Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Share

By Kyle Flynn

Best Defense Special Operations Correspondent

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) hosted a Military Strategy Forum on Thursday, January 21 with General David Petraeus. The formerly famous face of the Iraq surge led a discussion with the audience on a broad range of CENTCOM-related issues including Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Pakistan.

Here is what was on his mind:

  • To be sure, the 18-month Afghan surge timeframe is flexible. Petraeus quickly rejected the notion that U.S. forces would begin an unconditional withdrawal in August 2011. Instead, U.S. forces hope to "start a transition that is conditions-based of tasks from our forces to Afghan forces, again, in areas where those forces and the situation allow it."
  • Recent agreement between the Afghan government and International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) sets Afghan National Security Force (ANSF) end-strength at 305,000 by October 2011. This is up from the current level of 200,000. Petraeus also noted a major upswing in ANSF recruitment in the month of December.
  • General McChrystal's tactical guidance on reducing civilian casualties is supposedly working. While far too many Afghan civilians are still being killed, most of last year's civilian casualties were caused by insurgents rather than ISAF.
  • All surge forces except a division headquarters will be on the ground by the end of August 2011.
  • Like in Iraq, there are two clocks to consider: one in Washington and one in Kabul. In order to achieve success, we have to show progress to both the American and Afghan people. Ironically, Petraeus stated that "it is possible to demonstrate progress...but you're not going to turn Afghanistan."
  • Due to Afghanistan's lack of infrastructure, an enormous building boom is taking place throughout the country. Petraeus' agrees that this may be "the largest building boom in Afghanistan since Alexander built Kandahar."
  • Logistical miracle with supplies moving through Pakistan, Russia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and even a route that starts in Iraq, goes up through Turkey and Azerbaijan, then crosses two bodies of water to Kazakhstan, and ultimately down through Uzbekistan into Afghanistan.
  • Two Afghans, the Minister of Defense Abdul Rahim Wardak and General Karimi made it through U.S. Army Ranger School thirty years ago; meanwhile, there was a twelve year time period when the U.S. did not allow Pakistani officers to attend our military education and training schools.
  • DOD is disturbed by the recent discovery of references to biblical verses found on the weapon sites of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  • Political situation in Iraq recently exacerbated by the Iraqi Accountability and Justice Committee's decision to publish a list of over 500 individuals with alleged links to the former Ba'ath party. As of now, these individuals are disqualified from participating as candidates in the upcoming elections.
  • Although Yemen has been on CENTCOM's radar for years, the decision by al-Qaida's senior leadership in Pakistan to rebrand its Yemen affiliate "al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula" demanded a closer look from the U.S. intelligence community. If you missed Petraeus' recent press conference on the future U.S.-Yemen security arrangement, you can catch it here.
  • Given their limited resources, Pakistan's Army has conducted "impressive" operations to confront the Taliban during the last year: in the Swat Valley; the Malakand Division of the Northwest Frontier Province; Bajaur, Mohmand and Khyber of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas; and most recently South Waziristan. Petraeus notes a "true sea change in Pakistani public opinion, the approach of the political leadership and even that of the clerics, to recognize that certain extremist groups...were really threatening the very existence of Pakistan."
  • Contrary to popular opinion, Petraeus believes that civil-military relations "are very good right now, actually." He believes that Afghan debate sharpened the military's focus.
  • Building trust and finding common ground with Pakistan remains a critical issue.

Given the rough shape of the ANSF, the continuous unraveling of Iraq, and the sanctuary afforded to extremists in Pakistan, I left the discussion contemplating the amount of spin that I had just digested. Even with Petraeus' qualified optimism of Afghanistan, it is hard to imagine anything other than a population-centric slog over the next few years. Whether it will be worth the costs in blood and treasure remains unclear. Nevertheless, I am grateful that this man is charged with the task of overseeing CENTCOMS twenty country area of responsibility.

AHMAD AL-RUBAYE/AFP/Getty Images

 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

RUBBER DUCKY

9:28 PM ET

January 22, 2010

Huh?

"All surge forces except a division headquarters will be on the ground by the end of August 2011."

What the hell? Interferes with vacation plans? The DivCom's dog has a vet's appointment in September? Bizarre.

 

WALKING WOUNDED

11:51 PM ET

January 22, 2010

Not quite all 'surge' forces will be on the ground by 9/11?

So the last-in, a division command, will assume a drawdown mission that's already begun by 8/11? Or the end of the beginning of the draw-down process will take as long as the !@#$%! 'surge'?

Can we now call this 'surge' term for what it is, limp cigar flip-floppy stop-loss bullshit-gate. A little on-record ridicule every time 'surge' leaks into a speech or press conference would be in order, ladies and gentlemen of the press. Please. You know the language has sunk deeper into the quagmire, when we reach back to 'escalation' for clarity.

