Gentile vs. Petraeus
There’s an opinion piece from March 4th in the World Politics Review by Lieutenant Colonel Gian Gentile entitled “Misreading the Surge Threatens U.S. Army’s Conventional Capabilities” and this morning it’s being used to discredit General Petraeus just prior to his testimony to four Congressional committees this week. Yochi J. Dreazen in the Wall Street Journal summarizes LTC Gentile in a piece today “Officer Questions Petraeus Strategy” mischaracterizes Gentile’s article right from the title;
“We’ve come up with this false narrative, this incorrect explanation of what is going on in Iraq,” he says. “We’ve come to see counterinsurgency as the solution to every problem and we’re losing the ability to wage any other kind of war.”
Col. Gentile is giving voice to an idea that previously few in the military dared mention: Perhaps the Petraeus doctrine isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. That’s a big controversy within a military that has embraced counterinsurgency tactics as a path to victory in Iraq. The debate, sparked by a short essay written by Col. Gentile titled “Misreading the Surge,” has been raging in military circles for months. One close aide to Gen. Petraeus recently took up a spirited defense of his boss.
I don’t completely agree with Gentile, but I see his point – and I think General Petreaus also sees his point. Gentile is preempting the old saw that “Generals are always fighting the last war” by saying that counterinsurgency operations aren’t the answer to every military problem. I get that, and I think General Petraeus gets that – maybe who Gentile is talking to is Congress and the next President.
Politicians are the ones who get war-fighting wrong. Like Bill Clinton tried to apply Desert Storm tactics to Serbia and ended up bombing them for weeks until they finally capitulated. And Bill Clinton thinking a few cruise missiles would end Osama bin Laden’s designs.
But it was exactly tactics like that has drawn this war out. the anti-war crowd, the failed policies of the Clinton Administration (and the previous Bush Administration) made Iraqis mistrustful of the US’ commitment to Iraq. Why would they throw in with u, if at a moment’s notice we’d cut and run.
In my mind, General Petraeus was the right man at the right time, just like Grant and Sherman were the right men at the right time. Could Grant or Sherman be successful fighting the Great War? Probably not. Would General Petreaus be successful fighting Iran or China using the current strategy in Iraq? Nope. Not even if the wars happened tonight.
Petraeus and Bush are the combination which made the “surge” work. Before the 2006 election, Iraqis were told everyday that the US would withdraw if the Democrats won the Congress. The day after the election, the president announced he’d send more troops – proving the Democrats to be eunuchs as far as military operations went. The Iraqis then understood how committed we were/are to them – despite the cacophonous chattering from the Left.
Gentile is right that we can’t sacrifice our warfighting edge – which is what happened during the Clinton Administration when our troops were sent to “Meals on Wheels” Camp in Fort Polk, Louisiana and trained to hand out bags of rice. But I think that Gentile is wrong that the Generals will ever make the mistakes that were made at Bull Run, Kasserine Pass and with Task Force Smith.
LTC Gentile is just trying to remind us that there’s not a standard solution to every military operation.
Category: Politics, Terror War
