Article

2007-09-30 Home Front: WoT

History Will Not Judge General Petraeus Kindly

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2007-09-30 01:08|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top
File under: Iraqi Insurgency

#1 There is some logical merit to what Bacevich has written - if you take Iraq as an isolated situation, not connected in time or space with any other events.

One question that might be asked: Is Iraq following September 2007 the ultimate best test and worst trial that the US Armed Forces are likely to face within the next generation? Or within the next ten years, Or next three years?

Bacevich is basically advocating the "commitment of the reserve" in support of winning a decisive battle. Committing your reserve is always a last resort measure - that you only take when the potential rewards outweigh the probable risks.

Might there not be a coming conflict of even greater proportions and significance, for which we need to conserve some resources? The "Normandy" style battle to which he refers mght be next year, in another nearby cesspit nation. And - it might be wise to "rest and refit" the forces a bit, in preparation for that battle.

Who probably knows the most about possible future plans that might require a somehwat "fresh" fighting force? Is it Bacevich? Or is it Petraeus? I'll put my money on Petraeus.

As far as I am concerned, Iraq is looking less and less like a war, and more and more like a particularly nasty civil disturbance. The idea that US troops should be shedding blood to prevent Iraqi troops and police from shedding blood does not make sense to me. It is like having a $100,000 computer system blow out, to protect a $0.25 fuse.

I suspect that a "shock and awe" event involving clear cut combat offense is drawing near - and not in Iraq.

Posted by Lone Ranger 2007-09-30 03:21|| 2007-09-30 03:21|| Front Page Top

#2 If Petraeus actually believes that he can salvage something akin to success in Iraq and if he agrees with President Bush about the consequences of failure - genocidal violence, Iraq becoming a launching pad for terrorist attacks directed against the United States, the Middle East descending into chaos that consumes Israel, the oil-dependent global economy shattered beyond repair, all of this culminating in the emergence of a new Caliphate bent on destroying the West - then surely this moment of (supposed) promise is not a time for scrimping. Rather, now is the time to go all out - to insist upon a maximum effort.

Sounds real good on paper.

There is some logical merit to what Bacevich has written - if you take Iraq as an isolated situation, not connected in time or space with any other events.

Lone Ranger, cuts to the chase.

Who probably knows the most about possible future plans that might require a somewhat "fresh" fighting force? Is it Bacevich? Or is it Petraeus? I'll put my money on Petraeus.

Given who has been most successful in actual combat circumstances, I'd have to agree.

As far as I am concerned, Iraq is looking less and less like a war, and more and more like a particularly nasty civil disturbance. The idea that US troops should be shedding blood to prevent Iraqi troops and police from shedding blood does not make sense to me. It is like having a $100,000 computer system blow out, to protect a $0.25 fuse.

Old saying: "A $300 picture tube will protect a 50¢ fuse by blowing first."

I suspect that a "shock and awe" event involving clear cut combat offense is drawing near - and not in Iraq.

We can only dearly hope so. Iraq is but a prelude to the real event.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-09-30 03:52|| 2007-09-30 03:52|| Front Page Top

#3 LtCol (ret) Bacevich is also a member of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy.

The Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy is a group of scholars, policy makers and concerned citizens united by our opposition to an American empire. The Coalition is dedicated to promoting an alternative vision for American national security strategy that is consistent with American traditions and values.

Posted by lotp 2007-09-30 05:42|| 2007-09-30 05:42|| Front Page Top

#4 Bacevich's posts at HufPo are filled with the same breathless urgency and profligate rhetoric that shows up in a lot of blog entries and comments from all sides of the political spectrum.

I haven't read Bacevich's books. From his articles online and in the popular press, however, he strikes me as being stuck in Vietnam era assumptions, shaped by his 1 year in Vietnam, early in his Army career.

