Iraq's U.S. General Petraeus -- myth and reality

[bigtree]

WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 (UPI) - {snip}

By the time Gen. George Casey arrived in Baghdad during the summer of 2004, in medical terms, the U.S. military occupation was already on life support. But instead of choosing a new strategic direction, Casey reinforced the strategy he inherited. He expanded the occupation's big-base strategy of Maginot-like forts and launched thousands of troops on sweeps that created more enemies than they killed. The cost of occupation went through the roof while the conflict expanded into a civil war. For this handiwork, Casey moves up to become Army Chief of Staff.

Of the remaining generals on active duty, Gen. David H. Petraeus, is the most popular with the retired four-stars and his superiors in the Pentagon. He comes with effusive praise heaped on him by politicians and journalists desperately seeking an answer to the Iraq conundrum. But, in truth, no one really knows whether Petraeus is Grant or McClellan.

We do know that when the 3rd Infantry Division raced to the gates of Baghdad in less than five days at the cost of just two casualties, Petraeus together with his bosses, generals Wallace and McKiernan, urged a halt to the advance, forecasting disaster if more troops were not committed to overcome the hollow Republican Guard units and irregulars in pick-up trucks -- all of which presented themselves as easy targets to American firepower whenever they fought, which was rare.

A week later, Baghdad fell to one brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division. Discouraged by the 101st's limited role, Petraeus's assistant division commander said the U.S. Army's V Corps fought the war "with one hand tied behind its back" relying almost entirely on the 3rd Infantry Division.

In Mosul where Petraeus made a reputation as the one general who truly understood Arab hearts and minds, the town reverted to insurgent control within hours of his division's departure. Similarly, we know that the new Iraqi Army he built was seriously flawed from Shiite domination and corruption to its inability to operate without U.S. support, and sometimes even with it.


In truth, Gen. Petraeus is unlikely to improve the situation in Iraq, but he could make it worse. Moreover, to find a Grant you must also have a Lincoln, and there is little to indicate that President George W. Bush is a Lincoln. Today, moral courage seems absent at both the military and the political levels of leadership.

article: http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20070208-030247-5700r


related:

New US general outlines plan to Iraq president

9 February 2007 | 18:37 | FOCUS News Agency

Baghdad. The new commander of US forces in Iraq met the country's president on Friday to outline his strategy to reverse the slide into the chaos of sectarian warfare, the presidency said, AFP reported.

Lieutenant General David Petraeus, who arrived in Baghdad this week, met President Jalal Talabani and his vice presidents in the capital, where US reinforcements have already launched a new security plan.
"They discussed the security plan and the means of achieving its goal of restoring calm and security, wiping out terrorism and banning the weapons from the streets," a statement said.

Petraeus showed Talabani details of his plans, which hinge on pouring an additional 21,500 US troops into Baghdad to work alongside a larger Iraqi force in rounding up illegal Shiite militias and Sunni insurgent fighters.
The US general will formally take command of US-led coalition forces on Saturday at a ceremony in Camp Victory, a base on the western outskirts of Baghdad.

http://www.focus-fen.net/?id=n105390


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[Jonathan50]

1. Petraeus' nickname

In some circles General Petraeus is known as General Betrayus, for his well known love of the limelight, often at cost to his troops.

http://www.intel-dump.com/posts/1169587147.shtml

<i>"Incidentally, I offer the following sidenote about General Petraeus, by almost all accounts an enormously accomplished man: A student of mine at the UT Law School, who had had combat experience in both Afghanistan and Iraq, referred to him as "General Betrayus" because of what was thought to be his inordinate interest in good publicity (and presumed self-promotion) rather than concern for his troops. I have no idea whether this is fair, but I do know that this is what my sober and thoughtful student told me."</i>

[bigtree]

3. another

" . . . 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."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5305713/site/newsweek

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Petraeus looks at the slaughter in the Phillipines circa 1900

as a model for a successful counter insurgency. QED.