Petraeus Helping Pick New Generals

Washington Post ^ | 11/17/2007 | Ann Scott Tyson

[RobbyS]

I see I was mistaken, although it does seem true that a navy Captain has more authority than an Army colonel. That wasn’t true in, say, 1940, when a “bull colonel” was a force to be reckoned with. Interesting that in Iraq, the war has been fought mainly by battalion commanders out of necessity when there is no battle line. It would be interesting to see if any guys who started this war as O-5s are on the promotion lists to O-7.

[magellan]

A small group of senior officers meet informally to decide who will get a third star.

With a lot of input from the civilian "political leadership."

Bingo!

Petraeus may influence the selections of one-stars, but it may not be enough, especially if Clinton gets in.

I don't know Petraeus' plans, but it seems he should be given a Unified Command next (obvious play for a second 4-star tour, EUCOM should be open next year), followed by the Chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

[quadrant]

Agreed that digging a latrine is unpleasant task, but a battalion commander who gets involved in such task is a poor commander. A wise officer delegates that responsibility to Sgt Majors who delegate it to First Sgts who delegate it to platoon sgts who see that the latrines get dug. Even operating a motor pool pales in comparison to the responsibility of operating a billion dollar piece of equipment (loaded with nuclear weapons) that operates in an environment as hostile as outer space.
No one says Army officers are not entitled to great respect, but as Omar Bradley wrote, “After D-Day, the Plan took over.” No one studying the War in the Pacific can say that, “After Midway, the Plan took over.”

[quadrant]

When a battle has no front line (especially in urban areas) the units will not be led by battalion commanders at all, but by the NCO’s who lead the men. Reading the accounts of the Battle of Hue doesn’t give one the impression that anyone above the rank of buck sergeant had much to say about the outcome. One gets the same feeling reading BLACK HAWK DOWN.

[Just mythoughts]

he War in Iraq took place in March 2003. Two years after President Clinton ended his term. We should had increased the size of the military and had more troops in the occupation. Former General Shiniskei said we needed at least a couple hundred thousand of troops if we were to occupy Iraq.

So why did we NOT have available a couple hundred thousand troops to occupy Iraq? To physically and literally increase the size of ones military takes time and money. NOT exactly something one wants to broadcast to the world by the superpower of superpowers hey we are NOT ready. Further I think you are ignoring what the Saddam supporters were doing and saying to STOP US from removing Saddam. Our liberals took Saddam's side and did whatever they could to make this war a failure. This bunch are first in line to be held to account, because they could not get the military downsized fast enough to share in that so called peace dividend, at the same time ignoring what literally was being planned and plotted against US by these uncivilized butchers and terrorists.

Did former General Shiniskei explain why we did not have at ready a couple hundred thousand troops? Did he ever tell Clintons and Congress what kind of mistake they were making when they were slashing and trashing the military so they could spend that supposed peace dividend? Liberals knew darn well the status of our military capability, and they knew full well how it got that way. So they went on the attack of all things Bush to HIDE their own incompetence and dereliction of duty.

[LZ_Bayonet]

I wonder what the effect would be if at the republican convention the nominee pulls a surprise and chooses Petraeus as his running mate? Hmmm. Can you pull a guy out of active duty, I wonder?

Might has well - based on Hillary's questioning of him at the hearings, she would fire him upon taking office..