| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Petraeus: "We are attriting them at a fearsome rate" |
| 2007-03-22 |
| This interview with General Petraeus in yesterday's New York Post hasn't gotten as much attention as it ought. Here's the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq articulating the early success of the president's new strategy, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised, but the general is clearly optimistic. Speaking on the new strategy of establishing Joint Security Stations in Iraqi neighborhoods, Petraeus says that "After our guys are in the neighborhood for four or five days, the people realize they're not going to just leave them like we did in the past. Then they begin to come in with so much information on the enemy that we can't process it fast enough." On the Anbar Salvation Council: "All of the sheiks up there are businessmen . . . they are entrepreneurial and involved in scores of different businesses. The presence of the foreign fighters is hitting them hard in the pocketbook and they are tired of it." On Sadr City: "We're clearing it neighborhood by neighborhood." Troops move in - mainly U.S. soldiers and Marines supported by Iraqi forces, although that ratio is reversed in some areas - and stay. They are not transiting back to large, remote bases but are now living with the people they have come to protect. The results, Petraeus says, have been "dramatic." "We're using 'soft knock' clearing procedures and bringing the locals in on our side," he notes. By being in the neighborhoods, getting to know the people and winning their trust, the soldiers have allowed the people to turn against the al Qaeda terrorists, whom they fear and loathe. Petraeus says his goal is to pull al Qaeda out "by its roots, wherever it tries to take hold." On the rules of engagement (ROE): "I've made two things clear," Petraeus emphasized: "My ROE may not be modified with supplemental guidance lower down. And I've written a letter to all Coalition forces saying 'your chain-of-command will stay with you.' I think that solved the issue." Finally, on the surge's effect in Baghdad: "Less than half the al Qaeda leaders who were in Baghdad when this [surge] campaign began are still in the city," he said. "They have fled or are being killed or captured. We are attriting them at a fearsome rate." As Bill Roggio has noted here before, the success in Baghdad has forced al Qaeda to fight a "commuter insurgency" from the provinces surrounding the city. But without first pacifying Baghdad, little else can be achieved. So, while Petraeus warns that we will only "be able to evaluate the situation for sure by late summer," for the first time in a long time, victory seems possible. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #17 It's a real shame it took so long for Petraeus to gain command. Had he been in charge 18 months sooner Washington might look very different now. I'd've rather had him in Baghdad instead of Leavenworth. Bush has no one to blame but himself. His loyalty to subordinates is misplaced and has wounded him more than once. Clearly Casey and Abazaid were unable or unwilling to do what works. I look forward to his presidential run. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-03-22 18:45 |
| #16 I aproach JM's stream of consiousness posts the same as I approach an episode of LOST, after I have missed the prior two or three. |
| Posted by: Capsu 78 2007-03-22 18:39 |
| #15 Chiper Threreger8956 - I suggest you go here. Scroll down and see who's signature is on the document. I've worked at CAC. He may not have written every word, but he made sure that it said what he wanted after numerous edits and reviews. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-03-22 18:29 |
| #14 I think it has something to do with the previous generation of idiots being killed off before they can learn a lesson, so the next generation starts off without a hope or a clue. |
| Posted by: gorb 2007-03-22 16:36 |
| #13 well you can't expect total civility in iraq when you can't get in gherros across the US. Look at how long the bloods and crips and other gangs have been killing each other off and is still going on |
| Posted by: sinse 2007-03-22 16:29 |
| #12 I've seen Joe be quite lucid, and brief. And worthwhile. But he could use a bit more space between paragraphs, I think. Does space take much bandwidth, I wonder? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-03-22 14:29 |
| #11 In all seriousness, I think Joe is a Rantburg asset. Reading his comments is like decoding a legal contract -- a few minutes of unyielding concentration and you've really learned something. Although it helps to take notes. |
| Posted by: Jonathan 2007-03-22 13:02 |
| #10 JM wrote the book on counterinsurgency. |
| Posted by: Master of Obvious 2007-03-22 11:36 |
| #9 General Petraeus has been one of our leading experts on counterinsurgency (he has figuratively AND literally written the book on it) and he should have been installed in this position years ago. While I agree that General Patraeus is one of our current leading experts on counterinsurgency, he most definitely did NOT write the book on it. Figuratively, or literally. He has however, added a few chapters and updated some as well. JM, your CapsLock button seems to be malfunctioning. Captain, you're new here, aren't you? JM, is...well...JM. Should you ever begin to understand even half of what he writes, be afraid. Be very afraid! |
