Skip to comments.How Petraeus changed U.S. military
Posted on 11/11/2012 6:47:17 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
Historians will likely judge David Petraeus to be the most effective American military commander since Eisenhower.
He was, after all, the person who, more than any other, brought Iraq back from the brink of total disaster after he assumed command of U.S. forces there in 2007.
To understand how daunting a task that was, recall that when Petraeus took over in Iraq, the country was embroiled in a civil war so vicious that civilians were dying at the rate of 90 a day.
Iraq's government itself was fueling the violence because the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior was home to a number of Shia death squads.
Meanwhile, al Qaeda's brutal Iraqi affiliate was recruiting hundreds of suicide attackers from around the Middle East who went on to kill thousands in Iraq.
As a result of this mayhem, some 5 million Iraqis -- around a fifth of the population fled the country or went into internal exile.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
P4 was apparently a tactically brilliant nation builder/pacifier who attracted an intelligent soldier who wanted to be within the circle and launch a career off those insights.
This is a subject to revisit in 20 years.
Who is in charge of gunrunning to radical Islamists?
I think the better bet is Rumsfeld.
CNN, too funny, after Odumba’s win, I think i’ll get my news from Pravada, or better yet North Korea!
He had a good idea in Iraq. It hasn’t worked so well in Afghanistan but he applied it anyway because it was HIS good idea.
He was OK as a military guy. Not a genius. Although I’m pretty sure he thought he was a genius.
Thank you...I was too busy gagging on this to think of such a rational answer
I prefer Stormin Norman who seemed to understand overwhelming force better than anyone (including his pansy a%% boss)....that highway of death should have gone ALL the way to Bagdad. That would have been the end of the story.
I have always been underwhelmed by Petreaus but that’s just me. He sure as hell ain’t no Patton. And for the record Eisenhower was a really good manager he wasn’t that great as a tactician
Afghanistan has lasted long than WWII.. so there have been no Generals worth spit there.. NONE..
They are all idiots.... -OR- a few could just be morons..
Totally hamstrung by politics.. including George Bush..
MAybe politics emasculated including being morons..
I don’t think Petraeus is gunrunning.
In reality, just as Westmoreland's troop buildup had crushed the Vietcong, the politicians decided to withdraw, leaving the field open to a conventional invasion from the North. In Iraq, as in Vietnam, I'd argue that the insurgents were never in a position to to win, and the main threat was one of invasion. The difference in Iraq was that there's no way Iran could have invaded, without us responding, given the stranglehold on Gulf oil resources it would have given the Iranians.
Lets be honest. The man who turned the Iraq war around was Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, the leader of the Anbar Awakening. He payed for it with his blood. If he didn’t rally the Anbar tribes to our side that mess would not of turned out well. It would have been a lot easier and less costlier in blood if we just turned the place over to another strongman who was willing to play ball with us, for a very large stipend.
Petraeus also decided it would be a good idea to have the troops get out of their armored vehicles more for the old hearts and minds crap. Result? More of our guys getting their legs and other parts blown off. In spite of the obvious stupidity of this move, the policy was continued for quite a while.
When Petraeus saw that Afghanistan was starting to deteriorate, he turned it over to some other guy and came back to the US as the conquering hero.
He’s a self-promoting jerk.
No one have ever been able to pacify Afghanistan so I wouldn’t blame General Petraeus.
Petraeus attacked our rights of Freedom of Speech, when he went after the Florida pastor, instead of focusing on killing the enemy in Afghanistan.
Yup. And just another reason I am not a big fan. He changed the ROE in Afghanistan and our troops suffered. He did not defend our guys he willingly threw them to the dogs. I am not impressed by him at all
Well, Petraeus and Omugabe both still have their legs and other body parts, right?
So what's the problem?
For those who are interested:
Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, please advise.
He was in Afghanistan to wetnurse karzai and ensure the drug trade. Don’t have to believe me. I calls’em as I sees’em.
Soon, the next few years, good decent men and women won't want anything to do with the military......
Yes, Petre-ASS, you DID chnage the military, but not for the good.
I meant to reply to another freeper.
We’ll see about the gunrunning in due time.
Genghis Khan Pacified Afghanistan.
Totally agree. In 20 yrs, the people who were there in the thick of things will be comfortably living off of their generous federal benefit package and will have "more flexibility" to tell us what really happened...
Oh I believe you....but if he was willing to let good troops die for that crap then he was treasonous ....
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.