Gen Petraeus: ‘Carrying A Heavy Rucksack’
April 7th, 2007 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
(This is in continuation of my earlier post…click here to read).
In spite of all the mixed reports coming in, General David Petraeus appears to be a thorough professional. Well, you may ask how I have arrived at this conclusion without meeting the chief of US troops in Iraq.
Also, isn’t this a contradiction - on the one hand I oppose the continued occupation of Iraq by US forces, while on the other I praise this General? There are many reasons. Also, his recent interview with PBS News Hour has cleared any doubts about his professional standing.
Let me explain further. I am an amateur student of military strategy and traditions, and the history of the military campaigns during the first and second world wars interest me.
The Generals who fought under the most trying conditions fascinate me because they were doing a professional job. The names that come to my mind are Eisenhower, Montgomery ‘Monty’, Rommel and Patton.
Howsoever tough there task was, it cannot be compared with that of General Petraeus. He took over the command of an occupying force and the total mess (despite four years of occupation by the US and British troops). Plus the nature of this ‘war’ is totally different.
And to top it all, the most confusing/worrisome aspect for this army commander is that his country is divided whether to get the troops out of Iraq or not. While the President (Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces) is adamant that the troops should stay there ‘until the situation improves’, the Congress does not think so.
What can be more challenging than this!
As a journalist I had a chance to interact with Indian, British and American soldiers on many occasions, and I find it a fascinating exercise to study their mind, life and profession.
(Maybe because I come from what is called a ‘martial race’, and my grandfather worked in the Army headquarters during the British days in India. Some of my relations fought in the Middle East theatre during World War-I and II along with the British - and American - troops.)
Now back to Gen Petraeus and his interview with PBS News Hour.
If you read between the lines, the General has without compromising the dignity of his office (although the interviewer’s questions were highly loaded) given enough hints what the ground reality is.
Excerpts:
JIM LEHRER: What effect is the Iraq debate in Washington having on your operations on the ground in Iraq?
GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: Well, to tell you the truth, Jim, we’ve more than got our hands full and occupied out here.
We’re certainly aware of the debate that’s ongoing back there, but the fact is, we’re pretty focused on what it is that we’re engaged in out here, and we’re really trying to stay focused on that. Our mission is very clear, and that’s what we’re intent on accomplishing….
JIM LEHRER: …Is it affecting your own morale, your own feeling of support toward you and your mission at all?
GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: Jim, I’ve felt like I’ve had a fairly heavy rucksack here. And I’ve got a lot of great folks out here to help carry that rucksack, frankly.
Occasionally, you feel another rock being put in there, but this is a really consuming endeavor. It’s, frankly, the most consuming endeavor of my professional life.
And, again, it tends to more than occupy one’s day. And you don’t have a lot of time to think about other things, other than just getting on with the business at hand out here in Iraq.
JIM LEHRER: …Your name comes up in every other sentence on both sides of every debate involving Iraq right now…If General Petraeus can’t pull this off, nobody can, and this is the last chance for this to work. Is that an accurate reading of how you see it, as well?
GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: Well, as I mentioned at the outset, Jim, again, I’m conscious of a couple of things. One is that the Washington clock is moving more rapidly than the Baghdad clock, so we’re obviously trying to speed up the Baghdad clock a bit and to produce some progress on the ground that can perhaps give hope to those in the coalition countries, in Washington, and perhaps put a little more time on the Washington clock.
I’m keenly aware, again, that we’ve got a pretty heavy rucksack of responsibility out here, got a lot of help in carrying that rucksack. We’re doing the very best we can with what we have, and, really, that’s about all that we can do, Jim.
———–
Now here is a General, given a thankless task of trying to salvage whatever he can from the debris, explaining the ground reality without bringing into disrepute his Commander-in-Chief.
The Time magazine wrote in a recent issue: “General David Petraeus has repeatedly said, ‘A military solution to Iraq is not possible.’ Translation: This thing fails unless there is a political deal among the Shi’ites, Sunnis and Kurds.
“There is no such deal on the horizon, largely because of the President’s aversion to talking to people he doesn’t like,” says Time magazine.
