General David Petraeus Reveals That Son Served In Afghanistan

WASHINGTON -- Challenged by a congressman to "be honest" about how long American troops might have to fight in Afghanistan, Army Gen. David Petraeus revealed that he has a personal stake in ensuring that the U.S. war objectives are met – his son, Stephen, whose recent combat tour was kept "very quiet."

In an emotional exchange with Rep. Walter B. Jones, R-N.C., Petraeus said "if I ever felt that we couldn't achieve our objectives," he would be "very forthright" not only with his superiors in the military chain of command but also with President Barack Obama and members of the Congress.

Noting that Obama has said the U.S. will have combat troops out by the end of 2014, with the Afghan government in position to provide its own security, a skeptical Jones said he could imagine a senior military leader coming before Congress in 2015 and pleading for more time and more sacrifice.

"You know, 15, 16, 17 years, for God sakes, how much more can we take, how much more can we give treasure and blood?" Jones asked.

Petraeus replied: "I may not be at this table, probably won't be, in 2015, but I'll tell you that my son is in uniform, and Lieutenant Petraeus just completed a tour in Afghanistan, which thankfully we were able to keep very quiet, and left in November after serving as an infantry platoon leader. We're very proud of what he did. He thinks he was doing something very important."

His son, 2nd Lt. Stephen Petraeus, served in Afghanistan as a member of Alpha Company, 3rd Platoon, 1st Battalion, 503rd Infantry, 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team.

Comments

[Johann Q]

06:59 AM on 03/20/2011

How messed up do you have to be to a) let your son go to Afghanistan, if it's not absolutely necessary and his wish and b) to bring up this as an argument to continue a lost war?

[Holly Smoke]

03:48 AM on 03/19/2011

Wow! A member of the 501, 101 Airborne - sound like a rerun of The Band Of Brothers in Afghan .

[Balzac]

04:49 PM on 03/18/2011

I have a strong feeling the campaign in Afghanistan is winding down. There is enough inter-faith diplomacy happening, the extremism is losing momentum.

As a result, the geopolitical posture of the American military is expected to be 'at ease' (peace-time, without any active combat operations) in the relatively near future, while remaining as ready as ever.

Check out 'Naqoyqatsi: Life as War' to see how we what we don't want to become the new way of life.

[ProfessorDuh]

03:06 PM on 03/18/2011

 Our problem is not that veterans are disrespected. Our problem is that the corrupt military-industrial complex hides behind that respect.

[ProfessorDuh]

02:50 PM on 03/18/2011

Yes, the U.S. must completely drain the resources of its citizens in order to permanently occupy lands on the other side of the world to make sure that a handful of Saudis armed with box cutters don't come here again. Oddly, those lands do not include Saudi Arabia and, oddly, none of this will stop anyone from coming here again. Sensible policy, eh?

[splizo]

10:06 PM on 03/17/2011

He should be proud of his son, he is doing what every good soldier should do which is do as he is ordered and if asked to lay down his or her life. The real question is should we be telling them to do so in this situation? The question should not be can we win but rather will any of it make a difference. We are trying to pacify a hornets nest by hitting it with a stick, you would have to kill them all to achieve the objective. We should let them be, 99.999% of the people had nothing to do with any attacks on the US.

[Joseph Caligiuri]

09:17 AM on 03/18/2011

you my friend are 99.9% right with the only exception being, don't be proud of killers, pity them

[Norsky]

05:14 PM on 03/17/2011

I understand that the military thinks they are doing something very important. After all, we would hate to have them thinking what we ask them to do is not worth it. But that is not the tandard we should be following.

It is what we think is important. Not what the military thinks is important.

[Exexecution]

01:05 AM on 03/18/2011

They work for us, do they not?

[ProfessorDuh]

02:51 PM on 03/18/2011

No, they certainly do not. They work for the military-industrial complex, whose interests are antithetical to those of ordinary Americans.

[grailknight]

04:51 PM on 03/17/2011

General, WTF are the objectives?

[ProfessorDuh]

02:52 PM on 03/18/2011

To further enrich Halliburton and the other corrupt, crony-capitalism no-bid, no-performance corporations, of course.

[sophiemaki]

03:09 PM on 03/17/2011

Every soldier is special.
the son or daughter of someone.

[PatRM2]

03:01 PM on 03/17/2011

How about finding a good job for that boy somewhere else, then we could all go home and save the zillions more we will flush down the military toilet.

[ResistImperialism]

02:42 PM on 03/17/2011

What does his son's employment in the military have to do with anything?

[Rador]

03:13 PM on 03/17/2011

It's hard to tell from this tiny blurb and picture that is nothing more than a punching bag.

[heartsmindsvision]

02:40 PM on 03/17/2011

Who says that it was kept quiet. This guy wants to stay in Afkan so much he can taste it. He works for the MIC.

[efmo]

04:02 PM on 03/17/2011

I don't want to take anything away from his son or the fact that at least his son is in the military, but I find it very hard to believe that people in the military didn't know who the son was even if it wasn't advertised in the press.

[Tcsoserpico]

08:13 PM on 03/17/2011

Kept quite from the bad guys not his troops. The Brits did a similar thing for prince Harry.

[mojopo]

02:19 PM on 03/17/2011

With all due respect, General, we have to decide which is better for the US - a nation that "thinks" their mission is important, or placing importance on other issues that advance us as a nation.

[HLL]

03:05 PM on 03/17/2011

F & F ~ Beautifully said. I vote the latter! ☮

[ChasG]

03:31 PM on 03/17/2011

Hypothetically (not calling you out), if the safety of Americans at home was at stake, would an allied military response be appropriate?

[Max Shaw]

02:16 PM on 03/17/2011

I really dont see what his son has to do with the question that was asked of him. Seems like he's deflecting as always.

[Theatrixnyc]

02:24 PM on 03/17/2011

The playbook must be empty, he had to search his own personal history for something of merit.

[Nomccain]

02:15 PM on 03/17/2011

This nation is already in grave danger because Bush and Cheney continued to borrow and print money for 10 years to fianance the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. An economic crisis of unimagined proportions is coming to this country in a very short time and it will make the soup lines of 1929 look like a sunday school picnic. You cannot owe the amount of money that we owe and keep the dollar strong and before long, other nations are going to demand that we pay for their oil in their currency and the dollar will be worth NOTHING. It's coming, and when it does, EVERYTHING we use or consume will skyrocket out of control and our lives will be changed forever. Better wake up.

[NC Jim]

02:41 PM on 03/17/2011

How did Bush & Cheney borrow money for 10 years? They were only in office for 8.

[Exexecution]

01:08 AM on 03/18/2011

Their pals remain in the bureaucracy that perpetuates war. That's how.