General David Petraeus

I don't know General Petraeus, however my experiences as a retired military officer lead me to make certain assessments based on my 20 years of experience. These views are a compilation of my experiences and the reading that I have done about this very intelligent and talented individual. Many officers aspire to attaining the rank of General, but often are unwilling to make the commitment and sacrifice that is essential simply to be considered for promotion to such a responsible and demanding rank. In many instances the demands to remain competitive for selection require family duties to be turned over to a spouse that is completely supportive of the goal to achieve that rank. Perhaps it is telling that he married the daughter of a four star General who must have intimately understood the sacrifice that would be necessary if one married a career officer.

Military service is a demanding career that often results in long family separations, confronting ethical dilemmas, leading and caring for soldiers with the same passion that one would reserve for family and a myriad of challenges to insure that positions of responsibility are continually sought and then carried out with excellence. It is not enough just to serve with honor and distinction without the attendant visibility by senior officers of the talents, goals and aspirations of the potential General Officer candidate.

General David Petraeus is perhaps the most widely known General Officer in the world, but exactly who he is and what he really believes beyond the testimony that he provided to Congress about the involvement of the United States in Iraq is a bit more difficult to determine. One can easily check his military credentials and experiences and easily recognize that he has had a number of demanding leadership positions. He has proven his ability over time, but it is probably most important to understand his core values and beliefs to assess his credibility and potential for success as the leader of our military forces in Iraq. Sadly, none of our congressional leaders appeared to have used his doctoral dissertation as the basis for any questions. It is interesting to note that in many instances that the writings of a witness or nominee appearing before Congress are questioned in length about their writings, yet in this instance it was apparently believed not to be salient. One has to believe that the congressional questioners overlooked a critical area in their assessment of the credibility of General Petraeus.

His attendance and graduation from West Point speaks much about his dedication and loyalty to the United States. One can surmise that at least during his tenure at West Point that integrity, honesty and loyalty were inculcated into his being. It also speaks to his desire to rise to high levels within the Army after conquering the numerous challenges of leadership that would face a junior officer. He is an Army Ranger which adds additional credibility to his character. One can be assured that he possesses the characteristics of extraordinary desire and the determination to face and conquer any obstacle that he might encounter. The story is recounted in his biography that he was accidentally shot in the chest during a live fire exercise and operated on by future Senator Dr. Bill Frist, so he certainly has experienced first hand the effects of physical trauma. This unfortunate incident also had some fortunate results as Petraeus developed a friendship with Frist that enabled him to have a Senatorial contact when he needed some assistance when he was the commander of the 101^st Airborne Division. An episode of him contacting Senator Frist for help is recounted in the recently released book Dead Certain by Robert Draper that covers the life of President Bush.

That he is driven to succeed can easily be seen. In fact, one has to believe that he certainly had knowledge or at least the very certain belief that he would attain General Officer stature early in his career. Field Grade Army Officers recognize that they must have a graduate degree to be competitive for promotion and the Army assisted Petraeus in that endeavor by providing the opportunity for him to earn a doctorate which would assuredly promote his ability to rise to very senior positions unless he made a major gaffe during his journey. This educational achievement coupled with the confidence and self-assuredness that a West Point officer is trained to possess must have made him a bit more cautious in his approaches to the leadership challenges that he had to conquer to earn the stars that awaited him. The reality is that there is a minefield of difficulties that await those that aspire to attain General Officer status. Petraeus successfully negotiated that minefield. That experience no doubt provided him with the political savvy that is essential for success in most endeavors.

One must clearly demonstrate the ability to chose positions very carefully and recognize the power of most bureaucracies to stymy efforts if one exceeds the boundaries of their power and authority. Petraeus recognizes that reality. A telling example of his view was evident during his testimony before Congress as he carefully avoided responding to questions that might be outside the boundaries of his authority and position as commander of the Multi-National Force Iraq (MNF-I). On several occasions during his questioning he deferred to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or to Admiral Fallon his immediate commander.

Perhaps the most extensive assessment of his core values and beliefs can be gleaned from his doctoral dissertation, "The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam: A Study of Military Influence and the Use of Force in the Post-Vietnam Era" written in 1987. This dissertation of over 300 pages is a result of his assessment of the military lessons learned as a result of that conflict. It is reasonable to believe that his thinking about and analysis of that conflict has shaped his present views and will guide his actions as he attempts to deal with the combat realities on the ground and the political realities that confound the already difficult struggle in Iraq.

