« Finding Inner Peace | Main | The Gift »
December 22, 2007
Kristol - Petraeus Is Man of Year
posted by Tina Grazier
Our military leaders, and those who serve under them, modestly go about their work, never seeking praise and seldom boasting of their accomplishments. Because of this, and because they deserve to be acknowledged, I am very pleased to refer you to an article at the Weekly Standard:
“Gen. David Petraeus, Man of the Year - Time magazine got it wrong,” by William Kristol
The counterinsurgency campaign that Petraeus and Odierno conceived and executed in 2007 was as comprehensive a counterinsurgency strategy as has ever been executed. The heart of the strategy was a brilliant series of coordinated military operations throughout the entire theater. Petraeus and Odierno used conventional U.S. forces, Iraqi military and police, and Iraqi and U.S. Special Operations forces to strike enemy strongholds throughout Iraq simultaneously, while also working to protect the local populations from enemy responses. Successive operations across the theater knocked the enemy--both al Qaeda and Sunni militias, and Shia extremists--off balance and then prevented them from recovering. U.S. and Iraqi forces, supported by local citizens, chased the enemy from area to area, never allowing them the breathing space to reestablish safe havens, much less new bases. It wasn't "whack-a-mole" or "squeezing the water balloon" as some feared (and initially claimed)--it was the relentless pursuit of an increasingly defeated enemy. ** That defeat has implications far beyond Iraq. In 2007, Iraq's Sunni Arabs fought with us against al Qaeda, and Iraq's Shia Arabs joined with us to fight Iranian-backed Shia militias. ** One additional point: Petraeus's counterinsurgency stands out not just for its conceptual ambition and the skill of its execution but for its humanity. There were those who argued that the U.S. military could not succeed in counterinsurgency because Americans were not tough and bloodthirsty enough. They said that brutality was essential in subduing insurgents and our humanity would be our downfall. ** They were wrong. The counterinsurgency campaign of 2007 was probably the most precise, discriminate, and humane military operation ever undertaken on such a scale. Our soldiers and Marines worked hard--and took risks and even casualties--to ensure, as much as possible, that they hurt only enemies. (emphasis mine)
Americans love heroic deeds. We give honor, praise and awards to those who accomplish great things: sports figures, scientists, philosophers, business and legal minds, and those engaged in the arts. We stand and cheer for those who win international races or climb mountain peeks and they are rewarded with headlines of praise and applause for their grueling and daring feats. Not so our military...
But these men, our armed servicemen and their leaders, didn’t just climb Mount Everest, they climbed Mount Everest while being shot at by terrorists! They climbed Mount Everest while being sabotaged and undermined by various media from around the world, certain Marxist leaders and organizations, and many of their fellow Americans, including some sworn to defend the Constitution and the people of the United States. They climbed Mount Everest even as a select few in their own ranks tried to assist in aborting the mission. We can never thank these dedicated men enough, and certainly we will never be able to adequately express appreciation for their accomplishments, though we may try. But we should, and must, acknowledge the man who conceived and lead the mission and remember what those who serve under him have done.
Mr. Kristol is right, General David Petraeus is the Man of the Year.
Posted by Post Scripts at December 22, 2007 08:39 PM
Comments
I wish it were so...
While I support the surge unfortunately, I think Gen. Petraeus is missing some key points.
there is a division of labor crisis in the military, that not even the vaunted Gen. Petraeus is addressing.
Posted by: Nick Freitas at December 23, 2007 02:09 AM
Nick as always your perspective is different and certainly includes things that neither I nor Mr. Kristol would notice.
I believe he was lamenting Time magazines choice of Putin as Man of the Year saying that by comparison the general's contribution is far greater.
The problems in the military, whatever they might be, don't diminish the benefit to the world that the current success in Iraq brings.
"division of labor crisis"...doesn't sound good. You probably cna't really talk about it either, right?
Posted by: Tina at December 23, 2007 02:39 PM
Mr. Kristol is certainly right in that sense.
But yes, I can talk about it. I would never even elude to something, if didn't think I should be talking about it.
I have been trying to find a way to explain this without all of the military acronyms and military isms...so if you can give me a day to come up with a good 1 page summary, Ill try to get it done before Christmas.
Posted by: Nick Freitas at December 23, 2007 06:45 PM
I look forward to reading it...
Posted by: Tina at December 23, 2007 06:58 PM
Merry Christmas eve!
Ok here I go, inn 1000 words or less.
You essentially have two categories of "division of labor" within the military.
One is the technical side. This concept is well recognized and thoroughly integrated into our war war fighting strategy.
The other concept is based off of types or categories of warfare. This one is not as well integrated as some would like.
It works like this. A patriot missile repair man, doesn't patrol the streets of Baghdad looking for a fight, and an infantry man doesn't spend his time trying to figure out how to fix patriot missile batteries. Makes sense right?
Well when it comes to specialization based off of types of warfare, i.e. conventional, unconventional, peace keeping, counter insurgency, etc. we tend to ignore our own advice and experience.
For instance, there is one unit in the military dedicated and trained to fight the counter insurgency fight, Special Forces; but when it comes to developing a strategy, or assigning battle space, Special Forces with its one 2 star general is competing with the conventional army and its array of 4 star generals. None of whom want to take a back seat in a major conflict to a much smaller element of the overall force.
In short, we have problems with inter and intra service rivalries that leads to inefficiency.
Nothing I'm saying is new, nor is it a problem limited to the US military.
But unfortunately we are not moving anywhere near as fast as we should to remedy the problems it causes.
So that is it in a nut shell. I am actually working on a far more in depth paper, but that will be long and probably very boring to read....lol
That is basically the jest of it.
Posted by: Nick Freitas at December 24, 2007 09:25 PM
Hey Nick, thanks for taking the time to explain your "military conundrum." It is an age old problem...I guess as long as we are human this kind of prideful posturing will continue to get in the way. You could say it's a "miracle" we humans ever accomplish anything...perhaps by His grace only?
God bless you and your family this lovely Christmas Eve...and Merry Merry!
Posted by: Tina at December 24, 2007 09:57 PM