Petraeus' Foreign Policy
By Steve Hynd Thursday Oct 16, 2008 4:30pm
There's little doubt that General David Petraeus is a smart cookie whatever you think about his political loyalties, and quite a few people I respect highly as foreign policy reporters and analysts have good opinions of his military abilities. But when did a four star general get handed the authority to act as if he were Secretary of State?
The WaPo reports that:
Gen. David H. Petraeus has launched a major reassessment of U.S. strategy for Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and the surrounding region, while warning that the lack of development and the spiraling violence in Afghanistan will probably make it "the longest campaign of the long war."
The 100-day assessment will result in a new campaign plan for the Middle East and Central Asia, a region in which Petraeus will oversee the operations of more than 200,000 American troops as the new head of U.S. Central Command, beginning Oct. 31.
The review will formally begin next month, but experts and military officials involved said Petraeus is already focused on at least two major themes: government-led reconciliation of Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the leveraging of diplomatic and economic initiatives with nearby countries that are influential in the war. [Emphasis Mine - C]
All of this seems like a good idea to me. But, crucially, neither of those themes are military ones and the military shouldn't be leading the way on them. It's about seperation of power and having the military subordinate to civilian policymakers rather than the other way around.
So where are the US ambassador, State Dept. and Condi Rice, who should be leading the way on them while the military man concentrates on military matters? For that matter, won't the leaders of other nations involved in the region wonder why America has appointed a de facto proconsul (again) and want their say?
"When you look at a lot of these problems, you see considerable regional connections," Petraeus said yesterday. The effort would embrace all of Afghanistan's neighbors and possibly extend to India, which has had a long-standing rivalry with Pakistan. "There may be opportunities with respect to India," he said.
An overview of the review team's mission obtained by The Post says that including other government agencies and other nations in the planning will "mitigate the risk of over-militarization of efforts and the development of short-term solutions to long-term problems."
Nevertheless, some experts questioned whether Petraeus will have the authority to carry out such a sweeping strategy.
"General Petraeus is not in charge of our diplomacy. He can't decide whether we try to form an international contacts group on Pakistan," said Barnett Rubin, an Afghanistan expert at New York University.
Moreover, in dealing with Afghanistan at Central Command, Petraeus will face limitations that he did not encounter as the top commander in Iraq, such as the lack of a unified military command and serious resource shortages.
"We don't own it. It's been a NATO effort since 2006. He won't have the same sway with Karzai and the ambassadors and a bunch of other people that he had in Iraq," said a former senior military official with experience in Afghanistan.
Perhaps most worrying of all, Petraus' mini foreign policy is being described as "a policy bridge from one administration to the next" by one of his team members, Clare Lockhart, co-founder of the New York-based Institute for State Effectiveness along with former Afghan finance minister Ashraf Ghani. Does Obama know and approve of Petraeus' and the military's intended hijacking of his administration's foreign policy and the authority of his SecState in Afghanistan and the surrounding region?
h/t Russ at Scholars & Rogues
Crossposted from Newshoggers
Login or Register to post comments.
barack obama will be in charge in a short period of time and will set things right.
How? By continuing a war without end?
How long did the soviets run around "the stan" and what did they
accomplish?
What outcome will be suitable and for who?
Opium production is up so the CIA is happy...
Haliburton is getting checks...
The gravediggers at Arlington are getting a raise...
GE, Boeing, Carlyle are doing just fine...
And how are American workers, Afghani workers, and Iraqi workers doing?
We're losing...losing an endless war.
I wonder if he is taking the lead on this because the Bush Administration is basically inactive or impotent. Or, it could be that either Obama or McCain have made inquiries and Petreus felt it necessary to be proactive with some kind of recommendation for the area, since things are so erratic and dangerous there right now.
Yes. The job of the military man is to complete the mission.
If we are lacking the diplomatic skills necessary to do so,
I support Patreus 100% in his effort to fill that gap.
If he doesn't, he's not doing his job.
Agreed. He is trying to keep a lid on this shit storm for 3 more weeks.
I swear with all the shit going on with the stock markets and wars this will be a long 3 weeks.
Obama's goals in 1st 100days
Energy (job creation)
Expansion of state dept (peace)
I am sure he is doing exactly what you suspect.
