http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/world/05military.html?_r=1 Clear Voice of Bush’s Pentagon Becomes Harder to Hear By ELISABETH BUMILLER WASHINGTON — Gen. David H. Petraeus, the face of the Iraq troop surge and a favorite of former President George W. Bush, spoke up or was called upon by President Obama “several times” during the big Afghanistan strategy session in the Situation Room last week, one participant says, and will be back for two more meetings this week. But the general’s closest associates say that underneath the surface of good relations, the celebrity commander faces a new reality in Mr. Obama’s White House: He is still at the table, but in a very different seat. No longer does the man who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have one of the biggest voices at National Security Council meetings, as he did when Mr. Bush gave him 20 minutes during hourlong weekly sessions to present his views in live video feeds from Baghdad. No longer is the general, with the Capitol Hill contacts and web of e-mail relationships throughout Washington’s journalism establishment, testifying in media explosions before Congress, as he did in September 2007, when he gave 34 interviews in three days. The change has fueled speculation in Washington about whether General Petraeus might seek the presidency in 2012. His advisers say that it is absurd — but in immediate policy terms, it means there is one less visible advocate for the military in the administration’s debate over whether to send up to 40,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. General Petraeus’s aides now privately call him “Dave the Dull,” and say he has largely muzzled himself from the fierce public debate about the war to avoid antagonizing the White House, which does not want pressure from military superstars and is wary of the general’s ambitions in particular. The general’s aides requested anonymity to talk more candidly about his relationship with the White House. “General Petraeus has not hinted to anyone that he is interested in political life, and in fact has said on many occasions that he’s not,” said Peter Mansoor, a retired Army colonel and professor of military history at Ohio State University who was the executive officer to General Petraeus when he was the top American commander in Iraq. “It is other people who are looking at his popularity and saying that he would be a good presidential candidate, and I think rightly that makes the administration a little suspicious of him.” General Petraeus’s advisers say he has stepped back in part because Mr. Obama has handpicked his own public face for the war in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who last week gave an interview to CBS’s “60 Minutes,” met with Mr. Obama on Air Force One and used a speech in London to reject calls for scaling back the war effort. If anything, General McChrystal’s public comments may prove that General Petraeus might be prudent to take a back seat during the debate. On Sunday, when CNN’s John King asked Gen. James L. Jones, the national security adviser, if it was appropriate for a man in uniform to appear to campaign so openly for more troops, General Jones replied, “Ideally, it’s better for military advice to come up through the chain of command.” How much General Petraeus’s muted voice will affect Mr. Obama’s decision on the war is unclear, but people close to him say that stifling himself in public could give him greater credibility to influence the debate from within. Others say that his biggest influence may simply be as part of a team of military advisers, including General McChrystal and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The men are united in what they see as the need to build up the American effort in Afghanistan, although General Petraeus, who works closely with General McChrystal, said last week that he had not yet endorsed General McChrystal’s request for more troops. Together the three are likely to be aligned against Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., as well as other administration officials who want to scale back the effort. In that situation, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who has worried about a big American presence in Afghanistan but left the door open to more troops, could be the most influential vote. What is clear is that General Petraeus’s relationship with Mr. Obama is nothing like his bond with Mr. Bush, who went mountain biking with the general in Washington last fall, or with Mr. Obama’s opponent in the 2008 presidential campaign, Senator John McCain of Arizona, whose aides briefly floated the general’s name last year as a possible running mate. By then the general had been talked about as a potential presidential candidate himself, which still worries some political aides at the White House. But not Mr. Obama, at least according to one of his top advisers. “The president’s not thinking that way, and the vice president’s not thinking that way,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff. “The president values his insights in helping to turn around an eight-year-old war that has been neglected.” General Petraeus’s advisers say that to preserve a sense of military impartiality, he has not voted since at least 2003, and that he is not sure if he is still registered in New Hampshire, where he and his wife own property. The general has been described as a Republican, including in a lengthy profile in The New Yorker magazine last year. But a senior military official close to him said last week that he could not confirm the general’s political party. In the meantime, General Petraeus travels frequently from his home in Tampa to Washington, where he met last week with the Afghan foreign minister. He also had dinner with Richard C. Holbrooke, the administration’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. The general also makes calls on Capitol Hill. “He understands the Congress better than any military commander I’ve ever met,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican, who said that General Petraeus had the nationwide influence to serve as a spokesman for the administration’s policy on the Afghan war. But until the president makes a decision, and determines if he wants to deploy General Petraeus to help sell it, the commander is keeping his head down. “He knows how to make his way through minefields like this,” said Jack Keane, the former vice chief of staff of the Army. Peter Baker contributed reporting.
Patraeus for President? Reminiscent of 1996 when the polls showed that Colin Powell would have soundly defeated Clinton in his re-election bid. A guy of this stature could come out of nowhere, essentially, and become the de facto leader of the Republican Party.
