Petraeus Is A Failure - Why Do We Pretend He's Been A Success?

[Hissyspit]

http://www.alternet.org/world/140827/petraeus_is_a_failure_--_why_do_we_pretend_he%27s_been_a_success

Petraeus Is a Failure -- Why Do We Pretend He's Been a Success?
By Fred Branfman, Truthdig. Posted June 24, 2009.

Petraeus's tragic blunders in Afghanistan and Pakistan leave only one option: he must be replaced.

Gen. David Petraeus’ aura of success resulting from reduced violence in Iraq has blinded normally sensible observers to his far greater failure in Afghanistan and Pakistan. His ill-conceived effort to deny al-Qaida and the Taliban “safe havens” in Pakistan -- through drone aircraft bombing, special-forces assassination and perhaps torture (by way of association with Gen. Stanley McChrystal, his new Afghanistan military commander) -- has backfired, driving the Taliban east into Pakistan, where they have joined local allies to weaken the Pakistani government. It has also strengthened, not weakened, al-Qaida and alienated growing numbers of Pakistanis. The Petraeus strategy has thus dramatically strengthened America’s enemies and helped destabilize a nuclear-armed nation of 170 million whose importance dwarfs Iraq and Afghanistan combined. More alarmingly, he now intends to escalate his failed strategy, which could cause unimaginable catastrophes in coming months and years.

President Obama -- who may well regret his call as a candidate for attacking Taliban safe havens in Pakistan, given the debacle those attacks have produced -- should replace Petraeus, and McChrystal’s nomination should be blocked. However, Obama is unlikely to take such an action absent significant public pressure. Petraeus has enormous leverage over the president. The general is extremely popular because of the perceived success of the Iraqi surge. The Obama administration could be capsized by a combination of likely losses in the “Af-Pak”¬ theater and the popular Petraeus resigning and blaming Obama, one imagines, for “not listening to his military commanders.” Obama could even be defeated in 2012 by Petraeus himself on those grounds, should persistent Washington rumors about a nascent “Petraeus for President” campaign prove true.

Obama’s best political defense if his Middle East policy fails, as appears likely, would be to claim he was following the military’s lead. This may explain why he has reversed himself and adopted such Bush policies as military tribunals and preventive detention.

It is critical now for Congress, the media, opinion makers and the public to undertake an objective analysis of the basic question: Has the Petraeus strategy worked in the Afghanistan-Pakistan theater?

MORE

[deadlyaj]

1. Full of Sh*T post. This man is a hero.

[Hissyspit]

3. You didn't read the article.

More About Afghanistan (which is what the article is about, not whether someone's past accomplishments qualify them as a hero or not).

I am glad that the general has acknowledged that the U.S. violated the Geneva Conventions and that he has endorsed Obama's plan to close Gitmo. But the article is about the future of Afghanistan and Pakistan strategy:

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/06/11/petraeus-afghan-violence-hit-all-time-high-last-week

Petraeus: Afghan Violence Hit ‘All Time High’ Last Week

'No Question' Situation Has Deteriorated Over the Past Two Years
Jason Ditz, June 11, 2009

General David Petraeus today announced that violence in Afghanistan had hit its highest level since the 2001 US invasion last week, adding “there is no question the situation has deteriorated over the course of the past two years in particular and there are difficult times ahead.”

The general provided no data to back up his comments, so it is unclear why he decided that last week as opposed to any other recent week in the ever worsening war, was in particular the worst.

2008 was the deadliest year since the invasion, and 2009 is shaping up to be dramatically worse. With the situation already at an “all time high,” some officials are predicting that the planned US surge will lead to a further jump in violence.

In addition to the surge, Petraeus pressed for an even bigger Afghan military, saying the current goal of 232,000 security forces in the nation by 2012 “may not be enough.” Yet the already enormous expenditure for the Afghan military dwarfs the nation’s entire budget, so growing the already unafforable army may just commit the US to Afghanistan’s security for the forseeable future.

[frylock]

8. as noted by the list of accomplishments in the body of your post

[deadlyaj]

2. He has a future in politics if he wants to -- lets hope hes not republican.

[laststeamtrain]

4. K & R--Good question, good article. n/t.

[stray cat]

5. Not being able to immediately or ever fix a disaster isn't failure - who do you suggest?

Obama hasn't fixed the economy but he didn't create it either - the same could be said for Petreaus

[bigbrother05]

6. The barracks debacle at Ft. Bragg was a side effect of his "success"

Money in the Army budget that was intended for maintenance and upkeep of Army facilities (barracks make up a large part of the inventory) was siphoned off to build all the small outposts throughout Iraq that allowed the surge to be successful. There wasn't enough in the the supplemental funding bills to fight the war and build up the necessary infrastructure that Petraeus needed, so the existing Army infrastructure funding/support was the "billpayer" for the surge.

When your budget is cut, you still have to keep the lights on, so things like a thorough top-to-bottom inspection of mechanical/utility systems of an empty barracks prior to troops returning might get short changed. So a barracks that has sat empty at Ft. Bragg for about a year while the Soldiers were deployed had a drain backup when the first reoccupied and a video ended up on Youtube. Then, because of the bad press, millions more of limited maintenance dollars were spent to be sure that no more videos showed up. If anyone remembers what it was like in a college dorm during the first couple of weeks of a new school year, you can only imagine what it would be like in a barracks full of Soldiers returning from a 12-18 month deployment.

Anyway, guess my point is that there are lots of unintended consequences from the on-going wars, just hope we can get out of there quickly with some dignity at all.

[laststeamtrain]

7. Look on the bright side.

A few hundred 'households' with annual incomes of 200 million dollars or more got tax cuts.

Whoopee!