There are some that dislike General Petraeus, for partisan purposes, but for the majority of America, he is the most trustworthy and honest person on the public stage. We trust him, because he doesn't blow smoke up our collective butts. When things are going poorly, he says so, without regard for what politician or party will be faulted for it. When things are going well, he says so. When things need work, he says so. When a strategy works, he doesn't care if its sponsored by the Democrats or the Republicans.
"It is vital to (US) National Security Interests that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban not be able to re-establish terrorist sanctuaries in Afghanistan." GEN David Petraeus, 3/18/2011, interview with Michael O'Hanlon on the National Review, above.
"The Iranian Revolutionary Guards force (are) training, equipping, and financing insurgents in Afghanistan." ibid.
"We have to prevent them from (terrorists/Al-Qaeda) operating anywhere, including Yemen and elsewhere." "We need to displace them from Pakistan." ibid
"We have to help them (Afghans) to build those institutions." "We have to have a comprehensive COIN strategy." ibid
In April 2008, when General Petraeus returned to Washington to provide another update to Congress, the sustained successes in Iraq, were sufficient to somewhat mute the partisan sloganeering against him, but not completely. Between April and November, the situation in Iraq had changed to such a success that it wasn't even the primary issue in the General Election. When he was recommended to head up the Central Command, both sides of the aisle understood his patriotism and successes sufficiently that neither side was willing to vote against him, though still not enough for Senator Obama to take the time to vote for him.
Though it was apparent by November 2008 that Iraq had not only been turned around, but was a Victory, Candidate Obama still refused to admit it, and the American people weren't talking much about it. But when President Obama had burnt up all of his options on Afghanistan, in the department of Generals, it was General Petreaus he turned to, to take a demotion, to lead one more war. The General accepted the demotion, because it was best for the Nation, though it wasn't best for him or his career. The General would likely have finished his military career as the Joint Chief of Staff, had he not taken the demotion. He had earned a nomination, though it was never submitted.
General Petraeus knew Afghanistan was important. He understands why we cannot abandon the field of battle. And it will likely be years before we know what was in his recommendation for Troop levels post-July 2011. We know he had previously stated that it would take a high bar for a General to morally resign or retire over policy decisions of the President. But retire he did, when the President decided to cut Troop levels on a timetable, which had been pre-announced in 2009, after he submitted his recommendations.
I don't know if the General would have spoke about that, if he weren't the Director of the CIA, and there are few that could be more qualified for any position in National Security, but I continue to believe that he was nominated for that post, knowing it would decrease the chances that he would speak out against the decisions of his boss.
But what of Michael O'Hanlon? He is perhaps the most objective researcher on our current conflicts. He has provided the raw data on Iraq for years, and the Brooking's Institute has in recent years added the Afghanistan Index and Pakistan Index to compliment that work.
Stumble It!
