Posted on 02/07/2008 9:54:59 PM PST by george76
The U.S. just dodged a bullet in Iraq.
Recently it was reported that Pentagon leaders were considering Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force Iraq since February 2007, for a prestigious redeployment to Europe. It is good news for Americans and Iraqis alike that Gen. Petraeus decided to stay in Baghdad through the fall.
What's depressing is that top political and military leaders in Washington asked him to consider the move in the first place. The proposal to shift Gen. Petraeus out of Iraq reflects the unwillingness of the military as a whole to make the larger cultural changes required to succeed in tough counterinsurgency missions.
Gen. Petraeus has repeatedly pointed out that a key reason behind the improvements in Iraq revolved around the fact that Americans were walking the streets, living alongside Iraqis, forging close relationships with Iraqi soldiers and police, and demonstrating to the population a commitment to achieving enduring security.
Indeed, a key requirement for success in war is consistency of effort over time. Only experience on the ground permits the acquisition of enough knowledge of the political landscape and personalities necessary to shape events and achieve political stability.
In short, removing such a successful leader from a mission in progress is senseless. It is also inconsistent with much of the America's wartime history.
George Washington served as commander of the American revolutionary forces for eight years, from 1775-1783. Without his resolute leadership and political instincts, it is likely that the Continental Army would have disintegrated.
In the Mexican War, Gen. Winfield Scott ...
During World War II, Gens. Dwight D. Eisenhower and George C. Marshall ...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Trluly laughable - she practically called General Petraeus a liar when he came to the Hill to testify. Yes, she has a great relationship with the military.
And yet, some FReepers jump up and down and insist they will sit the election out rather than hold their nose and vote for McCain.
I don’t like the guy, but I can’t conceive of The Beast of Barry Hussein as the CIC.
Agreed. Also, Patraeus is a genius because he is smart enough to do deep research into former counter-insurgancies in Algeria and other places. This knowledge can easily be passed on to another like-minded General.
Right. And just what does a navy pilot know about the successfull conduct of ground operations? Not a damn thing. Hell, the guy earned the nickname "ACE" McCain for destroying (or losing) five of his own aircraft.
Now were supposed to believe he's Reagans long lost, conservative brother. With his temper he'll go through Generals on a weekly basis. And none who disagree wiht hiim will last long in any event.
That's because of the Army's philosphy of "everybody gets a turn". Our military does not like to leave commanders in one place for too long.
He hasn’t been there that long. Has it been even a full year?
I agree! While many fault Rumsfield, I respected the heck out of the guy as well as Bush for his undying loyalty towards him. Rumsfield was not a yes man which I am sure Bush appreciated also.
I am afraid that McLame will demand loyalty from his appointees and as you point out, if they don't follow in lockstep with whatever he says then they will be gone.
Almost. Remember, there is a lag on change of commands between announcement and actuality. At this level they tend to move around a lot more often than, say, a division commander (2 star).
There may also be other reasons behind the scenes. He may have stepped on some senior toes. Who knows? We never will unless someone retires and writes a book.
We owe Sen Bill Frist big time for Gen Petraeus.
I agree -- an Alinsky-worshipping left-wing flower-strumpet in college, she has whored out for power for 30 years.
Yeah, she'll give the men something to rally around. Not.
LBJ's greatest fault.....that is, after being wowed by the academic credentials of the Kennedy holdovers and taking the "wise men's" advice.....then they rolled over on him.
Halberstam was right to pin the blame for the war and its loss on LBJ and the "wise men" who were supposed to be so all-seeing, all-knowing. Their Brahmanitude was counterfeit in the crunches, and a peacetime vote-buying sh*t-shoveller like LBJ didn't know how to fight a war.
Someone may have dropped a key hint back up the thread. Europe, NATO => Afghanistan. He may be wanted by the White House and/or Gates to go shore up the NATO membership, who are starting to make wobbly noises about their commitment to Afghanistan (they smell Hillary coming).
If I were the Russians and Chinese, I'd be trying behind the scenes to engineer a NATO disaster in Afghanistan -- cutting off withdrawal routes, isolating the forces there and putting them out of supply so they'd have eventually to surrender in the field to the Taliban.
Think about it. The Russians and Chinese have been moving against us in Central Asia, and we need to get on our toes about it right now. Almost time to play the Hindu Card, IMHO, with the Pakis getting ready to roll over on us.
Great recipe for starting WWIII.
US forces would never surrender to the Taliban. Even if a Dem administration does not understand what it would mean, those guys do. If they had to, they'd all ruck up and bust their way out of the country. Even if Clinton ordered them to surrender, I doubt the ground commanders there would follow that order.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.