Two examples of this from the article above. First, the assumption that the army can and should double or triple its size on a crash basis. That arguably was a doable course of action in the Vietnam era of conscript soldiers wielding relatively low tech equipment. It is not (from what I can tell) doable at all today under anything other than a national consensus of extreme emergency. And even then I'm not sure it's doable - not without destroying our Army's effectiveness. This is not your hippy-draft-dodger, learn which end of the rifle to hold and we're off, Army.

The second Vietnam era echo in Bachevich's writing is the charge that Petraeus is first and foremost a political general who has betrayed and broken promise with his troops. Set aside, for a moment, the fact that from what I've heard Petraeus is a highly respected and loved operational commander whose combat leadership was deeply effective before he assumed this larger command. Bachevich is arguing that Petraeus should have been MORE political - attempting to change national policy in broad ways.

The key here is that Bachevich's call for doubling or tripling the size of the Army is disingenuous in the extreme. He does indeed want Petraeus to make such a call -- because he ~~knows~~ believes the country would recoil in anger and force a change of policy in the MidEast in response.

It would appear from what I've read of his writings so far that it is Bachevich, not Petraeus, who is ultimately the accomodater. He and those of like mind believe that we can find our way through the post 80s world by diplomacy that will yield lasting peace if we only find the right accomdations to make with the Arabs, with the Palestinians, with the Russians, with the Chinese.

One has only to look at the CRFP document calling on Israel to withdraw to the green line, combined with vague statements that the Palestinians should be given aid to help them establish a stable country, to see the thrust of that point of view.

What he ignores is that under Clinton that was exactly the policy we followed. And it's pretty clear it didn't work.

He's right that our Army and Marine Corps is stretched to near the breaking point. Where we go next, tho, is a matter not only for debate but of great urgency as well.

Posted by lotp 2007-09-30 06:21|| 2007-09-30 06:21|| Front Page Top

#5 The man would be right---if some kind of US-friendly government in Iraq was possible. It isn't (I've written here in the past about the difference between the Arab---relatedness based, and "Western"---reciprocity based, systems of ethics. Voice shouting in the desert, so to speak).
IMO, that Petraeus, and Joint Chiefs, are doing is trying to preserve US military, which cannot survive another Vietnam like retreat---hoping, I guess, that reducing Iran will overawe Iraqis enough for a retreat which is not a rout.

p.s. 3 billion a week---as an Israeli I find the number, shall I say, interesting.

Posted by gromgoru 2007-09-30 07:15|| 2007-09-30 07:15|| Front Page Top

#6 Do tell.

Posted by lotp 2007-09-30 08:16|| 2007-09-30 08:16|| Front Page Top

#7 Only time will tell.

That's why we call it history. It takes time. I remember all the 'professional' moaning and groaning about 'not winning Korea' through the 60s. I doubt anyone today looking at the two Koreas can even question, 'who won'.

after four years of futile blundering

And yet you reference 'Grant' before that. Sorta skips your mind that your description fits the situation Grant was put in and at best all he could do was lock Lee into place, while Sherman cleaned up everything else along the Eastern seaboard. But, that was the plan.

What then should he have recommended to the Congress and the president? That is, if the commitment of a modest increment of additional forces ï¿½- the 30,000 troops comprising the surge, now employed in accordance with sound counterinsurgency doctrine ï¿½- has begun to turn things around, then what should the senior field commander be asking for next?

A single word suffices to answer that question: more. More time. More money. And above all, more troops.

No. You might be a officer and historian, but you ignore Korea. We 'surged' till the Koreans could do more of the effective heavy lifting. It took time to train and equip [and reequip] the Koreans. It worked. Korea was a 'economy of forces' theater, because the newly minted DoD was far more concerned about the threat posed in Central Europe. Yep, that's the message, ignore your own record on Korea. No model there.

This defies logic. Itï¿½s as if two weeks into the Wilderness Campaign, Grant had counseled Lincoln to reduce the size of the Army of the Potomac. Or as if once Allied forces had established the beachhead at Normandy, Eisenhower had started rotating divisions back stateside to ease the strain on the U.S. Army. ....

