Petraeus' Foreign Policy

By Cernig

There's little doubt that General David Petraeus is a smart cookie, and quite a few people I respect highly as foreign policy reporters and analysts have good opinions of his abilities. But when did a four star general get handed the authority to act as if he were Secretary of State?

The WaPo reports today (h/t Russ at Scholars & Rogues):

Gen. David H. Petraeus has launched a major reassessment of U.S. strategy for Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and the surrounding region, while warning that the lack of development and the spiraling violence in Afghanistan will probably make it "the longest campaign of the long war."

The 100-day assessment will result in a new campaign plan for the Middle East and Central Asia, a region in which Petraeus will oversee the operations of more than 200,000 American troops as the new head of U.S. Central Command, beginning Oct. 31.

The review will formally begin next month, but experts and military officials involved said Petraeus is already focused on at least two major themes: government-led reconciliation of Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the leveraging of diplomatic and economic initiatives with nearby countries that are influential in the war. [Emphasis Mine - C]

All of this seems like a good idea to me. But, crucially, neither of those themes are military ones and the military shouldn't be leading the way on them. It's about seperation of power and having the military subordinate to civilian policymakers rather than the other way around.

So where are the US ambassador, State Dept. and Condi Rice, who should be leading the way on them while the military man concentrates on military matters? For that matter, won't the leaders of other nations involved in the region wonder why America has appointed a de facto proconsul (again) and want their say?

"When you look at a lot of these problems, you see considerable regional connections," Petraeus said yesterday. The effort would embrace all of Afghanistan's neighbors and possibly extend to India, which has had a long-standing rivalry with Pakistan. "There may be opportunities with respect to India," he said.

An overview of the review team's mission obtained by The Post says that including other government agencies and other nations in the planning will "mitigate the risk of over-militarization of efforts and the development of short-term solutions to long-term problems."

Nevertheless, some experts questioned whether Petraeus will have the authority to carry out such a sweeping strategy.

"General Petraeus is not in charge of our diplomacy. He can't decide whether we try to form an international contacts group on Pakistan," said Barnett Rubin, an Afghanistan expert at New York University.

Moreover, in dealing with Afghanistan at Central Command, Petraeus will face limitations that he did not encounter as the top commander in Iraq, such as the lack of a unified military command and serious resource shortages.

"We don't own it. It's been a NATO effort since 2006. He won't have the same sway with Karzai and the ambassadors and a bunch of other people that he had in Iraq," said a former senior military official with experience in Afghanistan.

Perhaps most worrying of all, Petraus' mini foreign policy is being described as "a policy bridge from one administration to the next" by one of his team members, Clare Lockhart, co-founder of the New York-based Institute for State Effectiveness along with former Afghan finance minister Ashraf Ghani. Does Obama know and approve of Petraeus' and the military's intended hijacking of his administration's foreign policy and the authority of his SecState in Afghanistan and the surrounding region?

Comments

[HyperIon]

Nice catch on the WaPo article.
I get what you are saying...
But maybe we are better off if Ms. "I don't think anybody could have predicted.." is out of the loop.

[Nait Deth]

I'm right there with HyperIon. Although it is an alarming move to have the military start in on its own diplomatic initiatives, I cannot see how Patraeus would do nothing but enhance our position where the current administration has wholly squandered it.

If, god forbid, McCain wins this November, I suppose we could be worse off than having Patraeus at the military helm.

[zak]

Maybe he's filling the power vacuum left by a Secretary of STate who seems to have disappeared.

It's not like there's anyone at State or the White House who's likely to rein him in, and some people do love power.

Still, it would be nice to see the proprieties observed. Maybe next year.

[zenpundit]

Petraeus is carrying his role as a combatant commander where such policy assessments are normal, as are CC to MoD level diplomatic talks on military issues and, more rarely, CC to Head of Government level. This is not unusual. It's just newsworthy because it's Petraeus.

When Fallon was head of PACOM he carried out extensive talks with the Chinese government and the PLA that lowered tensions and improved mil to mil cooperation. Fallon did this on his own authority as CC of PACOM, though in coordination with the office of the Secretary of Defense and, ultimately, the White House.