From Iraq to a Hard Place
Journalists: Nathan Hodge, Michael Phillips, Matthew Rosenberg
Original Post: From Iraq to a Hard Place
Type: News Article
June 24, 2010 — To replace an Afghan war commander brought down by his own impolitic comments, President Barack Obama chose one of the military's most gifted politicians.
In Gen. David Petraeus, Mr. Obama picked a general who he hopes will provide a relatively seamless transition in the combat zone. But he also chose a man who has proven his ability to persuade lawmakers and the public that he can produce results, at a time when confidence in the war effort is fading and a White House-imposed deadline for success approaches.
Gen. Petraeus "has an unparalleled ability to explain counterinsurgency, to explain what interests are at stake and to explain the possibility of success and the costs of failure to the American people," said former Lt. Col. John Nagl, who helped Gen. Petraeus draft the Army's counterinsurgency manual.
In early 2007, amid widespread criticism of the handling of the Iraq war, President George W. Bush picked Gen. Petraeus to lead a troop "surge." The gamble, combined with an about-face by Sunni leaders in Iraq, was credited with reducing violence in the country, although Iraq remains in a fragile state.
"I don't think we think he walks on water, but he has very strong support in Congress," said Rep. Adam Smith, a Washington Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. Nine months after assuming the Iraq command, Gen. Petraeus and his civilian counterpart, Amb. Ryan Crocker, traveled to Washington to buck up support. Wielding data showing that the level of violence was falling—if still high—the general managed to win more time from lawmakers.
"That was an extraordinarily tough argument to make, given the level of violence," said Richard Fontaine, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington D.C. think tank. "Someone with less credibility and stature would have had a harder time making that argument."
Gen. Petraeus's reputation didn't appear to suffer when he fainted briefly during a Senate hearing last week. He is famous for a fanatical exercise regimen, but his health isn't perfect; he was treated last year for the early stages of prostate cancer.
The 57-year-old West Point graduate, who also has a Ph.D. from Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, has been the subject of rumors of Eisenhower-like political aspirations, which he has avoided confirming.
He also is the architect of the counterinsurgency strategy that Gen. Stanley McChrystal has been implementing in Afghanistan for the past year. The approach involves using the military to protect civilians from Taliban coercion and violence, while trying to build up the Afghan government. The strategy marked a major cultural shift within the military: It encouraged commanders to think more carefully about the use of force, a hard sell for the troops under fire in the field.
Gen. Petraeus had experience in that kind of armed social work during his first tour in Iraq as commander of the 101st Airborne Division. He took enthusiastically there to the chores of local and provincial administration, building roads and schools, reopening Mosul University and paying government workers.
The counterinsurgency approach requires political finesse. The Rolling Stone magazine profile that led to Gen. McChrystal's downfall exposed rifts between the general and the White House national security team. Gen. Petraeus has been able to keep disagreements with his civilian counterparts largely out of public view.
He persuaded Amb. Paul Bremer, the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, to exempt some local university officials from an order to purge members of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party. Gen. Petraeus also enjoyed a particularly close relationship with Amb. Crocker, his civilian counterpart in Baghdad.
The general's success in Iraq helped him win command of Tampa-based Central Command, which oversees U.S. forces in the Middle East and Southwest Asia. But while he has had oversight of the Afghan war, Gen. Petraeus has relatively little firsthand experience there.
Unlike Gen. McChrystal prior to his appointment, Gen. Petraeus hasn't spent any time directly commanding troops in Afghanistan. He has met President Hamid Karzai, but doesn't have the close relationship that Gen. McChrystal had with the prickly Afghan leader. He is, however, closer to Amb. Richard Holbrooke, U.S. envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, who was at odds with the McChrystal team.
One area where Gen. Petraeus may be at a disadvantage is in dealing with Pakistan, whose military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, has forged a close alliance with Gen. McChrystal. Senior Pakistani officers say Gen. Kayani appreciates Gen. McChrystal's candor and feels he is mindful of Pakistan's concerns. They don't say the same of Gen. Petraeus.
"The Americans always come here and … try to sell us things. Do this, do that, shoot him for us," one senior officer said before the appointment. "This Petraeus is always selling. We want people who are buying."
Perhaps the greatest risk for Gen. Petraeus, however: high expectations. "If the sense is the guy who won in Iraq is going to march over ... and manufacture victory in a few months, that's an expectation that no one can achieve," said Richard Fontaine, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington, D.C., think tank.
Topic(s): Iraq, Regional Security Challenges, Terrorism, Irregular Warfare and Crime, Development and Diplomacy, U.S. Military Forces & Operations, U.S. National Security and Defense Policy
Project(s): Afghanistan and Pakistan
People: Richard Fontaine