He's not your average "Sir,Yes Sir" knee jerk type. We are lucky to have Generals with brains to step in when the politics are blocked. I have no doubt he will be glad to have diplomats take charge as soon as possible.
ronald reagan was the first american president to wear a nazi uniform and now it's all the rage.
Considering that the ENTIRE war on terror is a big fucking
lie, who is this good news for. The soldier and civilians
that continue to be butchered, the MIC and it's never ending
cash machine, the world economy?
Who benefits?
You know who.
Regardless of whether it comes from both the right and the left.
The absolutism that turned Reaganism into a religion is what got us into our current economic mess.
The absolutism that insists that the ENTIRE war on terror is a lie is similarly dangerous. We're talking about Afghanistan, not Iraq. Al Qaeda did have a safe haven for training camps in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda does still exist in Pakistan. They did launch attacks around the world, including twice against the WTC.
I personally hate the phrase "war on terror", but its inadequacy as nomenclature does not negate it completely. Overblown and disproportionate, perhaps, but a total lie? Please.
But diplomacy doesn't sell billion dollar super weapons. Nor does it further the ends of a military industrial money making machine.
I think they call that a military coup, eh?
Well, considering that Condoleezza Rice is completely effing useless, I frankly don't blame this gentleman for stepping up...
(I was at Stanford when Condi was there. She was completely effing useless at Stanford, too, not to say filled with an irrational hatred of Cubans because of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and I'm sure she turned that sentiment to the Middle East easily enough. You can't deal rationally with people you don't see as human beings.)
China vows to help cash-strapped Pakistan
US losing leverage in the region.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/16/mcca...
I guess it could be easily said that JOHN MC CAIN HANGS AROUND WITH WAR PROFITEERS NOW???
I'm glad the few comments already posted at least understand that Petreaus should be very careful about what he actually does, as opposed to considers, because I truly hope Obama has the balls to remove Petreaus, despite the fawning and claimed intelligence of Petreaus. I'm waiting for the true American patriots who call for a massive restructuring (and reduction of) the military around the world as well as their return to safer ports (I know the Army don't station in ports). A real peace dividend. I agree with Commenter who said that the war is a lie. Where are the real men of honor who make this US policy.
this is another example of how bush/cheney are
attempting to use the military complex to take
over not only on the field but back here at home.
bush/cheney are quietly positioning the military
to be available during this next election to be
stationed at polling precincts to control any
"alleged unrest" during nov 4th. bush still
has his little ole directive 51 in place to
take over at a moment's notice.
Anyone remember the firing of General MacArthur by Truman during the Korean invasion in the '50s?
I received one of their disgusting fliers in the mail today - terrorists in cutout letters on the front and I am submitting it to the Department of Justice immediately.
These Republicans must be stopped. They're totally out of control.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/16/mass...
petraeus has many times been identified as one of the most politicized commanders in recent times. and that's saying something.
it's also interesting to note this from dana milbank's online chat today. all kinds of people associated with this administration feel comfortable operating outside their areas of authority:
Arlington, Va.: The Secret Service has now labeled the "kill him" report as unfounded. Why isn't The Post giving this report as much coverage as the original false report received?
Dana Milbank:
Glad you asked, because I saw this earlier. This is actually about the incident in Scranton, not the one in Clearwater, Fla, that I wrote about here.
I wasn't at the Scranton event, but I have to say the Secret Service is in dangerous territory here. In cooperation with the Palin campaign, they've started preventing reporters from leaving the press section to interview people in the crowd. This is a serious violation of their duty -- protecting the protectee -- and gets into assisting with the political aspirations of the candidate. It also often makes it impossible for reporters to get into the crowd to question the people who say vulgar things. So they prevent reporters from getting near the people doing the shouting, then claim it's unfounded because the reporters can't get close enough to identify the person.
I heard Anthony Zinni speak several years ago and he indicated that much of his job (the same job Petreaus has now) consisted of diplomacy, dealing with Presidents/Prime Ministers, etc.. in his area and developing connections with American government officials. While we might think that the military shouldn't be involved in diplomacy, at this level its a lot of what they seem to do.
There's always a certain level of diplomacy involved in a general officer's duties when involved in alliances. The Duke of Marlborough needed to deal with the HRE as represented by Eugene of Savoy and the military leaders of the United Provinces in their alliance against France during the War of the Spanish Succession. Ditto Washington vis-a-vis France during our revolution, Wellington with the Dutch and Prussians, Spanish and Portugese during the Napoleonic Wars, Pershing during WWI, Eisenhower in WWII, etc., etc.....There's a need to work in concert with your military allies in the field, and a good general knows how to motivate his counterparts in a good, working alliance.
