General Petraeus: collection

[Tukhachevskii]

Apparently his deputy Rodriguez may also step down. If so what would that do for unity of command (and the stragey laid out for the theatre)? And, perhaps more pertinently, who would replace Petreaus if/when he does go and what efefct would that have on the war effort?

[82redleg]

Apparently his deputy Rodriguez may also step down. If so what would that do for unity of command (and the stragey laid out for the theatre)? And, perhaps more pertinently, who would replace Petreaus if/when he does go and what efefct would that have on the war effort?

"Quit" and "step down" are totally inaccurate characterizations, and LTG Rodriguez is not GEN Petraeus' deputy, he is a subordinate commander.

I think that, after 16 months in theater (on this tour), GEN Petraeus will become the CJCS when ADM Mullen retires in Oct.

I think that, after 24 months in theater (again, on this tour), LTG Rodriguez will get promoted, but I don't know where he will go.

There are a number of options to replace both officers. For GEN Petraeus, top choices include GEN Odierno (currently CG, JFCOM, which is going away) and GEN Austin (currently CG, USF-I, which is also going away, although the timing for GEN Austin doesn't work.

As far as LTG Rodriguez is concerned, they have already announced that LTG Scaparotti (currently CG, I Corps) will take over
http://www.nwguardian.com/2011/01/06...tions-for.html
Since LTG Scaparotti followed LTG Rodriguez as CG, 82nd ABN (and CG, RC-East), including serving as RC-East under LTG Rodriguez, I don't see that there will be too many issues.

[Tukhachevskii]

"Quit" and "step down" are totally inaccurate characterizations, and LTG Rodriguez is not GEN Petraeus' deputy, he is a subordinate commander.

I think that, after 16 months in theater (on this tour), GEN Petraeus will become the CJCS when ADM Mullen retires in Oct.

I think that, after 24 months in theater (again, on this tour), LTG Rodriguez will get promoted, but I don't know where he will go.

There are a number of options to replace both officers. For GEN Petraeus, top choices include GEN Odierno (currently CG, JFCOM, which is going away) and GEN Austin (currently CG, USF-I, which is also going away, although the timing for GEN Austin doesn't work.

As far as LTG Rodriguez is concerned, they have already announced that LTG Scaparotti (currently CG, I Corps) will take over
http://www.nwguardian.com/2011/01/06...tions-for.html
Since LTG Scaparotti followed LTG Rodriguez as CG, 82nd ABN (and CG, RC-East), including serving as RC-East under LTG Rodriguez, I don't see that there will be too many issues.

Thanks for the clarification redleg.

[Bob's World]

These guys have both served long and well. It is time for a more civilian-led strategy that is more able to take down the sanctuary that we have built around the Karzai government (per the COlonial INtervention Mannual, FM 3-24) and put the hard pressure where it really needs to be. Not drone strikes into the FATA, but rather 'striking" at the drones in Kabul who designed and run this government behind the protection of the Coalition.

More likely a Marine will be named, and he will continue the same focus, but with more emphasis in killing that element of the populace that feels greater afinity with the Taliban than with their own government; and press for a "decent interval" of suppression that allows us to declare "victory" and slip away...

[carl]

More likely a Marine will be named, and he will continue the same focus, but with more emphasis in killing that element of the populace that feels greater afinity with the Taliban than with their own government;

Don't they try to limit the killing of elements of the population with great affinity for Taliban & company to those who shoot at us, plant bombs and send night letters-or have they loosened the rules of engagement lately?

[Bob's World]

Don't they try to limit the killing of elements of the population with great affinity for Taliban & company to those who shoot at us, plant bombs and send night letters-or have they loosened the rules of engagement lately?

They do try, but they are all afghan civilians. How much of one's populace must one kill, or have some foreign military kill on one's behalf in order to gain their support?

No nuance of ROE changes the nature of the combatants. All are civilians, and only a portion take up arms. Those with arms are the surface of the iceberg of those who share the same perspective but that take less agressive roles, or choose to wait and see. The problem with an ROE that focuses on blowing the top off of the iceberg is that it merely enables more of the iceberg to emerge, while adding ice to the water, making the base larger.

[carl]

How much of one's populace must one kill, or have some foreign military kill on one's behalf in order to gain their support?

Couldn't this question be turned around to apply to Taliban & company in that they often resort to savage terror to gain and maintain control of areas, there are a number of Pakistanis in their ranks and they are supported heavily by a foreign military (the Pak Army/ISI)?