departure from USG service, as they are not 'small wars' and some appear to have a wider remit, comparing him with others. Those threads can be id'd by using Advanced Search with his name and searching thread titles (ends).


From Council member MountainRunner's blog - General Petraeus on Goldwaters - Nichols & Private Security Contractors.

... When asked about the Goldwater-Nichols Act and its implications for improved civilian control and oversight of the military, along with the better coordination within the military establishment, Petraeus answered on the need for the next step of civil-military jointness in counterinsurgency (a not unfamiliar request, see last paragraph here):

The integration of joint capabilities under the Goldwater-Nichols Act has been a success. Our military forces are more interoperable today than they ever have been in our nation’s history. This achievement has been remarkable. The next step is to ensure the ability of the military and civilian departments to work closely together. Counterinsurgency warfare requires a total commitment of the government – both military and civilian agencies – and unity of effort is crucial to success.

One of the most pressing needs is for the creation of interagency doctrine for the prosecution of counterinsurgency and stability operations. The State Department Bureau of Political-Military Affairs has taken initial steps toward this end. During a conference hosted jointly by State and OSD, I proposed several actions that could help foster greater interagency capacity, and I recently seconded two majors from Fort Leavenworth (awaiting the start of the next School of Advanced Military Studies course) to the State Department to work this issue. Beyond development of doctrine in this area, there is discussion on creating an interagency Center for Complex Operations, which would be an intellectual clearinghouse for ideas and best practices in the many facets of irregular warfare. This appears to be a low-cost, but high-payoff, action that the Committee should consider supporting...

More at the link...

[sgmgrumpy]

And another good read.

THE STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF RECONSTRUCTION AND
STABILIZATION AND ITS INTERACTION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
By Colonel John C. Buss, United States Army

In July 2004, President Bush created S/CRS and appointed Ambassador Carlos Pascual as its Coordinator.
The agency was given a broad mandate to develop policy options to respond to failing and post-conflict states.
The organization is staffed with representatives from the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID), DOD, Central Intelligence Agency, Army Corps of Engineers, Joint Forces Command,
and Department of Treasury. The S/CRS mission is to “lead, coordinate, and institutionalize U.S. Government
civilian capacity to prevent or prepare for post-conflict situations, and to help stabilize and reconstruct societies in
transition from conflict or civil strife so they can reach a sustainable path toward peace, democracy and a market
economy.”

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usacsl/...-S-CRS-DOD.pdf

[Jimbo]

Well, thats the way everyone ina uniform or the Pentagon read NSPDD-44 read that paragraph, S/CRS is tagged to be the interagency focal point. The State Department, including S/CRS, doen't read NSPDD-44 tha way at all. The problem right now is that State knows how to handle what we would call phase I, II, and III operations.

[Jedburgh]

Received via e-mail:

Headquarters
Multi-National Force - Iraq
Baghdad, Iraq
APO AE 09342-1400

February 10, 2007

Office of the Commanding General

To the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Civilians of Multi-National Force-Iraq:

We serve in Iraq at a critical time. The war here will soon enter its fifth year. A decisive moment approaches. Shoulder-to-shoulder with our Iraqi comrades, we will conduct a pivotal campaign to improve security for the Iraqi people. The stakes could not be higher.

Our task is crucial. Security is essential for Iraq to build its future. Only with security can the Iraqi government come to grips with the tough issues it confronts and develop the capacity to serve its citizens. The hopes of the Iraqi people and the coalition countries are with us.

The enemies of Iraq will shrink at no act, however barbaric. They will do all that they can to shake the confidence of the people and to convince the world that this effort is doomed. We must not underestimate them.

Together with our Iraqi partners, we must defeat those who oppose the new Iraq. We cannot allow mass murderers to hold the initiative. We must strike them relentlessly. We and our Iraqi partners must set the terms of the struggle, not our enemies. And together we must prevail.