The big difference though is this, imo:
...and the leveraging of diplomatic and economic initiatives with nearby countries that are influential in the war.
That is the duty of the State Department. Or, at least, it should be. But the fact of the matter is that State, under Bushco, has become an international joke, and unless dealing with nations who are precisely aligned with this administration ideologically, the only tools we have are military. So if Petraeus is indeed the one whose job it is, now, to gain leverage, it's simply the pragmatic removal of the redundancy that is the State Department.
Why, that's unpatriotic!
Bomb them first and THEN sit down at the table, while they're reeling from "shock and awe".
Petraeus must support his command in chimp, whether he likes it or not, but let's hope that he realizes that he's really the one running this fiasco.
Oh, and it's "separate", not "seperate". (pet peave)
Actually this is not uncommon for an area CINC. They are among the most individuals in the world. Very few people know how much unbridled power these generals and admirals have. It has beeb going on for a log time.
Well, I think it's obvious that Condi's not going to do it, so it might as well be him. At least someone with some competence is overreaching his authority.
At least Vicky Iseman hasn't been suicided by the McCain camp and I'm sure they paid her plenty in hush money to make these statements.
He's not fooling anyone. Even his aides were upset about the romantic nature of their "flying around the airspace". Hell, I'm surprised they didn't run into Putin up there in the airspace!".
In any case, McCain's affair with Vicky Iseman is far from away from the people's minds.
The lurid details will be drib...drib....dribbling out slowly but surely as whistleblowers come forward.
Besides, every woman involved in a clandestine affair has a best friend (or two or three) in whom she confides. Just ask Cindy McCain - she knows all about those little details.
I'm sure the National Enquirer is digging deeply into McCain's Lurid affair with Vicky Iseman right now.
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/10/16/...
I've been totally against the "war" on terror from the git-go. I was totally against the invasion of Iraq and I knew we screwed the pooch on Afghanistan from the very beginning in the way that it was handled.
Having said that, I'm not so sure that Petraeus and his people are the wrong people to be heading up this study. Regardless of how one feels about the conduct of the war, there is no doubt that today's American armed forces are the most educated in the world. Remember that before this fiasco got started all of the the top military leaders were adamantly against the invasion of Iraq. The Chief of Staff, Shinseki got fired as did a number of other top level officers. Rumsfeld's Hitler-like generalship is what's put us in such a long term lurch. It's a foolish misconception to assume that simply because one is in the military one complete believes in the foibles of the current administration.
The military leadership is in the best position to make this assessment. Thankfully, or maybe hopefully, there won't be a Neocon nut job at the receiving end forcing a re-write of the report to reflect the results wanted instead of the unvarnished truth.
Now that posse commitatus has been done away with and the Northern Comand has been remissioned for combat operations in the "homeland", expect to see a lot more of this kid of thing.
Obama needs to dump this toadying, self-serving sycophant early on.
"The original 1878 Posse Comitatus Act was indeed passed with the intent of removing the Army from domestic law enforcement. Posse comitatus means “the power of the county,” reflecting the inherent power of the old West county sheriff to call upon a posse of able-bodied men to supplement law enforcement assets and thereby maintain the peace. Following the Civil War, the Army had been used extensively throughout the South to maintain civil order, to enforce the policies of the Reconstruction era, and to ensure that any lingering sentiments of rebellion were crushed. However, in reaching those goals, the Army necessarily became involved in traditional police roles and in enforcing politically volatile Reconstruction-era policies. The stationing of federal troops at political events and polling places under the justification of maintaining domestic order became of increasing concern to Congress, which felt that the Army was becoming politicized and straying from its original national defense mission. The Posse Comitatus Act was passed to remove the Army from civilian law enforcement and to return it to its role of defending the borders of the United States." The Myth of Posse Comitatus
Major Craig T. Trebilcock, U.S. Army Reserve JAG Corps
"The original 1878 Posse Comitatus Act was indeed passed with the intent of removing the Army from domestic law enforcement. Posse comitatus means “the power of the county,” reflecting the inherent power of the old West county sheriff to call upon a posse of able-bodied men to supplement law enforcement assets and thereby maintain the peace. Following the Civil War, the Army had been used extensively throughout the South to maintain civil order, to enforce the policies of the Reconstruction era, and to ensure that any lingering sentiments of rebellion were crushed. However, in reaching those goals, the Army necessarily became involved in traditional police roles and in enforcing politically volatile Reconstruction-era policies. The stationing of federal troops at political events and polling places under the justification of maintaining domestic order became of increasing concern to Congress, which felt that the Army was becoming politicized and straying from its original national defense mission. The Posse Comitatus Act was passed to remove the Army from civilian law enforcement and to return it to its role of defending the borders of the United States." The Myth of Posse Comitatus
Major Craig T. Trebilcock, U.S. Army Reserve JAG Corps
It's about seperation of power and having the military subordinate to civilian policymakers rather than the other way around.
