 |
 |
||
|
|
|
 Replace PetraeusPosted on Jun 2, 2009
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? The general’s “Iraqi surge” strategy is irrelevant to this question. Past military victories do not guarantee future success. Petraeus has been no more successful in “Af-Pak” than the creators of the Maginot Line were in World War II, generals who had succeeded in World War I. Advertisement Petraeus clearly sees himself as the central player in the region. When a New York Post interviewer stated on May 19, “As the commander of the US Central Command, you’re the big-picture `strategy guy,’ ” Petraeus did not demur. Instead he referred to his “strong” team of generals—McChrystal, David Rodriguez and Karl Eikenberry (the new U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan)—and added that “I’m privileged to have Ambassador Richard Holbrooke as my `diplomatic wingman.’ ” The perceived success of the surge in Iraq had given Petraeus tremendous power, allowing him to extend the strategy to the Afghanistan-Pakistan theater. The most important mission of the general, as overall theater commander, has been to design a strategy to ensure that fighting in Afghanistan does not destabilize its nuclear-armed neighbor Pakistan. He has failed in this mission. David Kilcullen, Petraeus’ own counterinsurgency adviser in Iraq, has characterized U.S. policy as a fundamental “strategic error ... our insistence on personalizing this conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, devoting time and resources toward killing or capturing ‘high-value’ targets ... distracts us from larger problems.” As Kilcullen had noted earlier, these “larger problems” include the potential “collapse of the Pakistani state,” which he called a calamity that in light of the country’s size, strategic location and nuclear stockpile would “dwarf” all other dangers in the region. While Petraeus obviously does not bear sole responsibility for all problems in the Af-Pak theater, his many “strategic errors” have played a major role in weakening the U.S. and strengthening its enemies, as I will outline below. Petraeus has driven the Taliban east into Pakistan, where they have joined with local jihadi forces and gained increasing amounts of territory. On Feb. 16, The New York Times reported from Pakistan, “Analysts are now suggesting that the drone strikes may be pushing the Taliban, and even some Qaeda elements, out of the tribal belt and into Swat, making the valley more important to the Taliban.” The Swat Valley is part of Pakistan proper, and the consolidation of Taliban forces there represented a major setback to U.S. and Pakistani interests. Pakistani government weakness there forced Islamabad to hand over effective control of the valley to its enemies and accept the imposition of sharia law there. A month and a half later, the Times followed up, saying, “American policy has arguably made the situation even worse, for the Predator-drone attacks along the border, though effective, drive the Taliban eastward, deeper into Pakistan. And the strategy has been only reinforcing hostility to the United States among ordinary Pakistanis.” With Swat as a base, Taliban forces then took over the Buner district in late April. And, most ominously, the Taliban and local extremists have been making inroads into the Punjab, Pakistan’s heartland, as the Times documented: “Taliban insurgents are teaming up with local militant groups to make inroads in Punjab, the province that is home to more than half of Pakistanis, reinvigorating an alliance that Pakistani and American authorities say poses a serious risk to the stability of the country. ... As American drone attacks disrupt strongholds of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the tribal areas, the insurgents are striking deeper into Pakistan—both in retaliation and in search of new havens. … Bruce Riedel, who led the Obama administration’s recently completed strategy review of Pakistan and Afghanistan, said the Taliban now had ‘extensive links into the Punjab.’ ”
1
2
3
4
NEXT PAGE >>>
Previous item: Fighting Crime by Reforming Juvenile Hall Next item: Dr. George Tiller Didn't Have to Die CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
RFK and the Civil Rights Movement
Email
Print
Share
Digg
Facebook
TwitThis
StumbleUpon
Reddit
YahooBuzz
Email
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MyShare
NewsVine
Propeller
SphereIt
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Become a Fan
Follow Us
Subscribe
We just got faster!
Our site is growing, and we’ve upgraded our servers to bring you a better, faster Truthdig experience.
We’re thrilled with our improvement — but it’s added a lot to our costs. Please help us to keep things snappy and make sure you have instant access to thousands of in-depth Truthdig articles, interviews, videos and cartoons.
Please chip in today with a gift to keep us moving forward. Then check out the site for yourself!
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation
Copyright © 2010 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By SINGLE PAYER, June 5, 2009 at 11:37 pm #
It is the economy, stupid.
Report thisNow the core of this conversation is about the AK-47, OMG!
By heavyrunner, June 5, 2009 at 3:21 am #
It would require a few million U.S troops to attempt to control Pakistan, a huge nation with a population of 170 million. Such an effort would kill a lot of people, but would be completely doomed to failure.
Colonialism won’t work anymore for many reasons. People are more educated in general. AK-47s are widespread and are a great equalizer.
The Pakistanis also possess many nuclear weapons and missiles capable of hitting Baghram or anyplace else U.S. military personnel could disembark for Pakistan.
Of course, Baghram wouldn’t work anyway because U.S. forces in Afghanistan are supplied through Pakistan, that is, from ships docking in Karachi. There is no other access route to Pakistan or Afghanistan, so the idea of war against Pakistan is absurd on its face. The other routes would be through China, India, or Iran. Forget it.
Petraeus tossed the coin at this year’s Super Bowl. His uniform needed a sandwich board to display all the medals and ribbons he was wearing. He looked like he came from a Banana Republic, not the United States of America.
Report thisBy Lou, June 4, 2009 at 6:27 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The falsity of Petraeus’s Iraq “surge” success will become increasingly evident as US troops pull out and all hell breaks loose.
Report thisBy ardee, June 4, 2009 at 6:02 am #
hippie4ever, June 4 at 2:12 am
I am curious, by what standard do you judge the effectiveness of the use of drone aircraft as successful?
I believe they are very successful in turning large segments of the population against our efforts there.
Report thisBy hippie4ever, June 4, 2009 at 2:12 am #
Petraeus is a technical general trying to wage a technical war. An unruly civilian population requires the use of ground soldiers and results in violence and loss of life. He isn’t as good handling these messy situations, but who is? I don’t envy him his job and don’t blame the general for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld.
The drones, according to BBC correspondents, do appear to be making a difference against the Taliban, but also against many defenseless civilians. The Pentagon lies that they are becoming more accurate as time goes on. Even so, this no doubt will be the warfare of the future: machines against man. What a great surface Afganistan is: room for lots of armament testing.
Not to mention all the cheap heroin useful in sedating the American public over the next decade.
Report thisBy Dominick J., June 3, 2009 at 10:05 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Petraeus is only popular to those loyal to Bush and Cheney, like the whole Conservative party. Obama is trying to keep things at an even keel which makes him even more wrong to keep our troups there.
Report thisPetraeus is a war person. It’s in his gut, what he needs is to be brought down a peg or two…
By samosamo, June 3, 2009 at 9:22 pm #
““aura of success resulting from reduced violence in Iraq”“.
***************************************************
Wow, what an accomplishment!
Totally unimpressed!
But why just petraeus? Why not any upper level officer that wants to continue this imperial ‘war’ for the military industrial congressional complex?
Oh, forgot, obama bush is still impressed with this farcical waste of time, money and resources, should have known.
Report thisBy taikan, June 3, 2009 at 7:09 pm #
Obama, like Bush before him, makes the mistake of viewing, and therefore treating, the Taliban and Al Qaeda as military entities rather than as criminal gangs. By doing so, our government has given to the Taliban and Al Qaeda a legitimacy in the eyes of the local populace that they do not deserve. That, in turn, has helped the Taliban and Al Qaeda to obtain new recruits and other forms of support. Treating them as criminals, on the other hand, would encourage the local populace to distance themselves from both groups.
Report thisBy xyzaffair, June 3, 2009 at 5:49 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Hey, McChrystal can win this one. Just give him time to build up the Afghani army…or was that the Iraqi army…or the South Vietnamese army…?
Report thisBy Folktruther, June 3, 2009 at 11:41 am #
Truthdig deserves credit for printing this important article that states a few geo-strategic home truths. But of course it is not Pretraus to blame but Obama, or whoever does his military thinking, proably Biden. The US imposition into Pakistan by Obama was a WORSE blunder than the original one into Afghanistan by Bush.
Report thisBy Purple Girl, June 3, 2009 at 8:23 am #
Might as well Replace all in Congress Too.
Report thisI had to tip my hat to Petraeus during one of his subsequent hearings before Congress when he actually turn the tables on them and what they had allow happen.
Lets get this straight- Petraeus and all others in Command are merely Soldiers with more glitter,then the others. Had the Congress done it’s job as the Second Branch of Gov’t- required Real documentation and evidence to support Cheney’s Claims and Decisions (since W knew only “basically” what was ever going on), We would not be in either on of these Cluster fucks Now!
The Bush Admin AND CONGRESS handed all these men the fiasco of an Impossible mission. How many Empires have been laid to waste on the sands of Afghanistan- The English, the Russians….Didn’t Alexander the Great have some problems with controlling that region too?
I refuse to put a pelt and horns on these mere soldiers to be used as the Scapegoats for the Politicos who should have studied history- at least the reports they were given before signing onto either damn War.Is Petraeus,McChrystal or even Gates, or any other, the idiots who Ordered Boots on the Ground to begin with- NO.They are just the ones expected to clean up the mess the Exec and legislative branches created….AGAIN (who decided to covertly help the ‘freedom fighters’ against the Russians in the ‘80’s then left the afghani population to be victimized by them?)
These men have been handed a backward ass Tribal mayhem and expected to create a functioning peaceful Democracy.The Sanest person can begin to do the most insane things when in an insane environment- any surprise they’re efforts have failed? The entire region is a psyche Ward and always has been.As far as I’m concerned they should have been Walled off and left to their Stone age mentality Centuries ago.
By ardee, June 3, 2009 at 6:13 am #
I do not know the General’s political aspirations but I do know an impossible task when I see one. The way to successfully combat Islamic extremism is not with military intervention. Extremism takes root among the poor, the weak and the disenfranchised.
It was my impression that Petraeus was overseeing an alteration of strategy that encompassed more and more responsibility on Afghani and Pakistani participation in their own defense from extremism. What happened to it I wonder?
One might spend futile time berating the Generals but the real criticisms are twofold;
Report thisOur Commander in Chief sets the goals , and the electorate decides who that CinC will be.
By Mary Ann McNeely, June 2, 2009 at 9:43 pm #
Petraeus will eventually be the Republican presidential candidate. It’s only a matter of time and to what extent he will debase himself to be the far right standard bearer. The Democrats will court him also but, like Eisenhower, he’ll go Republican.
Report this