While his review was extensive and he had access to the senior officers that directed the efforts of the United Sates in Vietnam, his conclusions were carefully crafted to recognize the difficulties of commanders in that conflict and to state that while there were obvious lessons learned from that era, they may not necessarily be applicable in future wars. Interestingly, a review of his writing would seem to indicate that he may be currently experiencing a sense of deja-vu as he is currently confronting some of the difficulties that Vietnam era Generals encountered.

His thesis discusses many elements that are involved in leading our nation to war and rightly states that in many cases senior military leaders are often much more reluctant to use force than their civilian masters. One will never know, but can wonder what his recommendations might have been as the national leadership was contemplating entry into Iraq. Would he have concurred with the ultimate decision to use a minimum number of troops or would he have followed the thinking of General Shinseki that the United States would require several hundred thousand troops to assure success? General Shinseki was a Vietnam veteran and perhaps he well remembered the lessons of Vietnam much more clearly than Petraeus who only reported observations. General Shinseki provided his best military judgment and as a result was moved from his position as the Army Chief of Staff. Certainly Petraeus was well aware of that occurrence as he prepared to testify. In fact, Petraeus recounts that many junior officers questioned why some of the Vietnam era Generals that felt that they were being manipulated by politicians did not resign their commissions. That Shinseki opted to retire must have reminded him of that period.

He discusses Vietnam as being socially fragmented, suffering from a leadership void, involved in a difficult political situation and occupying a geographically strategic position in the world. Who could have known that these same observations are applicable as he leads forces in Iraq. In one area of his thesis he mentions the "appearance of winning versus actual victory". That was an interesting choice of words that like so much of what he wrote then has application to the present situation in Iraq.

He discusses in depth the need for a close and healthy relationship between military leaders and the civilian leadership of our nation. Here again one has to wonder how he feels after experiencing the wrath of those political leaders that are opposed to our involvement. One news report discussing an interview with Petraeus quoted Petraeus as stating his appearance was "like an out of body experience." Was he remembering words contained in his PhD dissertation?

He should be well aware of the need for political leaders to have confidence in the truthfulness as well as the competence of those selected to lead our military. Another anecdote about Petraeus that is recorded in Dead Certain explains that when President Bush informed Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki that Petraeus had been selected to lead the MNF-I, Maliki expressed reservations. Maliki cited the fact that Petraeus during his tenure as commander of the 101^st Airborne he had not been aggressive toward former Baath Party officials and in fact had empowered them while he administered the war effort in Mosul. Bush told Maliki he had confidence in the ability of Petraeus. Whether of not Maliki still possesses concerns about Petraeus is an unknown, but is certain to affect the relationship is there is not mutual trust. Not much has been recorded of the relationship between Secretary of Defense Gates and Petraeus, but it is reasonable to assume that they share a mutual respect and admiration for each other.

Petraeus reports in his thesis and no doubt recognizes that domestic popular support for war is of a relatively short duration if success is not attained quickly. He stated that "evidence for domestic support for military action abroad probably would be among the most important factors that could lead the military to adopt a more aggressive view on the use of force." In other words popular support might change the attitude of a normally very cautious military to recommend combat operations. That certainly makes intuitive sense, but one wonders what his thinking might be about a changed circumstance? Might waning public support also make successful combat operations more imperative in an effort to secure a victory before public support erodes completely? Obviously public support is of great concern to the military leadership and he so states in his thesis.

There are a number of other observations that can be made about the information contained in the Petraeus PhD thesis that I will fore go in an attempt to keep this analysis somewhat short. Perhaps the most telling of his conclusions is the suggestion that war and peace may not be mutually exclusive. He states in discussing the case of the insurgency in El Salvador that ". . . while all-out victory makes considerable sense under certain circumstances, MacArthurian 'no substitute for victory' logic has little relevance to many of the most troubling situations facing the United States today." One could assume that Petraeus believes that particularly in counter insurgency operations there is a tolerable level of violence which is acceptable.

So, does Petraeus possess some special insight into the Iraq problem? Can he successfully juggle all the combat, diplomatic, economic and political balls that are in perpetual motion, but demand attention? Can he coordinate the myriad of facets to the war in Iraq? He is qualified, talented and experienced. Will that be enough? He is not a quitter, nor is President Bush. He has a time line of about 18 months before the next Presidential election cycle and he will have about 100,000 soldiers beginning in the summer of 2008 to accomplish the task. The odds appear against him, but one has to believe that if anyone on the ground can provide some semblance of resolution to this difficult solution he is the right individual for the job.

References:

The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam: A Study of Military Influence and the Use of Force in the Post-Vietnam Era by David H. Petraeus (1987)

Dead Certain, The Presidency of George W. Bush by Robert Draper (2007)

http://wikpedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus

Other Readings:

htto://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5305713/site/newsweek/

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,504993,00.html