Grant wasn't training and equipping locales to take over the heavy work and neither was Ike. Sorta miss that 'nuance' there didn't you. I guess its natural given that submerged in our own record of the Korean conflict and our contribution is the bottom line fact in casualties is that the South Koreans paid the premium of the butcher's bill. We shifted a lot on their shoulders. They didn't have the luxury of others giving them enough breathing room to do the training in a less deadly environment, so they learned the hard way, in blood.

The author misses a point of an American character of war. Enlist the locales to carry the fight. In the end it wasn't the Army that got Geronimo, it was the Apache Scouts. In the end it was the South Koreans who shouldered the bulk of the fighting in Korea. It was the South Vietnamese who were carrying on successfully, till a Democratic Congress cut all material and financial funding giving the enemy their triumph that so long had been denied them.

The object is to provide just enough [remember the concept of 'economy of force'] support to the Iraqis to carry the fight. And it appears that has begun. The Iraqis provide the depth. With AQ's turning on the population and the 'awakening' to their own security needs filling the ranks of the Coalition, that depth is now denied AQ and is added to 'our' side. The enemy can not sustain themselves. It's the logistics of personnel.

The author needs to really revisit the turn around achieved by Gen. Matthew Ridgway after the collapse of the Army at the Yalu in Korea. This piece demonstrates either ignorance of that record or his own sand bagging for his argument.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-09-30 08:49|| 2007-09-30 08:49|| Front Page Top

#8 This is the difference between a Colonel and a General. Colonels are really the highest ranking military leaders. Generals are liaisons between superior units, different armies, and civilian leaders.

Once this distinction has been made, just by listening to a Colonel, you can tell if he ever has a chance to become a General. Granted, in a time of severe stress, a "fighting Colonel" may be made a General, but it will never be a good fit.

There are indeed "Command" Generals, but there are also "Logistical" Generals, "Administrative" Generals, and yes, "Political" Generals, all of whom are essential in supporting a military and keeping it fit.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-09-30 09:22|| 2007-09-30 09:22|| Front Page Top

#9 It's a J curve issue. Iraq dipped way down in the instability part of the curve. At that point people want stability first and foremost and the surge is providing that, bit by bit.

Iraqis will need to pull themselves up the right hand side of the curve to an open, representative and responsible society. What we can do to foster that is to make it clear we're not leaving soon, thereby threatening increased instability if they go backward to embrace a strongman / mullahs.

Doesn't have to be about ethics vs. relatedness. Boots on the ground in just the right numbers combined with persistance.

Posted by lotp 2007-09-30 09:25|| 2007-09-30 09:25|| Front Page Top

#10 Lt Col carries no weight, especially a blanket folder like this guy was. Lets face it, if you are West Point and as far as you go is Lt Col, you aren't much of an officer to refer to on command and strategy.

I'm sorry for his loss, I've personally seen 3 of my boyscout kids buried, and one nephew who lived with us for several years as a teenager as well as my son;s best friend (Anbar, there wasnt enough left for an open casket). But his loss gives him no more athority on this that mine do me.

He is a political hack like Cindy Sheehan, grinding his axe.

Biggest flaw this dumbass has? If we blanket the place, the Iraqis will quit, and it will be far too heavy a hand, and will result in backlash. The time for huge forces was when we first went in. This guy is an idiot for not even bothering with cultural and political considerations in IRAQ, not the US, dictating the level of forces. Its a kin to saying a little bit of starter gar helped start this camp fire nicely, lets dump the whole gallon on there now.

Furthermore, remember that the success were due to PRESENCE that was balanced, and ROE that allowed us to be effective. Ask any soldier over there - and look back to my complaints - the ROE held us back.

This moron former officer completely missed the point: The change in ROE and tactics (staying once we get there) is what turned thigns around, For it to be effective we needed more troops, but we got what we needed, and have succeeded. Tell me again professor, how will more troops help us in Anbar? The Marines there aren't even wearing heavy armor in many places. How ill more troops help us in Baghdad? We shop up and pacify all the areas without Iraqi faces (there aren't enough well trained troops to match us), then it becomes an occupation again, not a liberation.