With this background, my admiration for this General, who appears to be a gentleman and a professional, has grown.
I conclude with a few famous quotes: “War is too important a matter to be left to the military.” - Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929) French statesman and journalist.
“Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.� - Albert Einstein
“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.� - Albert Einstein
This entry was posted on Saturday, April 7th, 2007 at 9:02 am and is filed under Media, India, Shi'ites, Asia, Islam, Terrorism, USA, Muslims, Foreign Politics, United Kingdom, George W. Bush, Africa, Middle East, Legislation, Foreign Affairs, History, Military, War, Sunnis, War On Terror, Iraq, Books. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
April 7th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Swaraaj said: “the most confusing/worrisome aspect for this army commander is that his country is divided whether to get the troops out of Iraq or not.”
You make a very good point. A major problem all great generals (and not so great ones - the Union general McClelland during the Civil War comes to mind) face is not on the battlefield…but in the political arena.
Iraq is a political minefield…and Gen. Petraeus has been remarkable for how little flack he has caught from the anti-war side (considering what a flash-point Iraq has become).
I think this is because he is the first person to have something resembling a strategy for Iraq since the initial invasion…and everybody knows this.
A good post, and good finds/links.
April 7th, 2007 at 10:53 am
The problem still remains that the conflict between Shia and Sunni is expanding and despite the best efforts of the US army they could be caught up by events completely outside their control. There have been Shia/Sunni attacks in Pakistan, Sunnis in Afghanistan have attacked cross the border into Iran, Lebanon is showing signs of internal religious tension. Osama has labeled the Shia as heretics, so the attacks by Al Qaeda in Iraq will continue and can still provoke Shiite counter strikes. Our military forces have the professionalism to stay above the fray, but the Iraqi forces can easily be used by the various political factions for other purposes. Long term I am still pessimistic, there has been a decline in violence but when we leave the factions will no longer be subject to our moderating influence and that fact still makes me think that the only real long term solution is partition.
April 7th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Petraeus was in the news long before now (if you keep up on such things). He carries a lot of respect from everyone he deals with. It was only a matter of time before he was promoted to his current position.
April 7th, 2007 at 11:22 am
The problem is that Petraeus should been placed in charge four years ago. Had he led the whole effort then, the situation might not be so hopeless today.
But here’s another deeper problem that few people have addressed. Take a read through Petraeus’s own counterinsurgency document and you’ll notice that he describes the sort of personnel necessary to carry out counterinsurgency. Guess what, they don’t exactly comprise today’s military, no matter how professional our military is. Basically, Petraeus thinks we need a military composed of the cultural sophistication and patience of the Peace Corps and the courage and grit of the Marines. Until that force arrives we cannot really succeed. So Petraeus is doing the next best thing and that is to pursue political reconciliation. But the recent explosion of violence in Tal Afar shows just how superficial the political reconciliation was even there - a place cited in the counterinsurgency manual as a model for success.
The problems are too deep for simple counterinsurgency, especially at this late stage and with this pittance of troops (and underqualified to do the job per Petraeus). It will take many years for even remote success to take place. And even then it’s uncertain what will come about in the end.
Petraeus is a smart man and a relatively honest man for a government official. Pro and anti-war people both recognize that. But that doesn’t mean antiwar people support what Petraeus is trying to do right now. After all, Petraeus himself only gave the mission a 25% chance of success.
April 7th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Petraeus does not hold, “office”. Unless his commander and dummy signs the appropriations bill, he won’t have a paycheck either.
How many generals have we gone through in Iraq? This one is no more relevant, just getting more press. I’m sure his book will be coming out shortly.
April 7th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
GEN Petraeus is a professional, and he has a staff that seems to have a grasp of what the job entails. It is too bad that he did not follow GEN Sanchez as MNF-I commander, but he was pressed to get this gig with the lack of skins on the wall as it was.
