| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Petraeus to be Top NATO Command? |
| 2008-01-22 |
| The Pentagon is considering Gen. David H. Petraeus for the top NATO command later this year, a move that would give the general, the top American commander in Iraq, a high-level post during the next administration but that has raised concerns about the practice of rotating war commanders. A senior Pentagon official said that it was weighing “a next assignment for Petraeus” and that the NATO post was a possibility. “He deserves one and that has also always been a highly prestigious position,” the official said. “So he is a candidate for that job, but there have been no final decisions and nothing on the timing.” The question of General Petraeus’s future comes as the Pentagon is looking at changing several top-level assignments this year. President Bush has been an enthusiastic supporter of General Petraeus, whom he has credited with overseeing a troop increase and counterinsurgency plan credited with reducing the sectarian violence in Iraq, and some officials say the president would want to keep General Petraeus in Iraq as long as possible. In one approach under discussion, General Petraeus would be nominated and confirmed for the NATO post before the end of September, when Congress is expected to break for the presidential election. He might stay in Iraq for some time after that before moving to the alliance’s headquarters in Brussels, but would take his post before a new president takes office. If General Petraeus is shifted from the post as top Iraq commander, two leading candidates to replace him are Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who is running the classified Special Operations activities in Iraq, and Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, a former second-ranking commander in Iraq and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates’s senior military assistant. By this fall, General Petraeus would have served 19 months in command in Iraq and would have accumulated more than 47 months of service in Iraq in three tours there since 2003. In the NATO job, General Petraeus would play a major role in shaping the cold-war-era alliance’s identity, in coping with an increasingly assertive Russia and in overseeing the allied-led mission in Afghanistan. General Petraeus, 55, has been criticized by Democratic lawmakers opposed to Mr. Bush’s decision to send additional combat forces to Iraq. A NATO post would give him additional command experience in an important but less politically contentious region, potentially positioning him as a strong candidate in a few years to serve as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, several military officials said. They and some others who discussed the potential appointment declined to be identified because they were speaking about an internal personnel matter. Some experts, however, say General Petraeus’s departure would jeopardize American efforts in Iraq, especially since the No. 2 officer in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, is scheduled to complete his tour and leave Iraq in mid-February. General Petraeus “should stay at least through this year,” said Anthony Cordesman, a military specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “We really need military continuity in command during this period in which we can find out whether we can transition from tactical victory to some form of political accommodation. “We have in Petraeus and Crocker the first effective civil-military partners we have had in this war,” Mr. Cordesman added, referring to Ryan C. Crocker, the United States ambassador in Baghdad. Gen. George W. Casey Jr., General Petraeus’s predecessor, served nearly three years in the top Iraq job before becoming Army chief of staff. There has been speculation that General Petraeus’s next post might be as head of the Central Command, which has responsibility for the Middle East region. That would enable him to continue to influence events in Iraq while overseeing the military operation in Afghanistan and developing a strategy to deal with Iran. The Central Command post is currently held by Adm. William J. Fallon. Admiral Fallon, through a spokesman, denied that he intended to retire from the military in the next several months. General Petraeus, through a spokesman, declined to comment on a possible NATO assignment. Geoff Morrell, the senior Defense Department spokesman, said no decision had been made. “Trying to guess General Petraeus’s next assignment is the most popular parlor game in the Pentagon these days,” Mr. Morrell said. “Where and when the general goes next is up to Secretary Gates and President Bush, and they have not yet decided those matters. However, they very much appreciate his outstanding leadership in Iraq and believe he has much more to contribute to our nation’s defense whenever his current assignment comes to an end.” Of the potential successors for General Petraeus, Generals McChrystal and Chiarelli would bring contrasting styles and backgrounds to the fight. General McChrystal has spent much of his career in the Special Operations forces. He commands those forces in Iraq, which have conducted raids