Petraeus tells a story

Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Thursday, March 24, 2011 - 11:45 AM Share

Here's a story that Gen. David Petraeus told the other day, according to the Manchester Guardian.

"This was about 20 years ago when I was the aide to the Army Chief of Staff in the Pentagon and Colin Powell was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"One of my fellow aides overheard the joint chiefs killing time before they were waiting for the arrival of a foreign dignitary. And the topic of conversation turned to examples of true importance. And what it really meant to be truly important.

"And after a bit of banter, one of the chiefs offered what seemed to be quite a good opinion on this.

"In my view, he said, true importance is a meeting with the President of the United States in the Oval Office, during which the President asks all of the other attendees to leave so that he can do a 'one on one' just with you.

"All the chiefs nodded at that.

"But then another chief chimed in. 'Actually chiefs, he asserted, 'true importance is a 'one on one' meeting with the President in the Oval Office during which the President is so intent on what you are saying that he doesn't even answer the hotline when it rings'.

"Well that had all the heads nodding in agreement. Until General Powell , a man who had, of course, as the National Security Advisor, spent quite a bit of time in the Oval Office, settled the question once and for all.

"Chiefs," he said authoritatively, "true importance is a personal meeting with the President in the Oval Office, during which when the hotline rings, the President answers the phone, holds it out and says -- Here Colin, it's for you".

(HT to PL and the great people of Australia.)

MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:MILITARY

(8)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

TYRTAIOS

5:22 PM ET

March 24, 2011

The flip-side

That is an amusing story by Big Dave, which reminds me: Lieutenant General Victor Krulak had a closed door 10-minute meeting with LBJ. The conversation is not a matter of recorded record, but it is thought the pint sized Krulak told LBJ what he thought of his handling of the war in Viet-Nam, briefly laying-out how it ought to be handled.

Krulak, who was thought to head the short list to be the next CMC, retired shortly thereafter, which also left a void in the advocacy for the Marines way of doing business up in I Corps, and saw us spread thin and our combat power tied down uselessly.

Excuse my rant, I'll give it a break. But that may be an example of the flip-side of one-on-one meetings with the president.

GOLD STAR FATHER

5:35 PM ET

March 24, 2011

Marinespeak

"I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar-soaked fingers out of the business of these nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own -- and if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type because the "haves" refuse to share with the "have-nots" by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don't want and above all don't want crammed down their throats by Americans."
General David Shoup
22nd Commandant of the Marine Corps
MOH awardee, Tarawa

Also:
"Shoup advised against both the Bay of Pigs invasion and the commitment of U.S. ground forces in the Vietnam War. When the invasion of Cuba was first discussed, Shoup did a demonstration with maps. Placing a transparent map of Cuba over the United States, he surprised viewers that assumed it was a small island, not 800 mile long. He then put another transparent map overlay over Cuba, with a small red dot. Shoup explained that dot was the size of Tarawa, and "it took us three days and eighteen thousand Marines to take it." David Halberstam said Shoup became John F. Kennedy's favorite general, but Kennedy did not take Shoup's warning."
Halberstam, David (1972), The Best and the Brightest, Random House, pp. 66-67

WALKING WOUNDED

10:15 PM ET

March 24, 2011

According to MacNamara, Kennedy was set to pull our 'advisors'

... and that was Mac's '63 counsel. It seems likely that JFK would have attempted 'strategic opacity' waited until after the 1964 election cycle to announce that decision as a lame duck Pres. The LBJ WH phone tapes confirm Mac's (Fog of War) account, that the LBJ policy was a reversal of Mac's advise to extricate ourselves on the cheap, with minimal loss of face.

LBJ faced a different electoral calculus after Nov. 1964 than JFK anticipated. LBJ was likely to see Saigon in extremis before 1968, bad for a re-election bid. And so he committed troops in '65, cranked up the bombing in an attempt to force a negotiated settlement on Hanoi. LBJ didn't want to face Truman's single-term fate, needed to prove his admin's Democrats weren't 'weak on communism.'

1971 found Nixon's men executing national war strategy around his re-election needs. Either way, stay or leave, 'maximise future US influence' was our non-negotiable strategic aim, but Nixon couldn't admit the price, needed a 'decent interval', meaning a second term.

Playing 'the China card' bought Kissinger nothing with Hanoi, or their major backers in Moscow, whatever the inscrutable Chou implied. After a 10+ year war, we ultimately failed to secure our reputation and military honor, within a national command framework that placed primacy on re-election of the CIC/President.

The JFK-LBJ reversal on war in VN (and Nixon's 'secret plan') illustrates the danger our country faces today, as it did in 2003. Defense of the realm takes second seat to election cycle strategies. Bush '41 was a peace president, when he lost, W a 'war pres' when he finally got a majority vote.

Paradoxically, we now have to re-elect Pres. Obama, before his 'commitment' to finally end George W's wars comes due. Meanwhile, we get a new example of 'strategic opacity' in Libya, to go with US arms and aims for Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Israel, Pakistan, Philippines, Indonesia, Columbia, Mexico etc.

WHISKEYPAPA

1:35 PM ET

March 25, 2011

Obama

I certainly think Obama's decision to increase the force in Afghanistan rather than pull out was predicated on his political needs.

What is sad is that had he taken the more rational course and gotten our guys out, FOX News and others would have excoriated him and an ignorant unengaged citizenry would bought FOX's line hook line and sinker.

So now our guys get killed for nothing at all and we accomplish nothing worthy.

Walt

HUNTER

6:29 PM ET

March 24, 2011

Levity

I'll allow that even the Chiefs can have some levity. So I don't take this story to seriously either.

But still I wonder at the hubris and aspiration of mankind, that even when charged with control of a single arm of the single superpowers most powerful military...they still clamor for MOAR.

FG42

8:01 PM ET

March 24, 2011

Ah, thank goodness for Super

Ah, thank goodness for Super Dave. Now, at last, we have a general who can compete with the former Soviet generals on who can fit in the most medals and ribbons in the space between the shoulders and the waist.

64DRIVER

8:23 PM ET

March 24, 2011

Interesting

that he's taken a pass (at least so far) on the new Army Service Uniform, to which we're all supposed to be converting.

HUNTER

8:35 PM ET

March 24, 2011

Grrr

I just got notice that the uniform for War College orientation is ASU, Class B version. That means I have to go buy a pair of those low waist pants. Even though they just announced wear out date is something like 2016. But I understand the Military District of Washington D.C. is under a different cloud. Apparently Petraeus makes his own rain.