"Replace Petraeus"-Fred Branfman

[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.

[Schmedlap]

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?

Blame him for what? For a successful tour as MNF-I Commander? For conducting a review of the situation in Afghanistan and the surrounding region?

As for venting on him, I think it is important to look at who does this. They are generally (no pun intended) not individuals with any significant knowledge of the military or the profession of arms, nor are they "mainstream" in terms of typical views held by most Americans, nor are they even "mainstream" in terms of the typical views held by one end of the political spectrum. For example, you cited Code Pink. They are not "mainstream" leftists. They are extreme leftists - and probably regarded as an embarrassment whom most Democrats do not want to be publicly associated with. The right wing has its crazies, too. Whereas the left-wing crazies will come up with any reason to demonize a servicemember, the right-wing crazies will come up with any reason to excuse the conduct of a servicemember. Neither is productive. By any objective measure, General Petraeus has been an effective leader and demonizing him is absurd. When the story about Haditha was breaking, mainstream individuals were waiting for more information and hoping that it was not bad. The crazies were excusing the alleged conduct regardless of whether it was legally justified. That is not productive (or sane, imo). By any objective measure, a squad wasting a bunch of unarmed civilians, in direct violation of the ROE, is morally reprehensible and excusing it is both harmful to our efforts to counter enemy propaganda and sends the wrong message to our troops. I don't think that we should view the weirdos on the left who slander Gen Petraeus any differently than we view weirdos on the right who are willing to excuse inexcusable conduct on the part of our servicemen.

When a pollster takes a poll, he tosses out the upper and lower extremes. Likewise I think it is also important, in discourse that can be politically charged, to toss out the left and right extremes. I don't know how to characterize the leanings of the "General Betray-us" weirdos as anything other than extreme and unworthy of anyone's attention.

[William F. Owen]

...is a personified dart board for some of those who are dissatisfied with past and present US foreign policy. Instead of attacking the policy and proposing an alternative solution (which is acceptable discourse), those of that ilk simply launch ad hominen attacks - and hope that some of the darts impress their viewing or reading audience.

On the money my man. - and that is not to say some on both sides of the debate seek dart board status! I would also say that if some feel that credit needs to be given for good things in Iraq, then it is too early and the credit seems to be going to the wrong folks.

[bigdukesix101]

I've been studying Iraq for so long (and it is FAR from over)its been a real pain to start over on Afghanistan, I've finished the 2 books mentioned and am half way thru "Descent into Chaos" -A.Rashid(best of the lot so far) and starting Kilcullen's 'Accidential Guerrilla." The new issue of Military Heritage has a good article on Russia's disaster in Afgh.

A quick thought: Gen. Petraeus wants to expand the Afghan Army to 134,000 and the police to 82,000 at a yearly cost of roughly 4B. Afgh TOTAL intake in taxes is $800m!

[IntelTrooper]

A quick thought: Gen. Petraeus wants to expand the Afghan Army to 134,000 and the police to 82,000 at a yearly cost of roughly 4B. Afgh TOTAL intake in taxes is $800m!

And the total intake in taxes won't increase until the security situation is stabilized and the government can project credible influence in most of the country. See how that works?

[Ken White]

A quick thought: Gen. Petraeus wants to expand the Afghan Army to 134,000 and the police to 82,000 at a yearly cost of roughly 4B. Afgh TOTAL intake in taxes is $800m!

Was it Petreaus or his predecessor -- or was it McKiernan. Or the Staffs of if those two. Or was it State's idea -- or the Afghan government's idea? I think it very unlikely to be Petreaus' idea...

I'm still curious as to what you considered valid points in the Branfman article.

[JarodParker]

Somebody owes me 10mins of my life back. The article did not make sense at all. It reminds me of the last minute collages I used to make when I was in the 5th grade... it's just a bunch of ideas and quotes thrown together haphazardly.

I also didn't appriciate his tone; he makes it seem like Petraeus is personally sending out hit squads who machete Afghan civilians.

But in Afghanistan, the Petraeus strategy has undermined and humiliated pro-U.S. Afghan President Karzai, whose pleas to stop killing Afghani civilians have been ignored.

We get it, killing civilians in predator strikes is counterproductive but stating that 100 times and attempting tie that to non-related issues doesn't make for an effective argument.

Petraeus's strategy helped push the Pakistani military into a disastrous military operation that is strengthening its enemy over the long-term - As Kilcullen has noted "Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies must be defeated by indigenous forces -- not from the United States, and not even from Punjab, but from the parts of Pakistan in which they now hide. Drone strikes make this harder, not easier."(Times, May 17) All observers agree that if Pakistan is to be stabilized much of the Pakistani military will need to shift its priorities from defending against India and learn to wage an effective counter-insurgency war within Pakistan.

If not the Pakistani Army, what other indigenous forces are there? "The Waziristan militia"? Waging a counter-insurgency war within Pakistan is what they're doing now, isn't it? I doubt Petraeus would disgaree with "the observers" who agree believe that the focus should shift from defending against India to fighting the Taliban.

Ass-hat!

[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

[Watcher In The Middle]

As far as a "position piece" goes, this one needs to be towed back to the shop for a total overhaul.

Being a poor dumb ole political type, I tend to look at this as a rehash of whatever emotional baggage can be assembled regarding both Afghanistan and Pakistan, and seeing how "We The People" will respond to it. Think of it as a political version of a "test drive".

Predicted Outcome (for "Test 01"): Blah

Primary Reason(s): Both Generals Petraeus and McCrystal have already made it very, very clear to anybody and everybody that this is going to be a long, tough, hard fight, but in their opinion it's winnable. From a political standpoint, these two both have a lot of "street creds" - attacking them is just not smart, because they both have very positive track records, and in political terms, that's a "guaranteed loser". So it's "Don't go there".

Secondly, all the political types are busy on other stuff which they have rated as much more important, and this stuff will just get in the way. So again, it's "Don't go there".

Overall Conclusion: Type of stuff you get on a slow news day.

[Mark Eichenlaub]

This just does not sound like a very good idea at all.

[Ken White]

This just does not sound like a very good idea at all.

I'm unsure what doesn't sound like a very good idea. Do you mean the previous comment by Watcher in the Middle or your Blog.

[Mark Eichenlaub]

My blog? Huh?

I meant ditching Petraues.

[Ken White]

My blog? Huh?

I meant ditching Petraues.

clarity but neither am I sure anyone other than Branfman on this thread is advocating ditching him, thus your answer to my question merely raises another question, I guess...

Why is it not a good idea?

[Mark Eichenlaub]

Intel Trooper nailed 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.

[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.

[George L. Singleton]

I note factually that the Pakistani miliary is making headway against the Taliban and al Qaida. Even bin Laden is upset at the Pakistan government and military progress to have risked being discovered with his latest voice tape via that Arab rag, al Jazeera.

Event are still building up for us, the Allies to fuller force going into 2010, and it is very much premature to judge there...but thus far, I see very effective pincher movements Afghan and Pakitani sides of the border.

Huffington is not just a moron, she is a slut sensationalist, along with her kindred nut cases.

[Bill Moore]

I note factually that the Pakistani miliary is making headway against the Taliban and al Qaida.

Saw a report today that the barber business in recently liberated areas of SWAT is booming. The people are joyous and celebrating their liberation from the Taliban. There big complaint is it took too long for the government to respond.