***
That is so pre 9/11 thinking, dude. /s
Chimp only know how to destroy, and that mission is accomplished. Condi says, so many shoes, so little time. Petraeus will hear from Bushco, if he starts making a dent in the heroin trade.
Caesar rustles...?
The Bush administration has left a huge vacuum in the civilian/diplomatic effort around the globe. While concerns about military separation are valid and important, I am not sure that the General isn't simply trying to fill the void left by the incompetent Bush Administration.
Smells like Iraq policy to me.......Pay terrorists/insurgents to stop fighting. "We won't deal with terrorists"....... Someone shoulda told Bush more troops crush insurgents and simply having troops on the ground is not enough. A force large enough to prevent insurgency is needed. What our men and women in the Middle East are lacking is enough troops to fight a multi-front war.
Bush should have really done some reading on Hitler and his epic fail, due to trying to pick too many fights. You can't buy two BMW's with a single car loan.
At least Hitler gave the German citizens a share in the looting, we get doodely squat. Unless you count tax breaks, so we can pay more interest on the national debt.
It seems to me that Petraeus is being told to act more like an old Roman provincial governor or Viceroy than a overall theatre of military operations commander which is is true role. Diplomatic and economic matters should be left up to the Department of State and other agencies that specialize in those areas.
IPS News: Top Ex-Diplomats Slam 'Militarisation' of Foreign Policy
Given the outrageous constitutional manipulations of Bush and Cheney and the rest of the Bush crew I, for one, am willing to overlook a temporary trespass on the Secretary of State's prerogatives in the interest of a rational and effective policy. Petraeus will serve in his position at the pleasure of President Obama who can disown or own a coordinated diplomatic and military plan that has very serious merits as he sees fit. As you correctly pointed out Petraeus is a very smart cookie. You don't get to rise to his level in the Bush administration without having some diplomatic chops. His plan makes good sense to me and who gets to implement and own it matters little. It is, after all, merely a sensible proposal at this point.
by the time Obama gets to tackle that ownership question.
Its funny how liberals love to idolize military men. The best/worst example on this site is the adoration of "the peace general" Wesley Clark. This article exhibits the same tendency for one of the few generals who were syncophantic enough to not get fired by Bush. Yes, "some people" think that Petraeus is smart and a counter insurgency God. Mostly the same people who told us Iraq had WMDs. Other people think Petraeus is a consumate ass kisser and plagerist:
http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick09102007.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/price10302007.html
It is my understanding that there is a separation of authority and scope of purpose between the Department of Defense and the State Department. There are sometime grey areas the highlight those areas where the two Executive Branch Departments may claim the dominant position. This does not seem to be one of them. The State Department is responsible for the foreign poly of the USA. That includes treaties that have military and security implications in them. A general in charge of a major military command is reaching well beyond his pay grade and scope of his command when he starts to hold reviews about diplomatic discussions with our "allies" that his command has an interest in. When was General Patreus transfered out of DOD and into the State Department? When did the military start reviewing the work of a civilian branch of our government? Did we have a coup or junta here that made the General in charge of another department of the Executive Branch? It is bad enough that we have a Four star Air Force General, who like to wear his uniform while representing the CIA at hearings on the Hill or at press dog and pony shows with the current occupant of the White House. The Office who was replaced the General Petraeus once call him and "ass kissing sycophant.("sycophant |ˈsikəfənt; -ˌfant| noun - a person who acts obsequiously toward someone in order to gain advantage; a servile flatterer.")