This professor is a fool trading on his west point diploma.

Posted by OldSpook 2007-09-30 10:55|| 2007-09-30 10:55|| Front Page Top

#11 Let us assume instead that Petraeus genuinely believes that he has broken the code in Iraq...

WARNING: Bad Metaphor Alert! Code breaking is a static problem - find the key and it's game over. A better analytical model for war is a game - you move, your opponent moves; moves and counter moves. The situation changes constantly as one side or another gains the initiative.

Something people ignore when talking about Iraq is that 'the war' is two separate conflicts. The first was the Shock and Awe campaign that successfully removed Saddam. It was over at the Mission Accomplished stage. Following that is the ongoing proxy war being waged by Iran and Syria via their imported jihadis and al Qaeda. It is a separate game and Petraeus seems to be playing it very well.

Bottom line: I'm not impressed with this guy's analysis. Like OS said, the change ROE is making a difference.

Posted by SteveS 2007-09-30 11:57|| 2007-09-30 11:57|| Front Page Top

#12 The time for huge forces was when we first went in. This guy is an idiot for not even bothering with cultural and political considerations in IRAQ, not the US, dictating the level of forces.

It's possible that a large amount of troops at the early stage might have been counter-productive, due to Iraqi cultural and political considerations.

It is funny tho, that being a 'political general' is an epithet when he doesn't serve your purposes. Colin Powell was a political officer; I don't recall Bacevich and his ilk ever putting this kind of blather out about him.

Posted by Pappy 2007-09-30 12:59|| 2007-09-30 12:59|| Front Page Top

#13 Doesn't have to be about ethics vs. relatedness.

As I said, voice in the wildness.

Posted by gromgoru 2007-09-30 14:25|| 2007-09-30 14:25|| Front Page Top

#14 Ok, let's try again with a little detail.

The relatedness vs. reciprocity tension is not simply one between Arabs vs. the West. As early as 1968 Fauzi M. Najjar argued, in an influential paper, that this tension existed within Egypt, as Nassar's socialism came into conflict with traditional feudal Islamic culture. Indeed, he argued that the emerging Islamicism of the Muslim Brotherhood was a response to the real inroads made by socialism and the interaction of traditional Egyptian ways of life with the modern western world.

Ahmed al-Najjar certainly agreed. A German-trained Egyptian economist, he was an early and tireless promoter of Islamicism. Among his accomplishments was to encourage the Sauds and others to form Arab banks which became - by intent - the channels for promoting Salafist / Wahabist movements.

His argument for so doing was that the Western banking systems inevitably would erode Islamic forms of relationship power in favor of quantitative reciprocity, thereby eroding Islamic identity -- an erosion he believed had already happened and would continue under Nassar.

The relationship vs. reciprocity tension has created cracks within Arab countries for decades. Petraeus understands this and is using it beautifully: find, create, deepen and exploit those cracks. Create relationships of convenience such as those in Anbar. They may not have deep roots, but they are useful for now. We'll see over time the degree to which those roots deepen and spread. Or not.

Posted by lotp 2007-09-30 14:54|| 2007-09-30 14:54|| Front Page Top

#15 Oky doky lotp, call me when US Moslems will become loyal american citizens.

Posted by gromgoru 2007-09-30 23:33|| 2007-09-30 23:33|| Front Page Top

23:52 Eric Jablow
23:38 twobyfour
23:34 OldSpook
23:33 gromgoru
23:32 OldSpook
23:31 OldSpook
23:30 OldSpook
23:27 twobyfour
23:21 JosephMendiola
23:14 Zenster
23:13 JosephMendiola
23:06 JosephMendiola
23:05 Jan
23:02 JosephMendiola
22:59 Zenster
22:59 JosephMendiola
22:53 JosephMendiola
22:52 Old Patriot
22:50 JosephMendiola
22:46 Red Dawg
22:29 Seafarious
22:19 McZoid
22:15 Zenster
22:07 Zenster