In quite related news: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6860616.ece Worst losses for a year as Taleban storm Nato outpost It began before dawn — a devastating, well-planned attack. About 300 insurgents swarmed out of a village and mosque and attacked a pair of isolated American outposts in a remote mountainous area of eastern Afghanistan with machineguns, rockets and grenades. They first stormed the Afghan police post at the foot of the hill in the province of Nuristan, a Taleban and al-Qaeda stronghold on the lawless Pakistan border. They then swept up to the Nato post. The battle lasted all day. American and Afghan soldiers finally repelled them, with the help of US helicopters and warplanes — but at heavy cost. Eight American soldiers and two Afghan policemen were killed, with many injured. It was the worst attack on Nato forces in 14 months, and one of the deadliest battles of the eight-year war. The insurgents seized at least 20 Afghan policemen whose fate last night remained unclear. The attack came at a crucial juncture in the war, with President Obama soon to decide whether to accept a request by General Stanley McChrystal, commander of the 100,000-strong US and Nato force in Afghanistan, for 40,000 extra troops, or to reduce the counter-insurgency operation against the Taleban and focus on al-Qaeda. Domestic opposition to a US “surge” is increasing as the death toll rises. About 400 coalition troops have been killed in Afghanistan this year — the majority of them American. Saturday’s death toll was the highest suffered by Nato’s International Security Assistance Force since August 2008, when ten French troops died in an ambush in Kabul province. It was also the highest inflicted on US troops in Afghanistan since 200 insurgents killed nine Americans in an attack on another remote outpost in the village of Wanat in Nuristan in July last year. Nato said that it inflicted heavy casualties in the attack but gave no numbers. “This was a complex attack in a difficult area,” Colonel Randy George, commander of the US force in the region, said. “Both the US and Afghan soldiers fought bravely together.” Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taleban spokesman, said that the insurgents included several suicide bombers and that they captured 35 policemen whose fate would be decided by the movement’s provincial council. US forces have suffered some of their worst casualties in eastern Afghanistan, where they have sought to control the remote passes that insurgents use to cross the Pakistan border, but they had planned soon to withdraw from the area as part of General McChrystal’s strategy to focus on protecting population centres. Jamaluddin Badar, Nuristan’s governor, said that the Taleban fighters had moved to the province after being driven from Pakistan’s Swat Valley by Pakistani troops. He said that he sought more security forces for Kamdesh district, adding: “When there are few security forces, this is what happens.” Yesterday Nato officers were reassessing the security of hundreds of outposts scattered across Afghanistan. “Everyone is aware of what happened in Nuristan, and checking their outposts are well protected and manned,” said Major Jason Henneke, executive officer of the 10th Mountain Division’s 2-87 Battalion in Wardak province. Major Henneke’s battalion lost two soldiers, with three wounded, late on Friday when an Afghan policeman opened fire on his American colleagues during a joint operation to clear the Taleban from villages around the Nerkh valley. US and Afghan investigators are trying to determine whether the policeman was a covert member of the Taleban or made a mistake. Either way, the attack fuelled the distrust that many Nato soldiers feel towards the Afghan security forces they are training as part of the coalition’s eventual exit strategy. “You don’t trust anybody, especially after an incident like this,” said Specialist Raquime Mercer, 20, whose close friend died in the attack.
Before my time. I know Truman fired him and he was highly qualified to serve as president. Ike could have picked either party and gotten their nomination. It's tough to judge these guys when they're serving, since they aren't allowed to take political positions publicly. The thing is, Bush fired a number of generals and ambassadors before finally finding a guy that had a clue how to get it done. I think we all can be quite satisfied with how the surge worked out, considering guys like Shinseki wanted to up the troop level by 4x or 5x (to 500K troops in Iraq). Seems like finding the guy who can plan and win these things is rare. It's not a new story, as Lincoln fired a few generals before finding Grant. At least Bush kept saying publicly that he'd support the commanders on the ground with whatever they needed. As a side note, losing 8 soldiers in one day is a huge loss. Isn't it a bit odd I had to read about this story in a UK paper, when our press was gleefully publishing multiple stories a day if one soldier died in Iraq?
Not to over-generalize, but the problem with Generals becoming President is they usually end up attacking other countries. And they're not very good at relating to non-military citizens' wants and needs.
Twelve presidents were generals: Washington, Jackson, W. Harrison, Taylor, Pierce, A. Johnson, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, B. Harrison, and Eisenhower. Total wars started: Zero. Truman was a colonel in the Guard, and as such understood military protocol and why MacA needed to be fired. Not like, say, Jefferson (Barbary Pirates War), Madison (War of 1812), Polk (Mexican American War), McKinley (Spanish-American War), Hoover (Banana Wars), Kennedy and LBJ (Vietnam), Reagan (Grenada), Bush (Panama and Gulf War), Clinton (Kosovo), Bush (Afghanistan and Iraq) Maybe we should always elect generals, since they seem to do OK keeping us out of war. Unlike, say, lawyers.
You're just talking out of your ass, aren't you? You really have no idea if that's true, but you like saying it. Read a history book, and you'll find out how wrong you are.
I agree. Since (and including) when Grant was President, I don't think any general we've had as President was any good. The mentality is too different between the two jobs.
Hrm...well we may have found out a small cause of Petraeus' less-than-vocal attitude as it was revealed he has prostate cancer - identified since Feb - and has been undergoing treatment. Get well soon General.
Terrible President, IMHO. At a time when he could have done great things he sat around on his fanny waiting for his cheif of staff to tell him what to do. One lazy President. In fact, I'd add clueless to lazy.
