Petraegon
Counter-insurgency to be institutionalized? Only about four decades later than it should have been. Pentagon taps Petraeus to head promotion board. WaPo:
The Army has summoned the top U.S. commander in Iraq back to Washington to preside over a board that will pick some of the next generation of Army leaders, an unusual decision that officials say represents a vote of confidence in Gen. David H. Petraeus’s conduct of the war, as well as the Army counterinsurgency doctrine he helped rewrite.
The Army has long been criticized for rewarding conventional military thinking and experience in traditional combat operations, and current and former defense officials have pointed to Petraeus’s involvement in the promotion board process this month as a sign of the Army’s commitment to encouraging innovation and rewarding skills beyond the battlefield.
Some junior and midlevel officers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have been particularly outspoken in their criticisms, saying the Army’s current leadership lacks a hands-on understanding of today’s conflicts and has not listened to feedback from younger personnel.
“It’s unprecedented for the commander of an active theater to be brought back to head something like a brigadier generals board,” said retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, former head of the Army War College. A senior defense official said Petraeus is “far too high-profile for this to be a subtle thing.”
The board, composed of 15 Army generals, will examine a pool of more than 1,000 colonels to select about 40 brigadier generals, expected to lead the service over the next decade or longer. Although each board member has an equal vote on the candidates, Petraeus will be able to guide the discussion.
Petraeus, a four-star general with a doctorate in international relations, has spent three of the past four years in Iraq and has observed firsthand many of the colonels under consideration for promotion. He is well-regarded by military officials for his political skills in Iraq and at home, including winning support from a skeptical Congress for a U.S. troop increase in Iraq.
“Dave Petraeus in many ways is viewed as the archetype of what this new generation of senior leader is all about,” Scales said, “a guy . . . who understands information operations, who can be effective on Capitol Hill, who can communicate with Iraqis, who understands the value of original thought, who has the ability through the power of his intellect to lead people to change.”
The information revolution “is dramatically changing everything about the way we fight,” said Lt. Col. John A. Nagl, an Army counterinsurgency expert. “These enemies cannot defeat us on the battlefield but are trying to sap the public will, so to win you need a very different kind of leader, someone who understands information and asymmetric warfare, and that sort of flexible, adaptive thinker is not necessarily the kind the training and education programs of the Army grow and the skill set we select for.”
This could be the single most important step toward ensuring success in Iraq, given the uncertainty of our future political leadership, the direction it will take and the pressures it will face for withdrawal. Military leadership that gets, and is enthusiastic about counter-insurgency could be the last best defense against politically motivated impulses to throw out babies with bathwater.
CQ: consulting success.
OTB: Bush’s long-term stamp.
Small Wars Journal: good start, now ditch the peacetime mentality.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:47 am on Saturday, November 17, 2007
11 Responses to “Petraegon”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
November 17th, 2007 at 10:16 am
The next generation of flag officers could be a very interesting collection if this process continues. My own experience with promotion boards (and their results) leaves less than excited about them, but this looks promising.
November 17th, 2007 at 11:55 am
[...] 17, 2007 by Michael van der Galiën In what many consider to be a sign of major confidence among (US Army) officers / the Pentagon for General [...]
November 17th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Hear hear TRJ. Selection boards often pick company men and politicians, mistaking those traits for loyalty and resourcefulness. And they occasionally pick great leaders. I have had, as you have, the experience of working for both kinds and any improvement to what is always going to be a flawed but noble effort is applauded.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Changing the way younger officers are promoted is a good idea. But isn’t it Ironic that pleasing your immediate higher up as the sole criteria is now seen as a poor method for promotion when CENTCOM commander Fallon himself has reportedly called Petreus an “as*-kissing little chickensh*t”.
The fact that Petraues “is well-regarded by military officials for his political skills in Iraq and at home” isn’t good. Generals should carry out orders, not come home to politic on behalf of a president’s policy as Petraeus did this summer.
There’s reasons the counter insurgency lessons of the Vietnam War were abandoned and we never developed a occupation plan for hostile nations. No military officials ever thought our civilian leaders would be dumb enough to engage in these kind of wars again and we’ve never aspired to be a imperial power.
The British have a long history of such operations and they know their presence in Basra was counter productive. It’s way past time we took a few lessons from them. Arming all sides to the teeth, paying Sunni Insurgents $300 a month each to stand down isn’t a strategy for success. It just guarantees all hell will break loose when we leave.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
…who understands information operations, who can be effective on Capitol Hill, who can communicate with Iraqis, who understands the value of original thought, who has the ability through the power of his intellect to lead people to change.
I wish the electorate would understand that this is the kind of person we need in government as well, particularly Congress, instead of the shriveled up, hidebound old farts we keep electing *cough/Murtha/Reid/etal/cough*
Generals should carry out orders, not come home to politic on behalf of a president’s policy as Petraeus did this summer.
Markg8, is this what you think he did? Funny, I rather thought he was “politicking” on behalf of his soldiers and the job they’re doing in the Middle East, which wouldn’t be necessary if we didn’t have a Congress run by vote-whoring surrenderists. And if you’re still trying to equate Vietnam with Iraq, perhaps you could benefit from some innovative reorganization of thinking yourself.
November 17th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
But isn’t it Ironic that pleasing your immediate higher up as the sole criteria is now seen as a poor method for promotion when CENTCOM commander Fallon himself has reportedly called Petreus an “as*-kissing little chickensh*t”.
Fallon’s judgment is highly suspect given his recent cluster f**ks in the Pacific.
November 17th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
markg8, have you ever seen flag officers backstabbing each other? If it isn’t some territorial pi$$ing match, it’s about priorities for resources, or simply jealous about the attention they are (or aren’t) getting. They are human, after all.
So I take Fallon’s comment with a large grain of salt…..especially since he had to have his own patrons to get where he is. Which means he had to indulge in some a$$ kissing himself.
If lives weren’t at stake, it’d be like watching a soap opera.
November 18th, 2007 at 8:03 am
…Generals should carry out orders, not come home to politic on behalf of a president’s policy as Petraeus did this summer.
I listened to General Petraeus’ testimony all day long the first day before the House committee. The second day was before the Senate committee, and a lot of the same ground was covered.
He demonstrated a profound understanding of Iraq, of the all around insurgent dynamic as well as of the people and the complicated interactions of Iraqi culture.
In the face of some truly idiotic questions and lengthy self- serving speeches from some of the committee members, his intelligence and patience were stunning.
It was refreshing like manna from heaven to hear real words and analysis as opposed to the constant barrage of uninformative and highly selective blah blah blah in the press and from Congress.
The entire exercise was far more than “politicking”.
If the branches of the US military are determined to abandon some of their tried and (not so true) methods of operation and promotion in the face of today’s “assymetric” warfare, these are welcome adaptations.
I just hope General Petraeus doesn’t spend too much time with the military reorganization…stuff…to the detriment of his command in Iraq.
November 18th, 2007 at 8:30 am
the shriveled up, hidebound old farts we keep electing
vote-whoring surrenderists
Keepers :)
November 18th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Nicely put, tanstaafl.
I’d just like to add that Clausewitz noted that war is an extension of politics. So a good general has to understand politics because it drives war. And they must work for or with politicians as a result, exactly as Petraeus is doing, in Washington and Iraq, respectively.
A poor (or bad) general thinks that he or she is a politician, and stops acting like a soldier.
December 22nd, 2007 at 4:03 am
[...] Jules Crittenden observes (linking to the same article) this will have the effect of institutionalizing the military’s [...]