Book: Petraeus almost quit over Afghan drawdown
12.29.2011 at 12:42pm
Book: Petraeus almost quit over Afghan drawdown
Four-star general-turned-CIA director David Petraeus almost resigned as Afghanistan war commander over President Barack Obama's decision to quickly draw down surge forces, according to a new insider's look at Petraeus' 37-year Army career.
Petraeus decided that resigning would be a "selfish, grandstanding move with huge political ramifications" and that now was "time to salute and carry on," according to a forthcoming biography.
Author and Petraeus confidante Paula Broadwell had extensive access to the general in Afghanistan and Washington for "All In: The Education of General David Petraeus," due from Penguin Press in January. The Associated Press was given an advance copy.
I wonder if Paula Broadwell, who has been flacking for Petraeus for some time now, will be truthful about how he first came to public notice, thereby laying the foundation for his promotions.
Petraeus headed the Iraq Security Transition Command Jun 2004–Sep 2005. After he had been in charge of training the Iraqi Army for three months, he famously wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post which was published in September 2004.
During a crucial time in the presidential campaign, when Kerry said Iraq was headed south, Petraeus’s piece was a rosy prediction of things to come. “Six battalions of the Iraqi regular army and the Iraqi Intervention Force are now conducting operations. . .Within the next 60 days, six more regular army and six additional Intervention Force battalions will become operational. . . Nine more regular army battalions will complete training in January”
Nope.
Sep 2005–Gen. George W. Casey Jr., who oversees U.S. forces in Iraq, said there are fewer Iraqi battalions at “Level 1 readiness than there were a few months ago. . . The number of Iraqi army battalions that can fight insurgents without U.S. and coalition help has dropped from three to one, top U.S. generals told Congress yesterday.
From 21 battalions to one. Quite a drop.
Of course Petraeus had the last laugh when he later replaced Casey and then moved up another notch to CENTCOM, proving that truth has no relevance in warfare, and may even be detrimental.
Carl, I believe that Don is right on this one.
Now we have this biography by Dr Broadwell that with it emphasizing the issue of the general considering resigning over his disagreement with policy what we have is the stab-in-the-back story brewing, and the call that President Obama “lost Afghanistan” because he didn’t do what his generals wanted.
Shoot, the Surgedinistas are already claiming he “lost Iraq” and has forfeited the so-called gains of the Surge.
Remember that scene from Dr Strangelove where General Jack D Ripper (perverting Clemenceau’s maxim) states that “war now is too important to be left up to the politicians.”
Fortunately, Ms Kim Dozier makes clear what this book is really about (which after reading her review is not a balanced, critical biography of the general) with these sentences:
“…Co-authored with The Washington Post’s Vernon Loeb, the nearly 400-page biography is part history lesson through Petraeus’ eyes, part hagiography and part defense of the counterinsurgency strategy he applied in both wars…The book unapologetically casts Petraeus in the hero’s role, as in this description of the Afghanistan campaign: ‘There was a new strategic force released on Kabul: Petraeus’ will.'”
Really Paula, really? One man can do all of this, the “force”? come on, this reads as the inverse of Lewis Sorley’s new and deeply flawed biography of Westmoreland and the idea that in these limited wars of choice, fought under failed strategy, just put the right guy in charge and that will fix everything.
Fortunately Lady Kim Dozier has scene the hard face of war and can see through the smoke screen of this biography.
gian
Firstly, let me state this debate is way out of my lane, out of my league, and over my paygrade. Secondly, let me state that I find it very interesting and am curious about a few things:
1. The quote from the article states the General believed resigning would have produced huge political ramifications. Well, what are those ramifications? Are those addressed? Are we to infer that he considered political ramifications to be on the same level of importance as strategy, mission accomplishment, and future of OEF?
2. The decision to resign or not – if it was a CPT Jones and not GEN Petraeus, would this matter? What exactly is the role of a General Officer? At what point do they cross or approach the line separating Soldier and Statesman?
oooops –
Petraeus Did Not Consider Quitting Over Afghan Drawdown, Author Says
December 29, 2011 An Associated Press report about Paula Broadwell’s new book led with the “news” that Petraeus “almost resigned.” But that was wrong. Friends encouraged him to do that, she says, but Petraeus did not consider it.
http://www.npr.org/templates/archives/archive.php?thingId=144432316
also– Paula Broadwell (Gian likes to refer to her as Dr. Broadwell) has a website to promote her laudatory book of the man who gave us COIN — hurrah
http://www.paulabroadwell.com/
“All In: The Education of General David Petraeus.
Paula Broadwell and Vernon Loeb examine Petraeus’s career, his intellectual development as a military officer, and his impact on the U.S. military. Inherent in the story are salient lessons of transformational leadership — inspirational insights for everyone from CEOs to young lieutenants. . .Broadwell takes readers through the arc of his “intellectual developent. . .Broadwell ultimately appraises Petraeus’s impact on the entire U.S. military, including his role in galvanizing institutional adaptation.”