Petraeus gained some valuable experience as 101st Airborne Division commander in Iraq when they controlled the northern areas of country. The knock against him is his work as the commander in the MNF-I structure to train the Iraqi Army - he took that job in mid-2004 for a year or so. May be the administration and bureaucracy in the Pentagon did not give him the resources to help place a native face on the war against insurgency - something LTC Nagl highlights in his book Eating Soup With A Knife: Lessons Against Counterinsurgency. Nagl’s fingerprints are all over the field manual recently written about how to fight an insurgency. The other knock I have against Petraeus is that the ’surge’ will not be won by early September as he is telling the US politicians to hold out for. The whole ’surge’ troops are six weeks from being in place and the plan is to find ‘conclusive’ success in five months from now (early September time frame)? He and his staff know full and well that insurgency will take years to defeat. Finally, I do feel that Petraeus is going to be saddled with the negatives if the ’surge’ does not end in some sort of relativistic success - the plan to surge is not tailored to how he would want to “separate the fish from the water” - the current ’surge’ plan was devised by a Napoleonic history professor (Kagan) and a retired US Army general (Keene). The ’surge’ plan lacks the resources to succeed when it is compared to the blueprint as shown in the newly published field manual. The ’surge’ plan even lacks the resources Kagan and Keene required to meet the goals of the strategic plan, but they acquiesced when it became aware there were not enough troops to do the work. Petraeus may have to carry the sins of Kagan, Keene, and those political water carriers at AEI who helped these two individuals create the ’surge’ plan.
April 7th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
A book about GEN Petraeus has already come out. It is called In the Company of Soldiers, and it was written by Rick Atkinson. The book was released in spring of 2004. It is probably the one source in which people not affliated with the military know who he is.
April 7th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
For those interested in military history, I read Petraeus’ counterinsurgency manual was inspired by what techniques the French finally adopted in the latter days of Algiers. Supposedly, it turned things around for their military action considerably, but by then, Sartre and others of the French leftist movement had put enough domestic political angst onto DeGaulle that he pulled the plug.
I suspect it will be deja vu all over again.
April 7th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Petraeus is a lifer arsehole that wants money and fame. He doesn’t give a damn about “the troops”. No lifer does, and, never has. Especially when weighed against their own career.
April 7th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
I don’t think the manual is based on the French’s activities in North Africa are the driving force behind the new manual, but it is about Southeast Asia - French and American activities in Viet Nam, as well as the British activities in Malay. Why do I say that? Nagl helped write the manual and Algeria never came up in his book. I don’t know if McMaster helped write the manual but he is on Petraeus’ staff and he had written a book dealing about Viet Nam. As COL Lang had said a few months ago on his blog, the US Army is putting ‘old wines in new skins’. The Petraeus plan is dusting off what the US Army (and US Marines - in this case a good example) had learned as a collective a generation ago about insurgency. Algeria is not in the consciousness of the US Army - other than some hypothetical model because it never experienced what happened on the ground.
April 7th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Ah yes, the French leftists who believed that torture was not worth are such traitors. Now I see why the rightwingers want torture so bad; they see it as the only way to win a counterinsurgency, regardless of how it stains the honor of the nation. Just like with Chick Hicks in the movie “Cars,” sometimes winning isn’t really winning.
April 7th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
I have known GEN Petraeus for over twenty years. He is not a “lifer arshole” as White Agent cluelessly asserts. Petraeus is a consumate professional whose loyalty to his soldiers is why they are so loyal to him. He took this job because it was his duty and he cares about Iraq and he cares about the soldiers serving there and he believed he could make a difference. Is it too late? Is Iraq able to save itself? Those are questions still to be answered but they are in the most capable hands possible to achieve those goals. Time will tell if its possible but it is offensive and completely foolish to accuse Petraeus of being in this for anything other than his duty to his country. People who do this business we do…we don’t do it for money.
April 7th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Iraq Twice Over- What a load of horseS***.
We entrust our kids lives to lifer arseholes like Davy P here, and NONE have ever measured up in my opinion. The heroes of this and any war are privates, lance corporals, corpsmen second class, the occasional staff sergeant, and, the occasional lieutenant. It is Rarely the lifers and never the damn generals.
These lifers are simply career government employees that, “go back to the drawing board�, when our young people’s body’s are stacked up like cord wood after their “general� screw up. Not to mention the masses of civilians laid waste. After the blatant and utter failure in Iraq, personally I think half the damn “generals� ought to be lined up and shot for criminal negligence.
