Petraeus to CentCom (Updated)
By Cernig
Saint Pet gets his reward for giving the Bush administration an opportunity to say the quagmire isn't a quagmire, and his No. 2 gets the job of keeping the lid on long enough to pass it along to the next administration.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates Wednesday will recommend the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, to lead Central Command, the military command responsible for Middle East operations.
Gates' recommendation must go to President Bush, who will then send the nomination to the U.S. Senate.
Petraeus, who has overseen a war strategy widely credited with a dramatic reduction in violence in Iraq, will replace former Adm. William Fallon, who resigned after a reported break with Bush over Iran policy.
Pentagon sources also said they expected Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, now No. 2 in Iraq, to replace Petraeus as top commander in that war. They said Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, Gates' military advisor, would likely become the No. 2 commander in Iraq.
And so Bush will replace a straight-talking commander who reportedly said no-one would attack iran on his watch with someone Admiral Fallon supposedly disliked intensely, someone who has been willing to accuse Iran of all kinds of meddling in Iraq on the basis of little or no evidence which stands up to public scrutiny.
I hope Congress quizzes Petraus deeply now on his mindset regarding Iran - in particular about the Iraqi government's Maliki/Hakim'axis and its close ties with Iran. Maybe someone could remind him that when the US military first arrested diplomats it accused of being Qods Force plotting arms sales and attacks on coalition forces, the arrests took place at Hakim's compound and those arrested had meetings scheduled with national security advisor al-Rubei and President Talibani later that day.
And while they're at it, maybe they could ask what exactly happened to all those missing weapons (worth over $400 million on the black market!) Petraeus said he had ordered "just kicked out of helicopters" when he had overall command of procurement for the Iraqi security forces back in 2004. One of his senior aides at the time is being investigated for corruption - did he really not notice?
I've no doubt whatsoever that Petraeus will be confirmed in his new post. The politics of trying to oppose such a PR juggernaut are impossible and there's little doubt he's an efficient soldier. He was told to give a plausibly positive cast to the military aspect of the Iraqi misadventure and he's done that. But being in charge of centCom requires far more than just being a good and obedient soldier - it requires skills and an independent mindset that aren't proven by Petraeus' previous record.
Update IIan Goldenberg at Democracy Arsenal has more questions for Congresscritters to ask.
First, it'll be interesting to see how he handles the tension of Afghanistan and Iraq from that position since Gates, Mullen and Fallon have all made clear that Iraq is hurting our mission in Afghanistan. Somehow I have a feeling that he will advise that we continue to place all of our strategic eggs in the Iraq basket.
Second, the confirmation hearings should give Democrats an opportunity to finally get Petraeus to answer some central questions. Is the mission in Iraq hurting Afghanistan and Pakistan? What is the central front in the fight against Al Qaeda? What about our overstretched forces? Is Iraq making America safer? Petraeus was able to dodge (Somewhat legitimately) on a number of these questions in the past by arguing that this wasn't his job. Well, now it is. So he really needs to answer.
Update 2 By Eric
I think the obvious and not overly insightful or earth shattering conclusion is that our Iraq policy continues as-is through January 2009.
The more interesting question is what, if anything, this means in terms of our policy vis-a-vis Iran. The temptation will be to assume that Petraeus, ever the good soldier and willing provacateur in terms of hyping Iran's involvement in Iraq, will prove more pliant than Fallon in terms of initiating some form of military action.
Despite that temptation, I still think that the military option just isn't in the cards. Our troops (particularly those long winding supply lines) are still in too vulnerable a position in Iraq (even with the recent pinch against Sadr), and we lack a robust retaliatory capacity beyond air/sea based power (which can only accomplish so much).
But if the Bush administration is actually intent on some form of military confrontation before it leaves office, replacing Fallon with some like Petraeus would be a good first step.
Update 3 Yet more comment on Petreaus' promotion.
Democrats are unlikely to mount a campaign to block Petraeus' promotion. Yet Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the next CENTCOM commander must come with new plans for Iraq "if directed to by a new President." Petraeus hedged last month when asked what he would say if a new President were to order a withdrawal plan within 60 days of taking office. He verbally juggled risks and objectives before conceding, "We take orders and we follow them."
The impact of promoting Petraeus, however, may be even greater in the national security establishment than on Capitol Hill. It's a wake-up call to old-school Army officers and their vanishing dreams of massive tank battles and artillery skirmishes, some of whom privately call Petraeus "King David" for his high self-regard and chumminess with reporters. Gates has made clear that wants commanders able to carry out the messy, irregular kind of combat championed by Petraeus that the Defense Secretary envisages the U.S. fighting for years to come.
Notice that that first graff I've quoted leaves open the prospect of a Dem president ordering a withdrawal and both the commanders of MNF-I and CentCom resigning in protest. The GOP would love that and it would definitely burnish Saint Pet's chances of a post-military career as a Republican politician.
And then there's Gareth Porter, who writes that:
The nomination of Gen. David Petraeus to be the new head of the Central Command not only ensures that he will be available to defend the George W. Bush administration's policies toward Iran and Iraq at least through the end of Bush's term and possibly even beyond.
It also gives Vice President Dick Cheney greater freedom of action to exploit the option of an air attack against Iran during the administration's final months....In an interview with Cheney while he was in Ankara, ABC News reporter Martha Raddatz commented, "[W]hen you come over here, people in the region start thinking you're over here to plan some sort of military action."
Cheney strongly implied that it was indeed the major objective of his trip. "Well, I think the important thing to keep in mind," he said, "is the objective that we share with many of our friends in the region, and that is that a nuclear-armed Iran would be very destabilising for the entire area."
Petraeus has become the primary administration spokesman for the argument holding Iran primarily responsible for the Shiite military resistance to the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Petraeus and his staff developed the idea in early 2007 that Iran was using so-called "special groups" of renegade Mahdi Army fighters to wage a proxy war against U.S. forces.
In his testimony before Congressional committees earlier this month, Petraeus declared that what he called the "special groups" allegedly organised and manipulated by Iran "pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq".
Comments