Petraeus To Take Over Iraq

January 8, 2007 | By Sniper One |

Perhaps the best piece of commentary I have seen on the change of Command in Iraq, comes from a comment over a Right Wing News. Mike_M says the following:

Changing generals when changing strategy? What a concept. Apparently nobody in the media thinks that different generals may have different ideas, preferences, or specialties. In fact, it would be pretty suspect if Bush announced a change in strategy with absolutely no change to the command structure. You don’t run a two-minute offense in football out of the Power I-Formation, you put in different personnel with different capabilities.

How about that for intelligent commentary. You don’t use the same group of players for each formation in Football, why should we be expected to keep the same Generals on the battlefield during a war when we are changing tactics? Simple, to the point and understandable. So why doesn’t Congress get it? The problem is they do get it, they just want to choose to complain about it.

The Democrats and the media are making a fuss about Bush moving Petraeus in to replace General Casey saying that Bush just got rid of Casey because Casey disagreed about increasing the troop levels in Iraq. Well, moving Casey up to be Army Chief of Staff doesn’t seem like he’s really getting rid of Casey. This seems like a “tails I win, heads you lose” sort of criticism. Critics say that what we have been doing in Iraq has been badly handled. Bush decides to make changes and move in new people and suddenly he’s being criticized for not keeping the same people whom were just being criticized for doing things wrong.

I got to Iraq shortly after General Petraeus left command at MNSTC-I. In my time in Iraq, I heard nothing but good things about him. One of the contractors I worked with in Iraq, Fang, also was an Enlisted member of the Army. She had worked very closely with General Petraeus, and thought very highly of him. It would appear that the idea of a surge is coming from General Petraeus himself.

Petraeus, if controversial among some peers who deem him arrogant or excessively ambitious, is seen by many others as perhaps the last, best hope for success in Iraq. “If anyone can pick up the baton and run with it, it is David Petraeus,” said retired Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, a former Army chief of staff. After spending 2 1/2 of the past four years in Iraq, as a division commander and then as the officer overseeing the initial reconstruction of Iraqi security forces, Petraeus is known to believe that a stable, pacified Iraq is still possible — if not probable — but not without dramatically improved security. Having also served in Bosnia after the catastrophic civil war there, he has told friends that he sees troubling parallels between that country and Iraq. Two months ago, he said, “I actually stay awake occasionally at night trying to figure out the path ahead.” Upon Senate confirmation and the receipt of his fourth star, making him a full general, he is expected to spend some weeks assessing conditions in Iraq and drafting a strategic plan that goes beyond the current debate over whether to increase U.S. troop levels by up to five brigades, roughly 20,000 troops. That “surge” is consistent with the military’s new counterinsurgency manual, much of which Petraeus wrote, which stresses protecting the indigenous population and imposing security as a condition for stability.

Those who are criticizing Bush for not listening to his military commanders aren’t actually recognizing that he is listening to the incoming commanders, and not the current commanders on the ground. Those accusing him of shopping for Generals, are more than likely the same people who are complaining that the current tactics are not working. When you decide to send in your other formation, don’t you give when what they need to win? Doesn’t giving General Petraeus what he believes he needs to win make make sense?

Sphere: Related Content

Tagged with army, Attila, Casey, Congress., David Petraeus, Enlisted, Gordon R. Sullivan, Senate |