Petraeus's nomination to Centcom: Not all bad?
The news that Pres. Bush has nominated Gen. Petraeus to be head of Centcom raises some interesting possibilities.
Petraeus is best known for three things: For having kowtowed in a fairly craven fashion to Bush for much of the past two years; for having overseen the whole, very politically motivated "surge" campaign in Iraq; and for having co-authored the new Army/Marines Counter-insurgency manual.
When he goes to Centcom, he will be in a whole new ball-game of responsibility for a command that stretches far wider than Iraq. Crucially, he will have some big decisions to make regarding the allocation of resources between the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters.
Some commentators have speculated that he will seek to "take" to the US operation in Afghanistan the kinds of COIN lessons he applied in Iraq. I think that gets it seriously backwards. Actually, many of the lessons they've been trying to apply in Iraq were ones that were first developed and applied, albeit on a very small scale, in Afghanistan. The PRTs approach, etc. So the command in Afghanistan doesn't really need, from their point of view, to "learn" the COIN lessons that Petraeus was using in Iraq. The problem in Afghanistan is not the approach. It is the resources-- men and materiel-- that the US military is able to put into pursuing the approach.
I believe that Petraeus has a generally good grasp on the demands of COIN. So now, he is going to have responsibility for allocating those resources. He will be faced up sqaure and centrally against "the Dannatt question". That is, how should the military's increasingly thinly stretched resources be allocated as between Iraq and Afghanistan?
Maybe Petraeus could be the person who, understanding the problems and now to gain responsibility for averting disaster in the whole of the Centcom theater of operations, might be the respected military leader who tells the political bosses that some tough choices have to be made?
Mainly, one tough choice, as framed earlier by Gen. Dannatt: that we cannot hope to "win" (or avoid disaster) in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and therefore we have to choose...
Interesting possibilities ahead?
Another factor that he may influence is a possible U.S. atack on Iran. Admiral Fallon was seen as being pushed out because he publicly opposed a U.S. attack on Iran, and Petraeus's kow-towing to Bush on the surface might make it seem like he would be more amenable to that. On the other hand, he is an Army general, and must surely know the consequences for the U.S. military in Iraq of such an attack. These consequences would include the failure of Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy.
Maybe the more important ramification has to do with Congress passing war funding and keeping the war going through the last eleven months of President Bush's term. And probably beyond: Petraeus would be in a position to say to the new Democratic administration and Congress, "Let's give the counterinsurgency strategy more time to work," blunting calls for withdrawal. Although Petraeus was given a harder time testifying in Congress recently than in September, he's still a public face that is popular with Republicans and moderate Democrats. That has two consequences: a Democratic president would have an easier time pushing withdrawal without him in that position, but he'll be hard to get rid of, because of the protests of Republicans. And he's going to continue to support his counterinsurgency strategy because he's personally invested in it.
Gates: "First of all, you have to understand that the part of Afghanistan for which CENTCOM commander has responsibility is OEF, which is basically the U.S. forces operating in RC East. RC East already has been a successful exemplar of a successful counterinsurgency."
But the truth is otherwise, as indicated in these two images: here is the array of regional forces in Afghanistan, with the US forces in the east near Pakistan, and here is the image showing the portion of Afghanistan under Taliban control and the 2007 "incidents" therein.
Some examplar. There can be no good results from military occupation. This should be obvious after six years of failure in Afghanistan, one of the poorest, most dangerous places on earth.
Pakistan is showing us the way.
news reports:
--------------
Pakistan releases Taliban leader, signs peace deal with outlawed Taliban group
April 21, 2008 (excerpts)
Within weeks after the new central and provincial governments signaled it would revive negotiations with the Taliban in the Northwest Frontier Province and the lawless tribal areas, Pakistan has freed a senior Taliban leader jailed since 2002. After signing a six-point agreement with the Tehrik Nifaz-e-Shariah Mohammadi, the government released Sufi Mohammed, the leader of the radical Taliban group.
The full terms of the peace agreement between the TNSM and the Pakistani government have not been released, but the initial reports indicate the TNSM will halt attacks on the Pakistani military. The TNSM “renounced attacks on government forces in the six-point accord but it will be allowed to peacefully campaign for the implementation of Islamic law in Pakistan,” The Washington Times reported based on statements from the spokesman for the Northwest Frontier Province.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/04/pakistan_releases_ta_1.php
------------
Pakistan pushes peace with the Taliban
April 22, 2008 (excerpt)
One day after the Pakistani government signed a peace accord with a violent Pakistani outfit operating in the Malakand Division in the Northwest Frontier Province, the government said future deals are currently in the works. http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/04/pakistan_pushes_peac.php
I would have thought it was Bush kowtowing to General Petraeous, not the other way around. The sands were about to close over W's head in late 2006 when the General pulled him out of the mire?
The Mahdi army is in the process of surrendering to the Iraqi government forces, just as the Sunni insurgency has already surrendered to the US. This being the case, General Petraeous is uniquely qualified to preside over a drawdown from Iraq in 2009 and a reconcentration on Afghanistan.
Greetings from the Old City of Halab where I arrived tonight by train.
Bush kowtowing to Petraeus? THAT's a good one!
Oh yes, and The Surge™ HAS been such a rousing success - just ask any Iraqi!
Petraeus is motivated by one thing and one thing only, and that is personal ambition - an ambition that reportedly extends to the White House, possibly in 2012.
Petraeus has only one real skill, and that is self-promotion. And he is extremely skilled at it, given that even with his record of consistent failures and screw-ups in Iraq he has managed to become a hero.
I don't see Petraeus suggesting that the United States stop digging the vast sink hole (credit to Helena) - or is it a black hole? - in Iraq. I think he will just keep digging it deeper and deeper and deeper.