Posted by
The Valletta Papers on Friday, January 05, 2007 2:23:24 PM
The
New York Times reports that “President
Bush has decided to name Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus as the top American
military commander in Iraq, part of a broad revamping of the military team that
will carry out the administration’s new Iraq strategy, administration officials
said Thursday.” The NYT states that “In addition to the promotion of Lt. General
Petraeus, who will replace Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the choice to succeed Gen.
John P. Abizaid as the head of the Central Command is expected to be Adm.
William J. Fallon, who is the top American military officer in the Pacific,
officials said.”
This announcement should make Uncle Jimbo
at Blackfive absolutely ecstatic.
A few weeks ago, Blackfive called for
the promotion of General Petraeus upon hearing rumors of the retirement of General
Abizaid. Although Petraeus is replacing
General Casey in Iraq
rather then Abizaid in CentCom, Uncle Jimbo should be happy with the news. Praising
General David Petraeus, the Blackfive
blog stated:
He
led the 101st Airborne into Iraq
in 2003, got the program to train Iraqi troops running and just finished a
rewrite of the Army and USMC counter-insurgency manuals at the Combined Arms Center.
He is widely regarded as wicked smaht, and has focused extensively on
low-intensity conflict and the very conditions we currently face in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are plenty of
fine General officers senior to LTG Petraeus, but this situation cries out for
the best possible person.
The
military is often looked at as monolithic with all the basic units and
commanders as interchangeable. But there are huge differences in mind set,
tactics and general world view between individual officers, different units and
branches of service. The bulk of the officers in the military would properly be
classed as conventional warriors. Their training and experiences have been in
conducting conventional military operations i.e. moving troops and materiel
into position to lay some hurt on someone or something. That is vital, but not
applicable to the problems of counter-insurgency, which are social and cultural
as much as military.
If
we faced the possibility that the Iranians and Syrians were going to roll tanks
toward Baghdad,
then I would wholeheartedly support an old school Armor general to command the
slaughter. But with two active insurgencies to deal with I want someone a lot
more focused on how the actions of his forces either help or hinder the effort
to gain trust and support of the people away from the insurgents. We have never
had enough troops to garrison the whole of Iraq and make an insurgency
impossible. What we need is a commander who can use our forces and our
resources to convince the Iraqis to make the insurgency impossible.
So
give the gig to Petraeus, send another couple of boatloads of troops to secure Baghdad, and send him a
bunch of satchels of cash to give to local sheiks and to fund local projects.
Get our troops and the Iraqi troops among the people, living, securing,
rebuilding. Oh and one last thing, LTG Petraeus...please bust a cap in Mookie's
a**.
Reacting to the official news, Tigerhawk interprets the announcement of Lt. General Petraeus’ promotion as “evidence that the Bush administration is going to get imaginative
in Iraq.”
Tigerhawk touts Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus credentials:
Among
his many qualifications, Lt. General Petraeus has a Ph.D. from Princeton. More importantly, he is widely regarded as one
of the most capable commanders in the United States Army. Thomas Ricks, the
Washington Post's military affairs correspondent, argued in his book Fiascothe first, divisional
commander in Iraq to recognize that the United States ought to be waging a
traditional "small war" counterinsurgency. The 101st Airborne under his
command distinguished itself as perhaps the most effective large unit operating
in Iraq
that Petraeus was one of the first, if not
at the time.
New York Post
columnist and retired Army Intelligence Officer Ralph Peters entitled his
recent article “King David Returns: Gen. Petraeus’ New Iraq Test.” Peters is
upbeat concerning the news, but not without some obvious concern. He writes:
It's
official: Dave Petraeus, one of the U.S. Army's most- impressive leaders, is
headed back to Baghdad
to take charge. The assignment means a fourth star and the chance to save a
desperate situation - or preside over a grim strategic failure.
With
back-to-back tours of duty in Iraq
behind him and the most-positive image among Iraqis of any U.S. leader,
military or civilian, Petraeus is a natural choice. His intelligence, drive,
devotion to service and negotiating skill make the lean, young-looking general
seem perfect.
The
question is whether Gen. Petraeus is the right choice - or if he'll merely be
the final executor of a failed policy.
The
general has a winning public demeanor - when he led the 101st Airborne Division
in northern Iraq
in 2003, he proved such a superb diplomat that the Kurds called him "Malik
Daoud" - King David - as a mark of respect. He listened patiently, spent
money wisely, used force intelligently and truly did win hearts and minds.
In other words, Peters does not see the move, as encouraging
as it may be, as a guarantee of success in Iraq. As he puts it:
Having
known [Petraeus] - a bit - for years, I have unreserved respect for his talent
and dedication, his quality of mind and selfless service. He's the greatest
peacekeeping general in the world. But I just don't know if he can win a war.
Clearly, placing the burden of winning Iraq on the
shoulders of one or two Generals is expecting too much. The burden of winning
this war should really be in the hearts and minds of every American – including
every citizen and every elected American official. It is surely heartening to
see President Bush turning to great military leaders such as Petraeus, but until
our politicians decide they choose victory rather than defeat, I will continue
to worry.