Petraeus headed to NATO? What about Iraq?
Posted 43 weeks 2 days ago byThe New York Times is reporting that Gen. David Petraeus might be given command of NATO. This perplexes me, for two reasons:
* During America's previous modern wars, there has not been the frequent shuffling of commanders while the war was going on. World War II was Ike's war, at least in Europe. Westmoreland had Vietnam, until it was clear it was time to move him out. But it seems as though the Army is sticking with peacetime promotion habits. Am I right about this? And if so: Is this smart?
* Is NATO still a prestige command? It seems like the president wants to reward Petraeus with the job -- and, who knows, maybe a year or two in Brussels is the reward. But if he's as key a guy as has been depicted, the proposed move doesn't seem to make sense.
Any military readers out there that can help me?
Thoughts
Iraq is not WW II or Vietnam
Submitted on January 21st, 2008 by Another skepticIraq is a highly dangerous and high pressure assignment, and these days there probably are more generals who can carry out the President's mission than there were in previous wars.
Modern communications also change how and why things are done.
Bush's big failing during the Iraq war has been in delegating the job of war president to the secretary of defense and in not finding the right general.
So it is disappointing that Petraeus may be reassigned. But he's probably burned out and needs a change of scenery.
To me, the real question is, does this mean another change in strategy? Does it mean different talents are needed now that the surge seems to be a success? Does it mean that Petraeus is unhappy with plans to draw the troops down so soon?
Or does it mean things are getting so bad in Afghanistan that NATO needs Petraeus to turn things around there?
What is the real story? And who is the new Petraeus?