The way ahead will not be easy. There will be difficult times in the months to come. But hard is not hopeless, and we must remain steadfast in our effort to help improve security for the Iraqi people. I am confident that each of you will fight with skill and courage, and that you will remain loyal to your comrades-in-arms and to the values our natinos hold so dear.

In the end, Iraqis will decide the outcome of this struggle. Our task is to help them gain the time they need to save their country. To do that, many of us will live and fight alongside them. Together, we will face down the terrorists, insurgents, and criminals who slaughter the innocent. Success will require discipline, fortitude, and initiative--qualities that you have in abundance.

I appreciate your sacrifices and those of your families. Now, more than ever, your commitment to service and your skill can make the difference between victory and defeat in a very tough mission.

It is an honor to soldier again with the members of the Multi-National Force-Iraq. I know that wherever you serve in this undertaking you will give your all. In turn, I pledge my commitment to our mission and every effort to achieve success as we help the Iraqis chart a course to a brighter future.

Godspeed to each of you and to our Iraqi comrades in this crucial endeavor.


//Signed//
DAVID H. PATRAEUS
General, United States Army
Commanding

[SWJED]

That was most certainly worthy of a SWJ blog entry... Also submitted to Real Clear Politics for a vote...

Dave

[Bill Moore]

I have a lot of respect for GEN Petraeus, but this letter really doesn't say much, and perhaps it should not, other than what it does say, we all need to row together in the rough seas ahead, and I'll be here rowing hard with you. Good luck and thank you.

[120mm]

Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force!
You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have
striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The
hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you.
In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on
other Fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war
machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of
Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.

Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well
equipped and battle hardened. He will fight savagely.

But this is the year 1944! Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of
1940-41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats,
in open battle, man-to-man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their
strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our Home
Fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions
of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men.
The tide has turned! The free men of the world are marching together to
Victory!

I have full confidence in your courage and devotion to duty and skill in
battle. We will accept nothing less than full Victory!

Good luck! And let us beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great
and noble undertaking.


SIGNED: Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Jedburgh]

GEN Patraeus' second letter to MNF-I, 15 Mar 07:

Members of MNF-I:

I've been on the ground for about a month now and wanted to share some early thoughts with you.

First, and foremost, I want to note how impressed I have been by your professionalism, skill, and determination. In my vists to units all over Iraq, I have repeatedly seen a true will to win and a sincere desire to help our Iraqi partners achieve success. These observations give me confidence that we and our Iraqi counterparts *will* be able to improve the level of security for the Iraqi people -- though I recognize that it won't be easy or without frustration and setbacks. You know as well as I do how challenging an endeavor this is.

Improving security for Iraq' population is, of course, the overriding objective of our strategy. Accomplishing this missino requires carrying out complex military operations *and* convincing the Iraqi people that we will not just "clear" their neighborhoods of the enemy, we will also stay and help "hold" the neighborhoods so that the "build" phase that many of their communities need can go forward. Helping ensure enduring security in Iraqi neighborhoods not only helps Iraqi official make the most of the opportunity that we and our Iraqi counterparts will create, it also helps ensure that our Iraqi counterparts are fully ready to accept the eventual hand-off of the responsibilities to them.

Operation Fardh al Qanoon -- the Iraqi name for the operation to improve security in Baghdad -- is in its early stages. Success will take months, not day or weeks, and there undoubtedly are many tough days ahead. Nonetheless, because of your hard work with our Iraqi partners, some encouraging signs are already emerging: sectarian murders are down and sectarian displacement appears to have slowed or even stopped, with increasing numbers of families returning to their homes. It already appears that the Joint Security Stations and Combat Outposts you are establishing are making their presence felt and helping restore a sense of hope to the Iraqi people, block-by-block.

Your efforts will provide Iraqi leaders an opportunity to resolve the serious political challenges they confront, reconcile their sectarian issues, and forge the way ahead for the new Iraq--thereby giving all Iraqi citizens a stake in their new country. From my vantage point, I believe the Iraqi political leadership is committed to moving in the right direction, despite being pulled in different directions by various political parties, sectarian influences, and ethnic pressures. They are realistic, however, and they recognize, as we do, that resolving the many challenges facing Iraq will not be easy.

