Why Patraeus?

[Averageman]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/22/politics/david-petraeus-putin-syria-isis-iraq/index.html
Retired Gen. David Petraeus, testifying before the Senate Armed Service Committee, also recommended that the U.S. establish safe zones for Sunnis inside Syria and potentially put American boots on the grounds in Iraq to stop the spread of ISIS.

I'm looking these related articles over checking out what is going on in Syria and for the life of me, I have to ask; WTF are they doing asking Patraeus about these issues.
Did he have a handle on what was going on over a year ago? Yes, but is that totally relevant now, or has he been let out of the corner now if he promises to behave again?
Does he now have access to current Secret and Top Secret Intelligence again?
If so, why?
If not, why trot him out here for an opinion based on old data?
Surely we have someone more relevant, or perhaps there is another motive besides the dog and pony show?

[26 Inf]

This is just a SWAG but for most of the guys on the Senate Armed Services Committee isn't he still the golden-haired boy? Sure, they had to slap his hand over the pillow talk deal, but don't they still love him?

[KalashniKEV]

General Petraeus is just keeping his name out there and maintaining relevance.

He's a very academic guy, and I predicted that after his misfortune he would find a place at one of the Universities like Hopkins SAIS or Georgetown SFS... but he really wants to serve in some capacity and BE the government, not just advise the government.

(That being said, De-Baathification, OPN FARDH AL QANOON/BSP, and his failure to kill, condition, or replace Maliki contributed significantly to the rise of Daesh)

[T2C]

Patraeus may have stepped in it, but it won't hurt to listen to what he has to say about the situation in Syria.

What are the positive and negative points with following his advice?

[Averageman]

Patraeus may have stepped in it, but it won't hurt to listen to what he has to say about the situation in Syria.

What are the positive and negative points with following his advice?

First, his advice is dated, unless he has access to classified material.
Second, Like him or not, he did step in it and nothing quoted in the article was anything earth shattering. So why bring a guy in with a somewhat tarnished reputation to read you the News Paper? You could have polished up a decent M.I. E-6 and have gotten more detailed and up to date analysis.
Finally at a time when our State Department and Foreign relations are at a low ebb, is this what you want being printed for your enemies to read?

Honestly there are much better sources, relevant and timely, who's shoes aren't covered with the smelly material he very recently stepped in.
Something you might like to read if you haven't already.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/uploads.hipchat.com/86440/1169290/OROJDw1qGefjlmo/Petraeus%20Facts.pdf

[KalashniKEV]

What are the positive and negative points with following his advice?

General Petraeus oversaw the disenfranchisement and humiliation of Sunnis that gave rise to ISIS... all while inexplicably contributing to FM 3-24 and setting up the Phoenix Counterinsurgency Academy at Taji and the Combat Advisor Course (I am a graduate of both).

At one time, he was THE MAN to me, and I've met and spoken with him more than once... but a lot of the things he says publicly don't jive with the doctrine he supposedly championed... and sometimes just plain don't make sense.

One example I'll throw out are:

OPN FaQ/ Baghdad Security Plan- his idea was that all stability flows from the capital and that pacifying the capital was the key to security- It doesn't though, because people who don't live in the capital completely don't care, but whatever. We turned a blind eye to the creation of a 100% Shia National Police Force that terrorized the Sunni population and killed or drove them out of city limits. The key product during this phase was the Baghdad Heat Map though- we needed to see fewer attacks.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/secviolencechartlarge.gif

...and as the city Balkanized along ethnic lines, and then the Shia amoeba began eating up various districts and neighborhoods, there was peace! (for a time...)

Petraeus said "Good Job!" and never corrected the course.

Multiply this small anecdote times 100 across the whole country, and throw in the Hawijah massacre, and it gets you most of the way to the now.

I told my interpreter in 2008 that as soon as we left Iran was coming over to set up shop. Last weekend he told me I was right- He had just been kidnapped and ransomed by the Iranian-backed Shi'ite militia.

[Averageman]

Well, he certainly had a bit of a (unknown to me) track record of dubious decisions.
So why pull him in for this dog and pony show?

[ABNAK]

General Petraeus oversaw the disenfranchisement and humiliation of Sunnis that gave rise to ISIS... all while inexplicably contributing to FM 3-24 and setting up the Phoenix Counterinsurgency Academy at Taji and the Combat Advisor Course (I am a graduate of both).

At one time, he was THE MAN to me, and I've met and spoken with him more than once... but a lot of the things he says publicly don't jive with the doctrine he supposedly championed... and sometimes just plain don't make sense.


