| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Bill Whittle on The Surge |
| 2008-01-04 |
| Mr.Bill gets sometimes too carried away for my taste with his own considerable writing talent, but this is some good stuff. The title in the original is "Forty Second Boyd and the Big Picture" Parts 1 and 2. This is the key section of Part 2: General Petraeus -- just perhaps -- is in the process of winning such a victory i.e., a "swordless" victory in Iraq. By brilliant diplomacy, deep understanding of the culture and the judicious use of gunpowder and money, it appears he has severed most of the Sunni tribes from al Qaeda and used them as "Awakening" peacekeeping militias against their former allies. General Petraeus is not fighting the last war; he is fighting the next one. He did not arrive there and just hope for the best. He observed. He oriented. He decided. And he acted. And then he observed again to see what effect he had. And again. And again. To paraphrase the drill instructor in Forrest Gump, I'd support Petraeus for President if it wouldn't be a waste of such a damn fine general. This is not firepower. This is not attrition. This is, rather, an intelligent, delicate, sophisticated, maneuver-based strategy. A light, but sometimes deadly touch. Fingertip control. Water flowing downhill, into the cracks which our enemy cannot fill. If this continues, Gen. Petraeus will have walked into the camp of the enemy and used his own sword against him. That is a profound species of victory. You can not put a value on the power of an idea such as the one that drives Gen. Petraeus' "Awakening" strategy. A man's ultimate motivation is to provide for his family. A man, when all is said and done, is powered by nothing more or less then the desire to make his family safe and proud of him. "Awakening" is working because most Iraqis now have come to the conclusion that we are not there to steal their oil or their land and that the average man may cooperate with us without compromising his honor or the respect of his family. As our side of the scale rises, they are confronted with an ever more desperate al Qaeda whose decision loop lags further behind us every day. Desperate, they become more cruel. For American infidels to sail halfway across the world and win the hearts and minds of Muslims when they themselves cannot, is a tremendous shock to them. Why, I suppose someone like Katie Couric might even call it a Grim Milestone. Ouch, that's a twelve-stitch cut there. When Osama bin Laden launched the terror attacks of September 11th, 2001, he explained in a video to his own followers that it was because America was a paper tiger too afraid to take casualties, and that defeating The Great Satan would be even easier than defeating the Soviets. "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse," he said. Screech: "I tole him not to say that. I tole him." I wonder if our illegal, immoral, unilateral cowboy adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq may have tempered this view somewhat. This Great Saladin is now reduced to living in a cave, calling for the end of Global Warming and begging for recruits to fight in Iraq. Now available from Rantburg Books: "REMF: A Military Biography of Osama Bin Laden." |
| Posted by:Matt |
| #7 Oh Redneck Jim! - Ike was likely the better POTUS, with Grant being the better General, but dare I mention you-know-who who had a far more extensive non-military career than both, but listed several ifs to becoming chief executive? |
| Posted by: Glung McGurque2454 2008-01-04 22:24 |
| #6 We've had at least one great General who became President, Eisenhower, (I suppose I should include Grant, but I'm Southern, so just a wee bit prejudiced.) |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2008-01-04 21:42 |
| #5 Then it's time to start the: "The Democrats couldn't make them lose, so they'll make the quit/retire" meme? I would think that might cause some donk assholes (repetitious..... granted) to pucker |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-01-04 19:16 |
| #4 Nasty thought: what if a Democrat wins the White House? What will be Petraeus's fate? And what will happen to the list of officers Petraeus selects for promotion once Congress gets hold of it? Will the approve it, or shitcan it? |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2008-01-04 17:33 |
| #3 Petraeus is just squared away. |
| Posted by: newc 2008-01-04 14:46 |
| #2 Hopin Gen Petraus can get Col McMaster his well deserved star. Passing McMaster over twice is political horseshit at its worst in the pentagon. McMaster understood how to win but made the previous generals look bad by showing them to be incompetebt while Col MacMaster did it his own way and won in Anbar. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-01-04 14:33 |
| #1 I'd support Petraeus for President if it wouldn't be a waste of such a damn fine general. Yes, but great commanders know how to surround themselves with talent. It appears the 'call back' for the promotion board was such a event. A good man can put his business in order. A greater man is one who can leave it to work just as effectively in someone else's hands. Desperate, they become more cruel. Must've taken a page from the Clinton operative handbook. he explained in a video to his own followers that it was because America was a paper tiger too afraid to take casualties... Not afraid, just cost effective oriented. OBL just raised the stakes were it became cost effective. In democracy [note well the small 'd'], we value our fellow productive constructive contributory citizens and do not lightly believe in throwing their lives and futures away for things that dictators and autocrats think nothing about. You, OBL, confuse that respect for weakness while throwing away tens of thousands of your own submissives for whom you have no value. Our boys live to fight another day, as veterans who use their experience and tuned skills ever more effectively. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-01-04 07:54 |