Beyond that, although most Iraqis want a future of peace, opportunity, and increasing prosperity, there clearly are some individuals and groups with whom the Government of Iraq will not be able to reconcile--soulless thugs who violently reject the goals of the new Iraq. They will not be won over by Iraqi political action; rather, there appears to be no alternative to Iraqi and Coalition Forces bringing them to justice so that they cannot inflict further barbarism on the Iraqi people.

The environment in Iraq is the most challenging that I have seen in over 32 years of service. Indeed, few soldiers have ever had to contend with the reality of an enemy willing to blow himself up for his twisted cause. In view of that, as you conduct your daily operations, remember that you have every right to protect yourself, even as you attempt to prevent situations from escalating without good reason.

I also want you to be aware of my recognition that our focus on security the population means that many of you will live in the neighborhoods you're securing. That is, in fact, the right way to secure the population--and it means that you will, in some cases, operate in more austere conditions than you did before we adjusted our mission and focus. Rest assured that we will do everything we can to support you as we implement the new plans. This approach is necessary, because we can't commute to the fight in counterinsurgency operations; rather, we have to live with the population we are securing. As you carry out the new approach, I also count on each of you to embrace the warrior-builder-diplomat spirit as we grapple with the demands that securing the population and helping it rebuild will require.

Tom Brokaw spent some time with the unit I was privileged to command in Iraq a few years ago and, after seeing all that our troopers were doing, he said to me: "You know, General, the World War II generation may have been 'the Greatest Generation,' but the soldiers I've seen today surely must be 'the new Greatest Generation'." I agreed with him then, and I agree with him even more now. You should, in short, be quietly proud not just of what you're doing and how you're doing it, but also of the individuals on your left and right with whom you're priviliged to serve.

**Thanks** for the sacrifices that you and your families are making.

//Original Signed//
David H. Petraeus
General, United States Army
Commanding

[zenpundit]

Think Progress, Atrios and other Liberal and Left-wing blogs are circulating charges by NBC's Andrea Mitchell that General Petraeus met with the Republican Senate Caucus to " plot" political strategy.

I am somewhat skeptical that this characterization of the particulars of the General's DC visit is accurate. Does anyone have any information on Petraeus' schedule ?

[tequila]

Not sure if the word "plot" should be quoted, since Mitchell does not use that word. Essentially she is saying that the Republican caucus told Petraeus that he has until August to show real progress or else they were going to go with the Democrats and pull funding for the surge.

Interesting that Joe Klein, another veteran Washington insider, didn't appear to agree with Mitchell that the message was given.

I wouldn't be surprised if such a message was communicated, however, given the radical unpopularity of both the President and the war.

[T. Jefferson]

Transcript: Gen. David Petraeus on 'FOX News Sunday'

WALLACE: General, you talked briefly before about the fact that you're trying to split off some of the Sunni insurgents from Al Qaeda, especially out in Anbar province, and in fact, you've even gone to the lengths of arming some of the Sunni insurgents to fight Al Qaeda.

How do you know — or do you worry that they are going to end up using those weapons to either attack U.S. forces or to fight their civil war against the Shiites?

And how do you respond — we understand that aides to Prime Minister Maliki objected strongly about arming Sunni insurgents to Defense Secretary Gates yesterday, so how do you respond to that concern?

PETRAEUS: Well, those are legitimate concerns, and we have the same concerns. We have a good discussion going with the government of Iraq.

As I mentioned, the process really is to identify these individuals, try to vet them as best we can. By the way, we do biometric data on all of them. We link that to serial numbers of weapons and so forth.

And then what you want to do is you want to get them linked into legitimate government of Iraq institutions, starting out perhaps as what are called police support units; then, as they prove themselves, getting a ticket to the police academy so they can become full-fledged police, or volunteering for the Iraqi army.

The fact is that over time in any of these conflicts, individuals at some point have had to end up sitting across the table from those who at best tacitly were aware of what was going on against their adversary, and that we perhaps aided and abetted it.