He publicly does the politically correct dance that includes unicorns and rainbows. However, as you know he is a military man and his COIN strategy involved a whole lotta killin' (not that I have an issue with that). Think about it: you attended the Phoenix Counterinsurgency Academy. I'm gonna guess you're well aware of the Phoenix program's roots in Vietnam. It was ruthless but it worked in the limited areas it was implemented in (didn't even attempt to address NVA regular combat formations in the hinterlands, as that was small-unit, conventional warfare in a jungle environment). Phoenix was aimed at VC local elements, primarily in the Mekong Delta/IV Corps area and it was pretty successful.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised that in this PC f***tard world we live in that the word Phoenix was even allowed in the jargon of what you attended!

[Averageman]

Having been over there during part of the time this was going on, I was busy with other things and not following or as I am now sure, getting the whole story.
I did find these two parts of a four part series that seem to follow KalasniKev's post to some degree and it has been rather informative.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/12997-how-petraeus-created-the-myth-of-his-success

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13122-how-petraeus-quietly-stoked-the-fires-of-sectarian-war-without-getting-burned

Can anyone attest to the accuracy, or parts of the accuracy of the above series of articles?

[KalashniKEV]

Can anyone attest to the accuracy, or parts of the accuracy of the above series of articles?

It is correct.

[KalashniKEV]

Quite frankly, I'm surprised that in this PC f***tard world we live in that the word Phoenix was even allowed in the jargon of what you attended!

It was intended to be rise-from-the-ashes, reborn Phoenix.

[MountainRaven]

I would guess they're asking Petraeus because he is, for most people, the Eisenhower/MacArthur/Patton/Nimitz/Bradley of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Most people have no idea who Mattis or McCrystal or McRaven are. But people know Petraeus.

If Schwarzkopf were still alive, they'd probably be asking him, too. Or Colin Powell, if he hadn't been the guy to publicly tell the UN about how the US was invading Iraq in 2003 because of evidence from the 1980s.

[chuckman]

Congress, especially the hawks, love him, and yes, he still IS their fair-haired boy. And just because he has been away from the action for so long doesn't diminish his academic insight on what's going on. It would not be the first time politicians brough somebody back from the dead to get some advice (MacArthur, Ernie King, just to name a couple). That said, there is a nice chasm between what he thinks academically and what he openly advocates, and he is as good a politician as any of them. I wouldn't necessarily discount anything he has to say but I would be wary of an agenda. As for being out so long as to not have any relevant intel, I have been out now, for good, since Jan 2011 and I still know enough people on the inside that I can get some pretty good gouge, and I wasn't nearly as important as he was.

[Averageman]

I thought the whole briefing as reported was pretty much old news, some well educated speculation and a call for us to further commit to escalating our presence in the theatre. I would imagine you could dust off a E-6 MI guy and get the same level of intelligence but a bit more timely. There was certainly nothing earth shattering in there and again, that leads me to why?
I have to agree Agenda and that is concerning.
Some of the same folks in the Senate who would have a conniption fit about Hillary's server and the classified information that passed through it, don't seem to take issue with inviting this guy back to speak. I see both issues as being cut from nearly the same cloth and really think neither needs to be in front of the Senate unless to deliver an apology and a promise to not darken the doors again.
It would appear that the Syrians are making some compromises, Assad will be cut out of any future in Syria and Putin will deliver a UN Speech calling for joint action. How this will effect the Saudi's pipe line, Russia port and any manipulation of current oil prices is yet to be seen.

[KalashniKEV]

There was certainly nothing earth shattering in there and again, that leads me to why?

He had to get his sound bite- "Geopolitical Chernobyl."

Check.


It would appear that the Syrians are making some compromises, Assad will be cut out of any future in Syria and Putin will deliver a UN Speech...

No, I don't think so.

Putin will preserve Assad, and Assad will be grateful.

[ABNAK]

It was intended to be rise-from-the-ashes, reborn Phoenix.

Gotcha, not THE Phoenix from the Vietnam era.

Gotta say though that some of the elements of Petraeus' grand plan for COIN were somewhat similar. Those are the parts that aren't "politically correct" and therefore are brushed under the carpet when it comes to what is publicly touted. Ruthlessly snuffing out insurgents on a local level isn't in jive with the illusion of the "friendly" approach to COIN. The Philippine Insurgency of the early 20th Century and the British experience in Malaysia during the 1950's would be met with mucho hand-wringing and cries of brutality these days. It is worth noting that both succeeded.