Posted on 01/05/2007 1:41:24 PM PST by quidnunc
It's official: Dave Petraeus, one of the U.S. Army's most- impressive leaders, is headed back to Baghdad to take charge. The assignment means a fourth star and the chance to save a desperate situation — or preside over a grim strategic failure.
With back-to-back tours of duty in Iraq behind him and the most-positive image among Iraqis of any U.S. leader, military or civilian, Petraeus is a natural choice. His intelligence, drive, devotion to service and negotiating skill make the lean, young-looking general seem perfect.
The question is whether Gen. Petraeus is the right choice — or if he'll merely be the final executor of a failed policy.
-snip-
The test will be straightforward: When his tour of duty in Baghdad ends, will unarmed Iraqis — and Americans — be able to walk the streets of Baghdad without fear? Or is our pathetic insistence that compromise can work in the Middle East going to lead to a tragedy beyond the imagination of politicians and pundits.
Will the general fight?
Of course, even three- or four-star generals can only do what our civilian leaders order and allow. Half of Petraeus' struggle is going to be with Washington's obsolete view of the world, with our persistent illusions about the Middle East and mankind.
The future of Iraq won't be determined by Gen. Petraeus alone. But his will be the name historians cite when describing our ultimate success or failure in Iraq.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
The rest of the fault lies with the top brass in charge of the war, who have ill-served the president.
Bush has failed disasterously in his public diplomacy, which was vitally necessary to keep the American public on board.
The generals failed when they decided to become diplomats and nation-builders at the expense of being warriors.
If we fail — and I believe that we no longer have the stomach to do what is necessary to win — it will be because we are fighting a politically-correct war in which we shrink from even defining the enemy with any clarity.
"The generals failed when they decided to become diplomats and nation-builders at the expense of being warriors."
The generals decided this? Surely this was exactly the mission they were given?
We need a Kirk, not a Picard.
We need a William T. Sherman. He spoke a language the muslims would understand.
An Andy Jackson, a George Patton! Let our guys do the job and we will win.
I realize the president has a full plate every day but, he could have taken time to keep the American people informed on the war in Iraq. And, when I say informed, I don't mean military secrets.
The President is like the Congress, he has lost touch with grass root Americans, at his expense!!
Patton had problems with the media/press.
You can also include Rummy who would not go along with overwhelming troops and his hangers on who talked mushroom cloud, cakewalk, greeted with flowers and oil will pay for everything. Bush had the wrong advisors but he appointed them.
The Civil War was lost until summer of 1864. Sherman and Grant made all the difference. Peters is spot on here ... either unleash the hounds or bring the men home. PC and War are mutually exclusive.
Perhaps the Ethiopians are available ...
Maybe, but John J. Pershing has a better history of turning losses into victories. His first hand experience with Islamokazis would be handy these days too.
President Bush is not stupid. But he is not articulate, and a great many people mistake the latter for the former. But condemning him for being inarticulate is a valid criticism, for he is the leader of the most powerful country in the world, and he needs to be able to lead. In this day and age, an inarticulate man is operating under a severe handicap when trying to lead.
Look at it this way - Bush recognized that the surge would not work, unless he replaced Abizaid and Casey. He did that, Bush knows he has only one chance left in iraq. And Iraq is his legacy (immigration bill pending).
Bush retreated into solitude not because he is inartiuculate — which he is — but because he wanted to.
He has proved himself to be articulate when speaking extemporaneously, he just didn't want to deal with a hostile press so he stonewalled them — and the public as well.
That, me buckos, is the crux of the problem.
I got the distinct impression that Bush gave his theatre commanders almost total freedom from interterference and second-guessing.
Perhaps Bush should have taken a stronger hand earlier.
George Washington was not particularly articulate either. It's unfortunate that presidents are expected to play to the media, especially a Republican president with only enemies there.
It was? Gettysburg was in 1863. Antietam was in 1862.
Lee retreated after both Gettysburg and Antietam ... Neither Meade nor McClellan took advantage. In the North, there was growing opposition to the war, allowing McClellan to run a credible race. But any hope of Stalemate or foreign recognition of the Confederacy evaporated with Sherman's campaign. Interestingly, New York was a blue state even then, going for McClellan in 1864. We desperately need a Grant and Sherman with the freedom and the backing to do what they do best.
Having the Right General in charge is insufficient if the war continues to be managed from Washington. Replacing McClellanet al with Grant doesn't improve anything at all if the soldiers still have to consult the legal branch before they fire their weapons and every action has to get Washington approval before it can be carried out. Give the new general one order: win this thing. If he is Grant it will be won. If he is McClellan, well, it will be no different from the Bureaucratic remote generals that have been running it to date.
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.