Interestingly, we have a British three-star general — my deputy is the head of our particular effort here, the engagement and reconciliation cell that we have established in part because they've had some pretty tough experience in this regard themselves, having sat down at tables in northern Ireland and other places with individuals who, say, 10 years earlier were swinging pipes against their lads.

That's been instructive for us. We think that it has been carried out with sufficient safeguards in Anbar province. It has certainly completely changed the dynamics of Anbar province.

And now, by the way, you see a bottom-up political activity that is also ongoing, where city councils, neighborhood councils and so forth are getting elected and are gradually tying into the provincial council which, of course, ties into the government of Iraq.

We're even seeing that in some of the neighborhoods in Baghdad where neighborhood councils had ceased to exist because of the security threat, and they are now coming back to life as well.

Again, those are legitimate concerns. They are legitimate discussions with Prime Minister Maliki. He supported strongly what was going on in Anbar province.

It gets much tougher when you get into the mixed neighborhoods near Baghdad in the Baghdad belts, and we're all working together to try to ensure that there are safeguards so that we're not arming individuals who eventually take up arms against the government....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,283553,00.html

[SWJED]

18 June Washington Post - Petraeus: Iraq 'Challenges' to Last for Years by Karen DeYoung.

Conditions in Iraq will not improve sufficiently by September to justify a drawdown of U.S. military forces, the top commander in Iraq said yesterday.

Asked whether he thought the job assigned to an additional 30,000 troops deployed as the centerpiece of President Bush's new war strategy would be completed by then, Gen. David H. Petraeus replied: "I do not, no. I think that we have a lot of heavy lifting to do."

Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, his diplomatic counterpart in Baghdad, said a key report they will deliver to Washington in September will include what Crocker called "an assessment of what the consequences might be if we pursue other directions." Noting the "unhelpful roles" being played by Iran and Syria in Iraq, Crocker said: "We've got to consider what could happen."...

[SWJED]

19 June Washington Times commentary - Petraeus and Reid by Michael O'Hanlon.

Sen. Harry Reid's recent statements questioning the forthrightness of Gen. David Petraeus in reporting on conditions in Iraq are unseemly and unfair. Gen. Petraeus is a remarkable general, one of our best in modern American history, and his bravery and commitment to the nation in Iraq and elsewhere have been exemplary.

There is a legitimate question behind Mr. Reid's statements. How much do we really want to trust the diagnosis of how a war is going to a man hired to go out and win that war, and a man in uniform sworn to obey his civilian leadership, no less? But before getting to that, it is important to take on Mr. Reid's critique, because it is wrongheaded and should be retracted.

First, a word on Gen. Petraeus, whom I have known for 20 years since we were in doctoral studies together at Princeton. Those who also know him will not be surprised to learn that while most of us took the standard five or six years to finish our Ph.D.s at the Woodrow Wilson School, Gen. Petraeus was done in two. He has been a prodigy throughout his career, and admittedly a little lucky too, surviving a bullet to the upper right chest and a failed parachute among smaller mishaps.

Gen. Petraeus' preparation for this job could not have been much better...

Rather than pillory Gen. Petraeus, Mr. Reid might better think of how we can get him some help by September when the big showdown is expected over the next Iraq spending bill. The best idea may be an Iraq Study Group II, led by the likes of former Sen. Sam Nunn and Retired Gen. Tony Zinni, that would help assess trends in Iraq and propose alternatives to the surge if needed (as seems likely). That, rather than a debate over whether Gen. Petraeus should in MacArthur-like fashion be expected to make our Iraq policy for us, would be a more productive avenue for the majority leader to pursue.

[SWJED]

15 July Washington Post - Bush Leans On Petraeus as War Dissent Deepens by Tom Ricks.

Almost every time President Bush has defended his new strategy in Iraq this year, he has invoked the name of the top commander, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus.