Davy P didn’t “Take the Job� he was ORDERED to DO THE JOB! Hopefully there is one “general� out there that has been learning how to properly deal with the Mideast hordes while living off the government dole all his life. Have you seen what we pay these people?! Happy friggen Easter.
April 7th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
White Agent has used the word arsehole (and the editors of this site have allowed this expression probably because this is a colloquial American expression) twice in making comments here.
Arsehole is a very important part of the body and imagine if White Agent ever had this part of his anatomy blocked. He will simply explode!!! Some may say that he has already ‘exploded’ twice while making comments here!!!
On a serious note. The Army is well structured where everyone from the General down to the Privates/Corporals play a crucial role. If a General can “screw up” then even a Private/Corporal can “screw up” too. The Army succeeds as a team and fails as a team.
If we were to take White Agent’s logic further…then the ‘hand’ and the ‘feet’ are more important than the ‘head’. It is like hands and the feet complaining that the brain is an “arsehole” which ’screws us up’.
As in the body every part has a crucial role to play…the army is structured as such, probably more regimented because the officers and men are called upon to sacrifice their life in the line of duty.
They can’t sit back and discuss and make comments when it comes to the crunch and the ‘enemy’ has opened fire.
It is extremely difficult for people in the civvy street to visualise/understand the life and profession of the men and women in the armed forces. Unfortunately, they are taken as bunch of jokers having a gala time at the expense of the tax payers.
Well, here White Agent sounds like Hitler…who incidentally was a corporal and later turned into a mass murderer.
April 7th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Swaraaj- Why is it that you never know what the hell you are talking about?
April 7th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Dear White Agent…Maybe I am talking through my arsehole (your favourite expression…probably that’s what you imply)! LoL!
April 7th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Sorry…I have to sign off. I am leaving for three or four days for the Himalayas on a vacation…It is getting hotter and hotter in New Delhi.
My wife is getting mad as I have to drive up the hills…and here I am getting stuck in the ‘arsehole’ business in front of the computer…
Bye for now…after four days we may take another look…at the ‘arseholes’…!!!
April 7th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Swaraaj- There’s a shortcut through Pakistan. Try it, you’ll like it.
April 8th, 2007 at 4:54 am
There was an article on Petraeus in WaPo- describing how he believes it will literally take years to really turn the corner in Iraq, and how he is trying to rush signs of progress there, to buy time at home. Either we’re in it for the long haul or we should get out now, because by the end of August, it will just be apparent that Petraeus needs more troops and more time.
April 8th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Petraeus did not start this mess, nor does he seem to pull punches when he talks about what it will take to avoid disaster in Iraq. He knows that he is only a placeholder, and that his task is not to ‘win’ the war but to keep the situation stable long enough for a political solution to have a chance.
He had the courage to publicly state that there will be no military solution
to this conflict - and if you don’t see that this was a challenge to the Bushies to wake up and engage the region in dialogue, you haven’t been paying attention.
Defying past practice and publicly stating that no military solution is possible took more courage than White Agent can imagine. White Agent won’t have to experience a sneering, sanctimonious dressing down from
from Cheney or one of his synchophants. Telling the truth (ie, stating the obvious) has not been a hallmark of prior Bush appointments, whether in the military or public arena. Gen. Petraeus deserves a chance to show that he is not the same cookie-cutter ‘arse-kissing’ Bushie we have all come to recognize.
April 8th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Jim- Courage? How’s that? He fails, (but knew he would), then goes home, retires with a fat, (and I mean fat), pension, sucks up the, “media guest, book royalties and I’ve been a general in the media so I’m smart”, lecture circuit and becomes filthy rich. While tens of thousands of our kids end up physical and/or mental cripples. Yep, a real profile in courage. State the obvious and they paint your butt in pretty colors.
Davy P is a peanut. Our man in Iraq. Replacement number infinity. Why, prey tell, focus any media attention on him, positive OR negative when it needs to be square on the republican party’s flawed thought process and failed ideology? Petraeus is just deflecting attention away from the idiot’n chief, as far as I’m concerned, as part of a DELAYING TACTIC for doing what we need to be doing…..leaving Iraq post haste.