| Posted by: Chiper Threreger8956 2007-03-22 10:14 |
| #8 JM, your CapsLock button seems to be malfunctioning. |
| Posted by: Captain Lewis 2007-03-22 09:06 |
| #7 I'm glad they finally changed the ROE. They have been fucked up since Vietnam when dealing with non-conventional situations (and a lot of conventional situations too). Makes it easier to do your job as infantry when you don't have to consult the CoC and all their fucking JAG lawyers before you pull the trigger. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-03-22 09:05 |
| #6 I concur with all the other comments just made (well, Joseph, I THINK I agree with you, or something). RD, I felt fortunate to work in-theater at all, and I felt like I was abandoning post when I left, but .... I want to emphasize that I was a rear-echelon MF, at best. Mostly in the IZ, and when outside not actively looking for trouble like the awesome folks at the tip of the spear (and all my helicopter travel was before the nitwits came up with their truck-mounted AAA gambit). When I was there, and now as I write this, I have felt tremendous frustration at not being able to do a lot more. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-03-22 02:32 |
| #5 "I've made two things clear," Petraeus emphasized: "My ROE may not be modified with supplemental guidance lower down. And I've written a letter to all Coalition forces saying 'your chain-of-command will stay with you.' I think that solved the issue." This one is LONG overdue - blanket folders ahve been adding layers of restictions on things to the point where combat troops havent a clue if they are violating the ROE until after they call up the chain. Makes for escaped terr and US casualties. Fixing this is one of the best thigns he did. Get the damn non-cobat officers back in their concrete bundkers in LSAA out of the loop and let the field commanders command. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2007-03-22 01:44 |
| #4 I suppose President Bush feels that he is displaying loyalty to his subordinates by refusing to replace them for inadequate performance, but that is counterproductive as public policy (Michael Brown at FEMA, etc.). General Petraeus has been one of our leading experts on counterinsurgency (he has figuratively AND literally written the book on it) and he should have been installed in this position years ago. Far greater progress at quelling the violence there would have been made a lot sooner and even the results of the recent elections would likely have been different. I only hope that the political climate has not eroded to such an extent that the mission will be fatally undermined just as we are making progress. |
| Posted by: Grumenk Philalzabod0723 2007-03-22 01:35 |
| #3 I hope our guys and gals in theater, like you just were Verlaine, like what Petraeus is saying. The critical bit about consistent ROE and Iraqis flooding them with Intel sure sounds good to me. |
| Posted by: RD 2007-03-22 01:27 |
| #2 It goes to the US-Allies' LR regional-global strategy. Radical Islam is well aware that Amers like fighting short wars, but they also are aware that something milpol detrimental to the USA occurs in near-term [now-Year2020], the odds are the HYPERPOWER+ USA WILL ONLY GET STRONGER + WILL PROTRACTIVELY STAY IN THE ME FOR AS LONG THE US OR ALLIES WANT, which by extens basically means Radical Islam plus aligned Commies-Socialists, etc. either regionally andor globally have failed. THE GREATEST OR ULTIMATE BATTLE IN THIS WOT IS THE BATTLE FOR THE USA VIA BATTLE FOR CONTROL OF WASHINGTON DC, CONGRESS CRITTERS, US GOP-DEM NPE, and US NATIONAL-FOREIGN POLICIES. Year 2014-2018 [2020] > Russia-China have stated that WAR AGZ USA IS NOT ONLY POSSIBLE BUT DESIRED/REALISTIC > means USA must M-U-S-T ADOPT OWG + SOCIALISM , OR THE USA WILL BE ATTACKED AND DESTROYED BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY, VOLUNTARILY = FORCIBLY. 2008 > POTUS elex may be the last "peacetime", traditional elex held in free, officially non-Socialist America. *WORLDNEWS > BOSTONHERALD > US-CHINA: PACIFIC POWER PLAY IN THE WORKS. Gist- No matter how you meaure it, CHINA IS GOING ON THE [anti-US]REGIONAL = GLOBAL = SPACE OFFENSIVE. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-03-22 01:22 |
| #1 Great job on most of those points, Gen. Petraeus. But I don't think the rate of attrition is near fearsome enough. Nor the rate of emigration/displacement in Sunni areas that show the slightest support for the enemy cause. I know, easy for this armchair general to say. But I do have this little thing about saving lives (both American and Iraqi), and common sense and history show that truly fearsome aggression is by far the most efficient and humane way to defeat an enemy. I'm all for winning over tribes or sheikhs or parts of neighborhoods - but even those gambits will be easier to accomplish if we convince folks that opposition is a true dead end. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-03-22 00:22 |