Monday, June 27, 2011 - 11:06 AM

It was easy to miss this exchange, which near the end of Gen. Petraeus' confirmation hearing for CIA last week. It is worth reading closely.
GEN. PETRAEUS: ...So again, I would come back, if I could, Chairman, to my point, which has to do strictly with the military commander on the ground strictly evaluating, again, the military campaign plan in awareness of the strategic context and these other factors that are out there in explicit recognition that others have to evaluate those factors. I cannot do that. Only the president of the United States can assess all of the different considerations.
And again, I should note that I stated this in the situation room to acknowledge that indeed in this process there are broader concerns than those of the military commander. And as a result, I obviously support the ultimate decision of the commander-in-chief -- that is, we take an oath to obey the orders of the president of the United States and indeed do that.
SEN. LEVIN: And if you couldn't do that -- if you couldn't do that consistent with that oath, you would resign?
GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, I'm not a quitter, Chairman. And I don't -- I think that that -
SEN. LEVIN: Well, but that's important -- (inaudible).
(Cross talk.)
GEN. PETRAEUS: I've actually had people e-mail me and say that, and I actually -- this is something that I have thought a bit about.
SEN. LEVIN: I'm sure you have.
GEN. PETRAEUS: And I don't think that it is the place for a commander to -- actually to consider that kind of step unless you are in a very, very dire situation. This is a -- this is an important decision. It is, again, a more aggressive approach than the chairman, General Mattis and I and -- would have indeed certainly put forward, but this is not something I think where one hangs up the uniform in protest or something like that.
SEN. LEVIN: Just the final part of this -
GEN. PETRAEUS: You know, if I could continue though, Chairman, I feel actually quite strongly about this. Our troopers don't get to quit, and I don't think that commanders should contemplate that, again, as any kind of idle kind of action. That would be an extraordinary action, in my view.
And at the end of the day, this is not about me, it's not about an individual commander, it's not about a reputation. This is about our country. and the best step for our country, with the commander- in-chief having made a decision, is to execute that decision to the very best of our ability, to do everything I can during the remainder of my time as commander of ISAF to enable General Allen then to take the effort forward and then, if confirmed, to be the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, to do everything I can from that position with that great organization to support the effort as well.
SEN. LEVIN: I think that's well put, and it's -- very reflective of your character. You are a man of extraordinary honor and we all are in your debt.
(HT to TD)
“SEN. LEVIN: I think that's well put, and it's -- very reflective of your character. You are a man of extraordinary honor and we all are in your debt.”
What is all this sucking up to Petraeus by an elected member of Congress? One would have thought that Petraeus had actually won a war or some such thing? And why are we in Petraeus’s debt? Has be been applying his dubious ‘talents’ for free? Such over the top plaudits should be reserved for government employees that actually produce not for one whose nom de plume of ‘COIN’ has been an expensive and ineffectual bust.
COIN has been expensive and ineffectual compared to what?
Compare Iraq under Casey and then under Petraeus.
I did, firsthand.
Obviously, a lot of people had a hand in that; but he was the commander.
Compared to what? How about compared to WW II. COIN is a resource hog and is premised upon unique experiences by others during colonial periods.
You're comparing Coin resources requirements to WWII? Seriously? Would you prefer that we used a WWII paradigm and just kill everyone, level everything at the first sign of resistance?
True. It is a resource hog and not hugely effective.
So? We're not fighting WWII. We're fighting the low-intensity conflicts our political masters have chosen. HIC is not an option.
It's apparently very trendy to bash on COIN / Petraeus et al this month. I'm not sure if this is because of troop draw-down talks, the federal deficit, half-baked criticism of an ill-supported strategy, or if it's just popular.
Either way, most of the criticism I've read in the last month or two are heavy on rhetoric, light on evidence. I suspect it's simply the impetus of a new trend of moving back to conventional warfare tactics after preparing to officially withdraw from our Middle Eastern engagements.
Thanks for the replies. COIN requires nation building and we not only . . . wait a minute, what the word I'm looking for? Oh yes: we suck at it, and have no concept of the minimalist approach, and it is bankrupting us. It also pre-ordains the COG will be the population, which may-or-may-not be true, but we say so because someone who operated many years ago, under and established and functioning colonial government in their sous-quartier said so?
That is what I don’t concur with on COIN as written at the moment. . .
Ty, you're not answering the question
Yes, those are all reasons COIN sucks..and I agree with all of it. So?
Once again, our political masters have chosen these conflicts, not Petraeus. So, what's your alternative tactical choice in a LIC? You don't have one.
The real problem with you old coots is that since you don't have Bush/Cheney around to beat up anymore (often rightfully) so instead you attack the Army by proxy. But we didn't pick these conflicts. So, again, what's your alternative if you're Petraeus?
LIEBER, I don't beat up on anyone. . .you boot. I've just been around longer and know where this is going again.
As for anwering the question: my idea is not to fight low intensity conflicts, however, I'm all for a bit of FID.
perpetuating the Petraeus myth?
December 2006 while the President was announcing his new Iraq strategy, P4 was running a school house in Kansas. According to Tom's latest book, the "surge" plan was Odierno's.
I thought this to be the most interesting
....... Especially for those who still want to believe that strategy is within the purview of the military:
"Only the president of the United States can assess all of the different considerations.
And again, I should note that I stated this in the situation room to acknowledge that indeed in this process there are broader concerns than those of the military commander."
Petraeus is a good Commander, as opposed to someone like Tommy Franks, who just up and decided he didn't want to play anymore and got on a plane and went home, leaving others to clean up the mess.
actually Franks was scheduled for retirement, he did not just up and leave...He made a lot of mistakes, should have planned better for Phase IV, perhaps given better advice, but saying he did not want to play any more is a bit off the mark
My characterization is accurate enough in its essence. Reread page 155 and 156 (paperback) of TR's book on the subject.
that's a wonderful phrase, you should work in politics
Please email Tom at ricksblog@cnas.or so that I can email you directly with a pdf of all US unit locations with photos.
Once again, senators easily fooled
Here are the words well put and indicative of Petraeus's character -- the Levin review of "Our troopers don't get to quit, and I don't think that commanders should contemplate that, again, as any kind of idle kind of action. That would be an extraordinary action, in my view."
The general said that resigning a commission should not be idle. Levin, possibly stunned by the uniform, thought he was saying something quite different. I agree that these words are indicative of Petraeus's character. They do not suggest he is the right man for his present position. He might be better suited to the sly and secretive world of the CIA. Certainly knows how to fool a senator.
On the other hand, does the nation really need a CIA director reported in Rolling Stone as expressing desire to teach the president that he's not somebody to be fucked with?
"Certainly knows how to fool a senator."
"Certainly knows how to fool a senator."
What an extraordinarily low bar you've set there. Do you think after years of jousting with shysters like Allawi and Maliki and Karzai that Petraeus doesn't have a clue about dealing with low class mob bosses like our Congresscritters?
This is perhaps the best phrasing of the "right to be wrong" principle of democratic civil-military relations that I've seen an office make. I am sure that Dick Kohn is quite proud.
Pete Feaver discussed it a day or 2 ago over at shadow government if you'd like a quick-and-dirty. See http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/06/24/obamas_afghanistan_strategy_and_the_right_to_be_wrong
Don Bacon, don't knock Petraeus for all his medals and badges. He's the first general we've had who has a chance to hold his own against those old-time Soviet generals with all their ribbons and medals on sides of his jacket. Of course, he's now bumped up against his shoulder strap, so he's got to start going down to his waist before we can really say he's in the same league as Marshall Zhukov, for example.
(22)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE