Posted on 01/25/2007 9:38:48 PM PST by CutePuppy
Can David Petraeus Rebuild a Nation?
Lt. General David Petraeus is set to take over in Iraq. Here, we present an excerpt from Thomas P.M. Barnett's March 2006 profile of Barnett.
By Thomas P. M. Barnett
The naming of Lieutenant General David Petraeus as the top American ground commander in Iraq marks the arrival of one of the Army’s most daring and original thinkers at the top of U.S. decision making on Iraq. Petraeus has been the subject of two very different articles in Esquire in the last year—the first by contributing writer Thomas P.M. Barnett was part of an examination of lessons learned by U.S. military in Iraq, and the second by writer at large Tom Chiarella focused Petraeus’s deeply held views about addressing the crisis in leadership among American boys and young men. As Barnett wrote in his profile of the general last year, Patreaus is without peer in the U.S. military in his experience and understanding of counterinsurgency and nation building. One of the most successful and respected combat comanders in Iraq, where he served two tours, he is also a scholar of unconventional war and a devoted student of T.E. Lawrence, whose ideas and tactics he teaches to his own commanders. For the last year, Petraeus led the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, where Barnett was with him while preparing his March 2006 article “The Monks of War.”
THE NATION BUILDER
Wallace's replacement at Leavenworth is arguably the Army general whose star is rising most rapidly on the basis of his performance in Iraq, Lieutenant General David Petraeus, who led the 101st Airborne Division in northern and central Iraq during the first difficult postwar year and then assumed leadership of the coalition effort to rebuild Iraq's security forces. ....
(Excerpt) Read more at esquire.com ...
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/pentagonsnewmap.htm
Is the Pentagon coming out with a ribbon/medal for nation-building?
Not if the Democrats have anything to do with it..
Even if his name was not David but Caius Julius. Circles are not squarable.
The real problem is there is no definition of the "winning in Iraq", it's constantly redefined by Dems/media and artificial timelines are set by same Dems/media. Now we are supposedly "losing" because they kill each other while we're having a great success in killing and catching and getting intel from aQI. It doesn't matter what anybody does there because media will not "declare" success/victory while they are killing each other which they will keep doing no matter what - something we should maybe if not celebrate, at least not try to discourage as long as our goals there are met:
Phase I:
1. Saddam and his sons' regime deposed and they're dead
2. Discovered and stopped UN Oil-For-Food Fraud
3. Stopped potential and likely rebuilding of WMD program after UN sanctions would be over
Phase II:
4. Had successful elections and empowerment of major portion of Iraqi populace, and freed Kurds and Shias from Saddam's boot
5. Giving a taste of democracy to other ME countries who don't have a history of sectarian / tribal division that's responsible for most of "violence" in Iraq
Phase III:
6. Establish a beachhead in Iraq to take on other terrorist regimes in ME and Africa
7. Fighting aQI and support the elected government while...
8. Training Iraqi military and police to take over security of regions - maybe slow, but why declare this "losing"?
We are in phase III now. Sounds like a good plan, being executed as long as you don't put artificial timelines and ROE on it and declare it a failure everyday, like we get from Dems and al-Media.
"War in Iraq" (phase I) was over long time ago. maybe they need more soldiers maybe they need less, it's up to generals in the field to decide, but "final surge" is a bad terminology because as soon as it's declared a failure when one gang attacks another (Sunni-Shia, Crips-Bloods) and then it gives excuse to defund our stay there because it was "final" and "surge" didn't work. Problem is not military in Iraq, it's politics at home. We shouldn't allow them to redefine the mission in Iraq, and only CiC can do it from "bully pulpit"... if he can.
Bump
Exactly. If not beset by those whining '60s leftovers, he could easily perform the same trick MacArthur performed in Japan.
MacArthur didn't have baying, goofball socialists in his own country to deal with, though.
The Dems, and others with their own agenda's want us to lose.
Or to take credit for winning, if that happens to be the case or they decide that it's in their interest to "declare" that their "New Direction" in Iraq worked - after all they're the ones who define what "winning" or "losing" in Iraq is. At one point "losing" was looting or Abu Ghraib, another time it was not getting more electricity to Baghdad or more water to provinces...
What most people missed in the last election was just that.
That's why I was suggesting here on FR that GOP had to "nationalize" these last elections to show and explain the importance of national issues (like Newt did in 1994), not fight it district by district against Dems who played as "conservatives" on local issues (great strategy by Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer, not unlike Clinton's own 1992 "conservative", "Third Way" Democrat play). Instead they worried about Iraq and stayed on local message where you either couldn't tell the difference between candidates or Dems sounded more conservative.
The most disappointing thing about Bush presidency is that he can't articulate or doesn't want to sustain the effort to stay on message. He is the war President, he said before elections that "Iraq is not Vietnam", yet from history he should have known where and how Vietnam was lost and make an effort counteracting domestic enemies. Maybe he was hoping for "new tone" to do it, but "kinder and gentler" didn't work for his father, and his buddying around with Bill couldn't bring him any credit from libs and only creeped out a lot of his base.
Sure, he didn't get a lot of help from weak GOP Congress, and he was distracted for a time by phony "CIA leak investigation", but those were not insurmountable obstacles to keep delivering the message about what the mission was and is in Iraq as part of GWOT and promote a "national" campaign.
Because of that my fear is that unless we have a stunning victory or another attack on this country there may not be a chance to finish.
Possibility is that we have to do something about Iran fairly soon, for at least two reasons: nuclear aspirations and meddling in Iraq... There are more reasons, of course, but these could be casus belli for military intervention or clandestine support of regime change operation.
Dems are already getting bogged down in their "agenda" in the Senate after 100-hour blitz by Pelosi, and they already made a bunch of embarrassing mistakes, and their positive in poll numbers are just above 20% (Bush's are about 40%) according to Rasmussen, so most people are just in sour mood because of completely negative TV coverage and prospect of "losing" (who wouldn't be?), and not particularly happy with Dems.
It will cost us in the long run. It will cost us more money, more time, and more lives.
That's almost word for word what I tell people when they ask me about Iraq. After 10 minutes of explanation they usually understand, but you can see an expression of shock when they hear things they don't usually get on the "news". I simply provide them sources and invite them to do further research on their own of all the facts that I give them, to assure themselves that it's not a cook theory, but rather that they have been either misinformed or not informed about events and history and statistics and consequences. Regards.
I provided the link in my 1st comment to the article by author of this piece, Thomas P.M. Barnett, "The Pentagon's New Map" with the map of the Gap, that I often show people and ask them to read - it opens their eyes and minds and redirects their point of view and understanding of what's really happening geopolitically in the world - something they usually didn't even think about. Article was written before "Iraqi Freedom" and author is a Democrat who taught at Naval College.
e.g., I ask people to take a look at the map and find that Iran is located between Iraq and Afghanistan (Iraq and "Hard Place"), and make a connection to GLOBAL War on Terror. Most see something they didn't see before.
"cook" theory
That would throw them off track on a discussion of war situations. Is that deliberate?
:-)
"Most see something they didn't see before"
Like basic world geography?
"The Pentagon's New Map" with the map of the Gap"
That is an excellent article I have read before and if you are able to get them to read it I am amazed. Most really don't care... for depth and substance.
Nor the Iraqis themselves. The Democrats could be solidly behind the effort but unless the Iraqi people step up to the plate then he's going to fail.
Which Nation? Iraq or the U.S.?
I agree. General Petraeus is supposed to be running the army. Now all of a sudden it is his job to "rebuild a nation." Give me a break. Sometimes I wonder if the media has given him such lofty expectations on purpose.
Now that's a smart man. Too smart to be working in such a messed-up country.
No, I don't mention the word[s] to them. :~)
Like basic world geography?
:~) Amazing, isn't it? But it really works if asked in a calm, quiet manner. "Just look at the map here" is my sad equivalent of Bill Engvall's "Here's your sign".
Other things that stomp them is when I ask
"If there is war in Iraq who is the enemy and who are we fighting in Iraq?"
"What does winning in Iraq mean to you?"
"Why do you think we are losing in Iraq?"
"Should we add more troops or redeploy them from Gaza and Darfur, where Arabs and/or Muslims are killing each other?"
The look on their faces trying to answer these questions - priceless! They never thought about it, just reflexively react to bad news from Iraq on TV, and so accept answers conveniently provided to them from the same TV. It's beyond just basic geography, it's just basics, period. But after being stomped, they're more amenable to read something that will help them "to be smart", that is if they care at all.
“China can be brought on board if Washington withdraws from its mutual defense treaty with Taiwan”——Thomas Barnett, in one of his other Esquire screeds
This guy teaches? Good grief. I wonder if he had investments in China.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.