Re the ballooning ANA ranks, Gen. Crooke's frontier doctrine was that he would rather hire too many many scouts than fight too many hostiles. Our Pashtun enemy would understand Crooke's passion for mules.

 

VICTOR

3:56 AM ET

January 23, 2010

I'm sure he means by Aug 2010

I'm sure he means by Aug 2010 - that's the deadline the military and Obama admin has talked about as the time to have all the surge units in place. I'd bet it's just a typo

 

TYRTAIOS

5:17 PM ET

January 23, 2010

Crook and Petraeus

General Crook was also aware, that though the victor sets the conditions for the defeated, he understood the value of having the defeated on his side: "Crook never lied to us. His words gave the people hope." -- Lakota Chief Red Cloud

I wonder if Big Dave had been CENTCOM instead of Franks, if he would have advocated, as I know Crook would have, this approach? Becasue, had we reached-out to those Taliban willing to toss their hat in the ring, after toppling their government in Kabul, we might not be having this discussion about surges or as the old Legionnaire calls it, la montee en puissance militaire? : |

Incidentally, I do admire Patraeus's tactical handling of his command in Mosul, while his theater commander was getting out of indian country, and others were sitting on their thumbs wondering, what now.

However, having reviewed his statement concerning Pakistan, I would hope he has a more reserved assessment in private concerning that country?

 

KYLE FLYNN

6:14 PM ET

January 23, 2010

Typo

Meant August 2010, all surge forces except for a division headquarters will be on the ground by August 2010.

 

RUBBER DUCKY

9:50 PM ET

January 22, 2010

More to say...

In WW-II, from a cold start, US and British forces commenced Operation Torch in North Africa less than 12 months after Pearl Harbor. within 18 months we'd won the Battle of Midway and invaded Guadalcanal. But...wWith $638 billion in the 2010 defense budget, air and sea mobility of great capacity, additional lift available commercially, CRAF, etc. ... we can't get a smallish surge fully in place in 23 months?

Let's hear it again for the vaunted All Volunteer Force! Looks great in its GI Joe pajamas (wow - Petraeus is really turned out well). But lacking the capacity to undertake extended combat operations and woefully unprepared to execute mission in a war that's been going on for over 8 years.

If Sigmund Romberg were making a patriotic operetta in our time, I'm sure he'd put all the military cast members in cammies. Perhaps he could mix it with a western theme built on the AVF. Would not need livestock. Great name for the extravaganza: call it Big Hat, No Cattle.

 

TYRTAIOS

11:04 PM ET

January 22, 2010

Prepare for Heavy Rolls

Hold that thought on cammies Rubber Ducky, because it appears the Navy will be singing along, dress-right-dressed, in the new work uniform, soon to hit the beach with its digital pattern - dominent blue option, and is a sight to behold.

I'm told it will be authorized to wear in town on business in the greater Norfolk/Tidewater area. It's called jointness blog shipmate, ain't it grand?

 

RUBBER DUCKY

11:29 PM ET

January 22, 2010

Soon is now...

Navy cammies already in place. Look especially grand on fat CPOs. Will be worn in submarines, doubtless to advance stealth abilities. Dumbest goddam idea since the soup sandwich.

 

VICTOR

4:38 AM ET

January 23, 2010

The military is pretty slow

The military is pretty slow and inefficient with this kind of thing (though, as noted above, I think its actually Aug 2010 not 2011 - a typo) - can't disagree with you there. I don't think sealift is a problem for this surge - if we were able (politically) to send units across Pakistan, the full surge could be done very quickly. But, given that this is politically impossible, everything sensitive and everyone has to go in by air. And as I understand, airlift is in very high demand. Most of the airlift in theater isn't available for deploying additional forces - the capacity is mainly committed to supporting the units already there and carrying out the yearly rotations of units. Could we contract for commercial airlift more than we already do? I'm not sure - I know we've been hiring super-heavy Russian cargo aircraft to support us in OIF and OEF for years. I don't know if there is that much more cargo capacity out there for the large items we need to carry.

And let's not get carried away with the usual WWII comparisons. Yeah, $638 billion is a lot - but its only 4 or maybe 5% of GDP (as opposed to ~40% of GDP we spent in WWII). If this were a total war or even a very large one, we would divert some of our civilian economy to supporting the war. But we seem completely unwilling to do so. And if we drafted troops and paid them WWII-style salaries instead of the current civilian-equivalent salaries and benefits, we'd have plenty of money for all the airlift and equipment we want. But no one will support that. And we'd have to be prepared for the troops in theater to live in very austere conditions for their tours, not the relative comfort we've come to expect.

 

KYLE FLYNN

6:49 PM ET

January 23, 2010

General Petraeus interupted by Georgetown students

http://www.thehoya.com/news/protests-disrupt-petraeus-speech/

 

Thomas E. Ricks covered the U.S. military for the Washington Post from 2000 through 2008.

Read More