Fog Facts: Petraeus' Fog of War
By Larry Beinhart
Created May 13 2008 - 11:48am
General Petraeus is being promoted. Now in charge of the war in Iraq, he
will take charge of the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Here's a quick summary of the media's opinion of the man, as taken from
Wikipedia:
"Time has named Petraeus one of the 100 most influential leaders and
revolutionaries of 2007 as well as one of its four runners up for Time
Person of the Year. He was also named the second most influential American
conservative by The Daily Telegraph as well as The Daily Telegraph's 2007
Man of the Year, and "America's most respected soldier" by Der Spiegel in
2008. In 2005, Petraeus was selected as one of America's top leaders by US
News and World Re****t."
Here are the facts.
Petraeus' primary job in Iraq was to train Iraq's police and army. So that
they could stand up and we could stand down.
The facts speak for themselves. They can't stand up and we haven't stood
down.
No matter how often people say he's brilliant and how many charts he
brings
to Senate hearings, the bottom line is that his efforts failed completely.
He went back to the US to rewrite the army's counter-insurgency manual.
It's available on line, here [1] or here [2] or you can buy it on Amazon.
It's clear, clean, well-written and makes a lot of sense.
So it is even more of a shame that neither anybody on the Senate
committees
that questioned him nor anybody in the media seems to have read it. The
most
salient idea is the force ratio that's called for. Twenty to twenty-five
soldiers for every 1000 in the population. Which is a peculiar way to say
a
bare minimum of 1:50. It is also the same force ratio that was called for
in
the old counter-insurgency manual.
Iraq's population is 27,500,000. That means, according to both the new and
the old counter-insurgency manuals, according to General Petraeus himself,
that a successful operation in Iraq requires a minimum of 550,000 troops.
Over half a million pairs of boots on the ground.
Why then, would he eagerly take command of "the surge," which brought
troops
levels up to merely 169,000 troops? About 381,000 short of the minimum.
Half
a million soldiers short of the more ideal ratio 25:1,000.
The goal of the surge was: (1) to bring stability so that, (2) Iraqi
political progress could be made and (3) Iraq's police and armed forces
could stand up! So that we could stand down!
The current level of conflict shows that Petraeus and "the surge" failed
to
bring stability. No significant political progress has been made. The
recent
operation in Basra, in which Iraqi troops refused to fight, deserted, or
went over to the other side, shows that once again Petraeus failed at the
same task he'd failed at initially.
What was the result, for him, of his clear cut second round of failures?
Another promotion.
That explains why he would take a job that his own numbers said must fail,
publicly pretend that it could succeed, and tell the Senate that it was
sort
of, kind of like, maybe succeeding. Because it didn't matter if it succeed
or failed. He was going to move on up.
It is widely presumed that the US failed to plan for an insurgency because
the people at the top, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al, didn't
think there'd be one. Anyone who said there might be, like General
****nsheki, was moved out of the way, demoted, or dismissed.
But by the time Petraeus went back -- promoted upwards based on his
initial
failure -- there was no doubt that there was an insurgency. There, at
hand,
was the text book on how to fight one, written by the man himself. So why
put in just a third of the troops needed to do the job?
Presuming that they're rational, not just loony toons, there was, and is,
no
intent to "win" in Iraq.
The intent was to create a political situation in which we would stay,
month
by incremental month, until Bush was gone. Then someone else would have to
withdraw.
Bush will then commit the propaganda mill he's creating in the guise of a
presidential library into pounding out the myth that had we stayed his
course, we would have won, and his successor was responsible for the
defeat.
Plenty of others will join in. A fair number of people will believe it. As
they currently believe the media and the hippies lost Vietnam. Which they
did not. Bad policy, bad strategy, bad tactics, and a ferocious commitment
of an enemy fighting on their home territory caused the US to lose that
war.
This is im****tant, not merely academic, because it is framing the debate.
If anyone -- like John McCain, George Bush, David Petraeus, anyone --
speaks
of victory in Iraq, winning in Iraq, or the like, we should take out the
counter-insurgency manual and wave it in their faces. "Here, the manual
says
you need half a million troops. Where are you going to get them? What will
they cost? Or haven't you read the manual?"
And please, if anyone knows a Senator, actually gives one enough cash,
that
they will actually listen to you, would please pass this on. So that the
next time Petraeus testifies before Congress -- say, at his confirmation
hearing for his next command, Chief of Centcom -- they can ask him: "You
failed in your task of training Iraqi troops and police. When you went
back
and your subordinates were in charge of training Iraqi troops and police,
you failed again. Now you will be in charge of two wars in which the key
to
success is training troops and police so that they can care for
themselves.
What will you do different so that you will succeed? And, in light of your
actual performances, why should we believe you?"
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues.
I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an op****tunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are
at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
|