against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the mainly Iraqi group that American intelligence says has foreign leadership, and against Shiite extremists, including cells believed to be backed by Iran. In June 2006, Mr. Bush publicly congratulated General McChrystal on the airstrike that killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian terrorist who was the head of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. The Pentagon does not officially acknowledge the existence of some of the classified units that General McChrystal leads, and Mr. Bush’s comments were a rare acknowledgment of the role those troops played in a high-level mission. General McChrystal, a 53-year-old West Point graduate, also commanded the 75th Ranger Regiment and served tours in Saudi Arabia during the Persian Gulf war in 1991 and in Afghanistan as chief of staff of the military operation there in 2001 and 2002. He was criticized last year when a Pentagon investigation into the accidental shooting death of Cpl. Pat Tillman by fellow Army Rangers in Afghanistan held the general accountable for inaccurate information provided by Corporal Tillman’s unit in recommending him for a Silver Star. The information wrongly suggested that Corporal Tillman, a professional football player whose decision to enlist in the Army after the Sept. 11 attacks drew national attention, had been killed by enemy fire. General Chiarelli’s strengths rest heavily on his reputation as one of the most outspoken proponents of a counterinsurgency strategy that gives equal or greater weight to social and economic actions aimed at undermining the enemy as it does to force of arms. General Chiarelli, 57, has served two tours in Iraq, first as head of the First Calvary Division, where he commanded 38,000 troops in securing and rebuilding Baghdad, and later as the second-ranking American officer in Iraq before becoming the senior military aide to Mr. Gates. In a 2007 essay in Military Review, he wrote: “Unless and until there is a significant reorganization of the U.S. government interagency capabilities, the military is going to be the nation’s instrument of choice in nation-building. We need to accept that reality instead of resisting it, as we have for much of my career.” General Petraeus’s last post in Europe was as a senior officer for the NATO force in Bosnia, where he served a tour in 2001 and 2002. “He did a great job for me as a one-star in Bosnia,” said Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, who served as NATO commander at the time and has since retired. “He would have the credibility to keep Afghanistan focused for NATO.” |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #25 Some sort of punishment? |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2008-01-22 22:25 |
| #24 Damn it, give him his fifth star, that'll settle a lot of DoA in house politics quickly. It also sets a precedent that results do count, just doing your time CYA'ing and moving on doesn't. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-01-22 16:48 |
| #23 Petraeus' appointment can be read as a real threat to Nato. If he comes back to the US after his tour, it will be to a farewell debriefing to Congress or the JCS, probably as Chairman. If he damns the Euros with faint praise, especially after the inevitable post election attack, it could have serious repercussions for the alliance, such as it is. The Euros problem is that they have no political will to be a constructive player in the WOT or in any other war, regardless of how courageous their utterly under-equipped military personnel are. If Petraeus reveals what the Euro emperors are wearing, it would make my day. As to DCOS, the appointment of Casey showed that there is still too much room for deadwood in the Army. DCOS would only constrain his freedom and continue to make him subject to the deadwood. Petraeus needs freedom from that establishment if he is to affect change in it. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-01-22 16:47 |
| #22 Whatever he wants, he should get. He deserves it. |
| Posted by: plainslow 2008-01-22 16:17 |
| #21 General Petraeus is already our, and NATO's, senior military commander. POTUS knows this, even if the Joint Chiefs and the democratic party, let alone Western Europe, don't quite realize it. Nothing new about this. For most of the Civil War Grant and Sherman were #1 and 2, and for most of WWII IKE, MacArthur and Nimitz were in similar, ostensibly subordinate, positions. Barring a weird military reversal, or wildly radical domestic changes (Pelosi or Reid, but probably not HIlary or Obama) Gen. Petraeus's accomplishments are pretty well set in stone, and his only non-military choice is whether he goes into elective politics. |
| Posted by: Halliburton - Hyperbolic Idiot Detection Service 2008-01-22 16:13 |
| #20 At this point, NATO is more tail than tooth. Why waste the man's talents just to punch his card on the way to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? |
| Posted by: Deadeye Sniper9982 2008-01-22 15:57 |
| #19 Both. How will he convince our allies to add more troops and send more troops? Counter-insurgency. Patreus: "Hey France, the Taliban said your wine tastes like cool-aid and your cheese tastes like shit." Sarko: "Sacre Bleu, move over Carla I've got to nuke the Talibunnies to the stone age. Bombs away." |
