Mon 16 Aug, 2010
Does Petraeus own anything that doesn't have camo on it?
Democrats are the new Republicans.
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of American and NATO forces, began a campaign on Sunday to convince an increasingly skeptical public that the American-led coalition can still succeed here despite months of setbacks, saying he had not come to Afghanistan to preside over a “graceful exit.”
In an hourlong interview with The New York Times, the general argued against any precipitous withdrawal of forces in July 2011, the date set by President Obama to begin at least a gradual reduction of the 100,000 troops on the ground. General Petraeus said that it was only in the last few weeks that the war plan has been fine-tuned and given the resources that it required. “For the first time,” he said. “we will have what we have been working to put in place for the last year and a half.”
In another in a series of interviews, on “Meet the Press,” General Petraeus even appeared to leave open the possibility that he would recommend against any withdrawal of American forces next summer. “Certainly, yes,” he said when the show’s host, David Gregory, asked him if, depending on how the war was proceeding, he might tell the president that a drawdown should be delayed. “The President and I sat down in the Oval Office, and he expressed very clearly that what he wants from me is my best professional military advice.”
Unpopular war, General Petraeus, midterm elections. Where have I heard all of this before?
Such voices are mostly muted now, if only because so much is riding on his mission. Petraeus rarely fails to tell Iraqis that it was the president who appointed him: “When the president personally tells you something is important—and I was still a two-star at the time—you know he’s serious about it and we’re serious about it.” Both the president and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz met with Petraeus before he was sent back to Iraq with his third star. “They told me, ‘Whatever you need, you’ve got it’.”
[...]
Nobody seems neutral. His fans believe he’s a new-style officer for a new type of warfare, where battles can be won with superior technology and firepower, but true victories can be secured only by good peacemaking and politics. They say he proved himself—and his methods—in the aftermath of the war last year. (It’s widely accepted that no force worked harder to win Iraqi hearts and minds than the 101st Air Assault Division led by Petraeus.) These boosters include many in the White House. “People’s body language shifts” when they talk about Petraeus there, says one official. Yet critics regard Petraeus as one of a type they call “perfumed princes,” a derisive term for officers who have advanced from one staff job to another, essentially working as efficient courtiers to the four-stars. They say he won a short-term peace in Mosul at the expense of allowing insurgents to organize themselves mostly unmolested. They rankle at Petraeus’s penchant for self-promotion and PR.
[...]
Petraeus’s strategy now is to rebuild the Iraqi forces from the top down—”to support, assist and enable good Iraqi leaders.” Instead of rushing to build up the numbers of foot soldiers, training programs have been changed to concentrate on officers and noncoms. Separately, Petraeus is pushing to get body armor and good weapons to the Iraqis. Money is not an issue: a billion dollars has already been spent on Iraqi forces, and an additional $2.4 billion is in the pipeline for the rest of the year. In just the last week, 13,500 Gluck pistols, 850,000 rounds of ammunition, 900 vehicles, 50,000 flak vests and 60,000 Kevlar helmets were delivered. “It’s really flowing in now,” Petraeus said.
This push to stay in Afghanistan by the White House shouldn’t surprise anyone since the White House hates their base.
Tags: Afghanistan, War on Terror, White House Hates Liberals
Comments (1)