Speaking in Cleveland on Tuesday, Bush called Petraeus his "main man" -- a "smart, capable man who gives me his candid advice." And on Thursday, as the president sought to stave off a revolt among congressional Republicans, he said he wanted "to wait to see what David has to say. I trust David Petraeus, his judgment."

With opposition to Bush's Iraq strategy escalating on Capitol Hill, the president has sought, at least rhetorically, to transfer some of the burden of an unpopular war to his top general in Baghdad, wielding Petraeus as a shield against a growing number of congressional doubters. In speeches and meetings, the president has implored his critics to wait until September, when Petraeus is scheduled to deliver a much-anticipated assessment of the U.S. mission in Iraq...

[Merv Benson]

Ricks has uncovered an interesting phenomena. People who have already declared that Gen. Petraeus has failed are claiming that the guy who is trying to give him a chance to succeed is setting him up as the fall guy. This appears to be Washington politics at its worst. If you read what the General is saying about time being the things he needs most and you see that Bush may be the only one in government fighting to give him that time it is cynical to suggest he is doing it to give him time to fail rather than succeed.

[SteveMetz]

Ricks has uncovered an interesting phenomena. People who have already declared that Gen. Petraeus has failed are claiming that the guy who is trying to give him a chance to succeed is setting him up as the fall guy. This appears to be Washington politics at its worst. If you read what the General is saying about time being the things he needs most and you see that Bush may be the only one in government fighting to give him that time it is cynical to suggest he is doing it to give him time to fail rather than succeed.

I suspect Tom didn't uncover this phenomenon, but is promoting it. Plus, I didn't read it as saying that Bush is setting Petreaus up to fail, but would be willing to pin failure on him should it occur. I sat next to Feith while he gave a talk at AEI a few years ago where he was already floating the idea that "mistakes were made, but it was the military that made them, not we civilian policymakers." I am very, very concerned for the impact it will have on civil-military relations if the administration (or its allies in the punditocracy) pursue this line.

But here's my problem with the whole thing: we are still seeing the effort as a military one, and I'm absolutely convinced that the military effort is of secondary importance. I think Crocker, not Petreaus, should be the lead guy at this point.

[Uboat509]

As I have stated elsewhere I've seen nothing from DOS that suggests that they are better prepared to be the lead. There are plenty of Generals who are good diplomats but how many Diplomats are good Generals? Yes, if this conflict is to be won it will be done through civil as well as military action but, by and large, much of that civil action will be done through, with and by the military.

SFC W

[SteveMetz]

As I have stated elsewhere I've seen nothing from DOS that suggests that they are better prepared to be the lead. There are plenty of Generals who are good diplomats but how many Diplomats are good Generals? Yes, if this conflict is to be won it will be done through civil as well as military action but, by and large, much of that civil action will be done through, with and by the military.

SFC W

Since counterinsurgency is won politically and psychologically, if we don't have civilians who can lead a counterinsurgency effort, we'd be better off not doing it rather than miliarizing it. If all you have is a hammer, all the world may LOOK like a nail, but it isn't. How much time to you think Petreaus is spending working with Maliki to try and deal with corruption, a political solution that will placate at least some of the Sunnis without distorting the democratic process, etc?

[BRUZ_LEE]

... I didn't read it as saying that Bush is setting Petreaus up to fail, but would be willing to pin failure on him should it occur.

There is just ONE man ("you know who") responsible for the IRAQ adventure. It is very cheap to try to blame sb else now for the -most probably bad- outcome of it, especially sb who was not envolved in the STRATEGIC decision to go to war. The "you know who" tries to reduce the problem into an OPERATIONAL one, while in fact it is a STRATEGIC one in the first place.

By the way, i like the term "counter-insurance". Is there already a doctrine out for that?

BRUZ

[Hondo76]

15 July Washington Post - Bush Leans On Petraeus as War Dissent Deepens by Tom Ricks.

When the General comes to the Hill in September, whats the Congress going to do if he says "send me more troops"?

Erick was right when he said we needed 500,000 troops and I don't think he was thinking about the PMC'S and all there contractors.