In evolutionary terms, we "select" our military brass to take charge when no one else will.
But, that said, it's just double-effin' disturbing that anyone with medals and ribbons have to step in to fill the void. This Administration falls into two basic camps: The dilettantes and the classic Ivory Tower academics. Sadly, I'm only a slightly bigger "fan"--to use the term extremely loosely--of Petraeus than I was of Sanchez because Petraeus has a better understanding of political realities. I mean, think about how the WWII Allied effort would have worked out if Patton, rather than Eisenhower, had been in charge. [shudder] That's the difference we're talking about here.
I don't like the idea of brass dictating foreign policy more than anyone here. But the bottom line is that this sad-sack cluster-@#$% of an Administration knows its days are numbered. It has absolutely zero incentive to do anything constructive because somebody else had to clean up the mess come late January. In the meantime, the mofos currently parking their @$$e$ at 1600 Pennsylvania are too busy measuring the drapes, dictating the outlines for their (ghost-written) memoirs, and negotiating their consulting for lobbying/law firms and/or right-wing belief tanks.
In the meantime, somebody's gotta duct-tape the situation together long enough to last until next year. So I have a hard time blaming Petraeus--it's what the guy was trained to do. More people will die if he doesn't. Look, I've dealt with enough @#$%^wit managers who wouldn't stick their necks out at gunpoint, but who will happily take credit when things go right and throw everyone else under the bus when they don't. I can smell that bull$#!+ miles off.
Fortunately, I think that there's a silver lining in the double-cluster-@#$%^& of Afghanistan and Iraq: There's not much anyone can do, and thus the damage will be minimized. Obama so far doesn't seem to be afraid of people who know more than he does or are afraid to show it. I don't expect miracles, but I do see cause for hope in that.
http://www.ronnierayjenkins.com/topics/deathi...
Do you REALLY want Condolezza Rice doing anything right now. Patreus is going to be working for us (USA) throughout 2009, Rice isn't.
I don't want the Bush administration to have any say in anything whatsoever. When they talk about the economic problems, they blow hundreds of points off the dow. When they talk tough to Iran, the cost of oil rises 10 dollars and our trade deficit balloons another billion. These buffons are too dangerous to be in charge of anything.
In our government there is one concept that overrides almost everything. That concept is that CIVILIAN control of our various departments of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. The only officers allowed to head any Departments within the Executive Branch of the Federal Government are ex-military officers who take take position as civilian Secretary of.... The CIA gets away with it because it is not a secretarial position in the cabinet of the President. It does bother me greatly that the four star Air Force general in charge of the CIA can't decide where is loyalty lies, with the CIA or with the Air Force.
After 8 years, couldn't you go with the default answer - either ignoring it completely or fking things up ?
Kings of War went with a different quote from the same article...
Yeah. Left that bit out, didn't you.
Kind of a strange criticism of the Bush administration, that someone was making progress where those usually responsible aren't. Seriously, this is the administration where the EPA wasn't really that keen on environmental protection. Are we really bitching that the do-nothings are having their do-nothing turf infringed upon ?
When all you do is hysterical bitching, I guess you go with what you know.
All of this stuff is pretty routine for what used to be called (pre-Rumsfeld) the "regional CinC" and what is now called the "combatant commander." There are positions in the regional commands (CENTCOM, PACOM, etc.) known as PolAd (Political Adviser) and these sorts of policy initiatives are common stuff in the regional commanders' plans. In fact, one of the reasons for the creation of the regional commands under the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 was to make precisely these sorts of initiatives easier to work. So I'm afraid there's no there there.
True enough. But since Condi Rice, the embodiment of the Peter Principle, has demonstrated her complete incompetence, I suppose someone has to step into the void...
As an officer who just served in Afghanistan, Petraeus's focus is concurrent with current doctrine concerning counter-insurgency warfare. Essentially it says to establish a secure area, and then push in economic and political reform to the populace to give them a vested interest in continued peace. For all intense purposes, Afghanistan's area of influence extends into Pakistan. Reassessing the situation in Pakistan is essential to establishing peace in Afghanistan. Having said that, including countries like India is somewhat out of his realm. However, considering his success, he should probably be given a little bit of slack. Besides, with his clout and political influence, he is probably more influential than the Sec of State. The key to all of this begins with NATO. Technically, US command in Afghanistan is subordinate to NATO.
Login or Register to post comments.