| Posted by: danking70 2008-01-22 15:33 |
| #18 You mean, getting ready to fight a counter insurgency in Western Europe? |
| Posted by: eLarson 2008-01-22 15:27 |
| #17 An expert in counter-insurgency to counter our allies. Any connection to the article about top NATO generals endorsing pre-emptive nuclear strikes? |
| Posted by: danking70 2008-01-22 15:14 |
| #16 I know. That's one of the things that needs turning around. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-01-22 15:02 |
| #15 Some good troops yes, but no political will. The armies have a few fancy toys to show off but when they are deployed the have to rent Helios, etc. Most Nato countries require non-combat areas for deployment. Exceptions, Brits, Dutch, Canadians and some spec ops. |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2008-01-22 14:46 |
| #14 Could be, re: embarassment. But, I'm *hoping* those hollow armies can be reconstituted. Based on my limited experience, there are some good people in uniform over there. If the fecal by products hit the rotating air mover soon, they may make the difference in holding off the hordes vs. the Islamists gaining control of NATO and French nukes. If anyone could help them manage that, it would be Petraeus. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-01-22 14:22 |
| #13 Maybe his success embarrasses too many other Generals so they give him a job counting paper clips and attending Dress Parades. Nato has turned into another League of Nations. The US is propping up a bunch of European hollow armies. |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2008-01-22 14:18 |
| #12 General Petraeus should be appointed God for one year and fix Washington DC. ps hint: think demo first and then start all over... /Gen. David H. Petraeus = national treasure |
| Posted by: RD 2008-01-22 14:15 |
| #11 It's a rotten thing to do to a nice guy. NATO was a prize two decades ago. Now, it's a parking place. How about Army DCoS? |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2008-01-22 13:55 |
| #10 I rather have John Bolton for NATO ambassador? |
| Posted by: ed 2008-01-22 13:23 |
| #9 If Petraeus were given that job duh. He already has the 4th star. pimf |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-01-22 13:19 |
| #8 Could be. Or it could be related to Gates' comments recently to the effect that NATO troops are not getting the training and doctrine they need for counterinsurgency. If Petraeus were given that job and a 4th star, it would not only validate his approach to the surge in Iraq but would also carry weight with NATO allied forces. I know, I know ... I too despair about NATO on most days. But on the other days I remember that insofar as we have productive working relations with western European countries, it's often through the militaries. And with the Ukraine and other central / eastern countries wanting in, his leadership there might be really influential. Which would carry over to a role as Chair of the Joint Chiefs as well. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-01-22 13:18 |
| #7 A golden cage aparently. Unless the Afeghanistan and other issues rise. |
| Posted by: Pholugum Stalin1270 2008-01-22 13:09 |
| #6 Or you want to make a last effort to make NATO more effective in Afghanistan in preparation for Iran .... |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-01-22 13:08 |
| #5 Unless you think the next Big One will be with Iran, soon, and might involve NATO ..... |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-01-22 13:06 |
| #4 Someone needs to take a two by four and slap the Army senior command. This is war not peacetime. Rotation is done to get experience in preparation for the 'Big One'. New bulletin for the 'managers' at Army, this is the 'Big One'. You suspend the peacetime 'business' as usual personnel management approach. You keep the successful commander in the position till you win. And no. NATO is not a reward for what he did achieve. Army Chief of Staff is the reward [though in the case of a real fighter, it might not be]. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-01-22 12:52 |
| #3 Enough of this musical chairs crap with senior officers. Let him consolidate Iraq first and then promote him to a Unified Combatant Command or CoS. |
| Posted by: Spot 2008-01-22 12:52 |
| #2 So, they want to move the man in charge out of an active war zone where he is making a difference and into a 'prestigous position' in charge of do-nothing nato? I thought that was something done with ineffective bosses/generals? Or this a roundabout way to remove him from theatre for a less capable general in charge of Iraq? This is about career and politics and pisses me off on many levels. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2008-01-22 12:48 |
| #1 With all due respect to General Petraeus, one would think his considerable talents were better focused on something other than keeping Warsaw Pact tanks from streaming through the Fulda Gap which, after all, is the mission of NATO. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2008-01-22 12:36 |