David Petraeus, Central Command Chief: General Tapped For New Position

AP   |  ANNE FLAHERTY   |   April 23, 2008 at 11:19 AM


Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

*** UPDATES BELOW ***

The Associated Press is reporting that Gen. David Petraeus has been nominated as the next Chief of Cental Command for the United States:

Army Gen. David Petraeus, the four-star general who led troops in Iraq for the past year, will be nominated by President Bush to be the next commander of U.S. Central Command, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday.


Central Command oversees the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

Petraeus will be replacing Adm. William Fallon, who resigned last month after Esquire reported that he was at odds with President Bush over Iran policy. Fallon denied the substance of the report, but said it had become a distraction to his job. Read HuffPost's full coverage of William Fallon's resignation.

Former intelligence analyst William Arkin noted the role that Petraeus likely played in Fallon's resignation:

The man most responsible for the departure of Fallon is Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, the savior of the war and the Bush administration with the surge, the counter-insurgency genius, the Washington-savvy Princeton grad, and a pretty boy called "King David" by many. His boss in the military is Fallon, commander of the Central Command, but from day one of his assignment to Iraq, Petraeus reported directly to the White House, thus circumventing the chain of command and virtually ignoring the views of his superior officer.


As my friend Fred Kaplan reports in Slate: "It is well-known that Fallon has long been at odds with Gen. David Petraeus.... I have heard from several sources that the two men dislike each other and that their disagreements have been tense, sometimes fierce."

Read about Petraeus' replacement, Gen. Ray Odierno.

UPDATE: Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid has issued the following statement:

"The next CENTCOM commander and field commander in Iraq will have to help the next President with a number of critically important challenges: making America more secure, restoring America's power and influence in the world, fixing our costly strategy in Iraq, and articulating a more effective strategy for winning in Afghanistan and defeating Al Qaeda in Pakistan.


"Our ground forces' readiness and the battles in Afghanistan and against al Qaeda in Pakistan have suffered as a result of the current costly Iraq strategy. These challenges will require fresh, independent and creative thinking and, if directed to by a new President, a commitment to implementing major changes in strategy.

"The Senate will carefully examine these nominations and I will be looking for credible assurances of a strong commitment to implementing a more effective national security strategy."


Comments
315
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next › Last » (6 pages total)

Bush needed somebody willing to lie that we're winning in Afghanistan too

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:45 PM on 04/24/2008

Petraeus is getting his payoff for lying to the cameras--just like ALL the Bush puppets get rewarded for towing the line. No wonder we're still losing soldiers in Iraq--4050 to date--with no end in sight. None of the lockstepping generals are willing to tell the truth

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:17 AM on 04/24/2008

Guess who is taking Patraeus' place as head of all forces in Iraq? Raymond Odierno. According to the book Fiasco, the unit that Odierno commanded was one of the most aggressive and trigger happy of all the US forces. "Its indiscriminate detention of Iraqis filled Abu Ghraib prison, swamped the U.S. interrogation system and overwhelmed the U.S. soldiers guarding the prison." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/23/AR2006072300495.html

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:24 AM on 04/24/2008

March 15, 2008
"Al-Qaida in Iraq, which did not exist as a coherent group before U.S.
troops invaded in March 2003, probably now numbers no more than 6,000,
according to U.S. intelligence estimates. It may have been closer to
10,000-strong before the severe pummeling it took last year,
when it lost its main bases of Sunni Arab support.
It controls no cities but is still active in pockets
through much of central and northern Iraq."

We have 140,000 Troops
Allies have 12,000 Troops
Iraqi Security Forces 420,000
Awakening Force 80,000 @ $300/Month
Sons of Iraq ??
Paid Shia Militia??

That's 652,000 vs. 6000 or 108 GOOD GUYS for every BAD GUY.
Wasn't the Powell Doctrine 50 to 1??
OR
Are we and the other Forces there to fight a CIVIL WAR??
If we are Fighting a CIVIL WAR which groups are we supporting and
which groups are we against?
What is the size ( strength in numbers ) of the GROUPS we are fighting in the CIVIL WAR?

Jim Frego

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:53 AM on 04/24/2008

I think the Confederate Army has about 500,000 in all branches.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:07 AM on 04/24/2008



The Basra desertions in the heat of a major battle cast fresh doubt on the effectiveness of the American-trained Iraqi security forces.

A reported asked: "Who was in charge of training the Iraqi forces"?

Answer: "General Petraeus was in charge in 2004 and 2005"

What was General Petraeus' primary mission when assigned to Iraq in Feb. 2007?

Asnswer: General Petraeus's Primary Mission was to Secure Baghdad to allow the Iraqi Governemet a secure envirnment to pas key legislation.

Status: The Iraqi Govenment has passed 5 of 18 key legislations.
Over the past 3 days several US Troops and over a dozen Civilians have been KILLED and WOUNDED in THE GREEN ZONE!!
Basra and Mosel remain the most dangerous places in Iraq slightly behind Baghdad.
Sadr City is about to EXPLODE.

In June 2004, less than six months after the 101st returned to the U.S., Petraeus was promoted to lieutenant general ( 2 Star ) and charged with the task of training the new Iraqi Army and security forces as commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command Iraq.

Petraeus returned to Iraq in February 2007 ( as a 4 Star General ) to lead the "SURGE". He commands 650,000 Allied and Iraqi Forces that are trying to "DEFEAT" 6000 Al Qaida Terrorists that want to come to the United States and KILL Americans.

Petraeus is scheduled to return to the US later this year with a PROMOTION to 5 Stars.

Give ME a BREAK!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:36 AM on 04/24/2008

gproguecowboy
It's a good idea to do a little research on you own before simply cutting and pasting someone else's observations or opinions, especially when said observations or opinions are fallacious or just plain asinine.

Sure there were some desertions on the part of Iraqi forces, but such things are not new in war, in fact history is full of examples of American forces deserting in battle. Union forces deserted during the civil war, yet the North won; some US forces deserted during the war of 1812, yet we won that one; a number of US and Allied forces deserted during WWII, yet we won that war too. I could go on but I think you get the point. Wars and battles are not judged by how many forces deserted, but by whether you won or lost and the last time I checked, the Iraqi forces are in control of Basra. could it have been done better, sure...the Iraqi forces were put to the test and some were found to be wanting, but better that the Iraqi's win the battle however imperfectly, than the US to win it for them perfectly.

BTW, It was Sadr that lobbied for a ceasefire; no commander that is winning a battle ever calls for a ceasefire--why would you?

And here"s one last little point: the position of CENTCOM Commander is a four-star billet, not five.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:53 AM on 04/24/2008

Time for you to do some Research. The Basra SITUATION ENDED because our #2 enemy IRAN BROKERED A Peace Deal. Iraqi Forces bolstered by US and Allies did not WIN anything.
Check again and you will see 5 Stars on Petraeus in June......

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:04 AM on 04/25/2008

I thought the Taleban were in charge, or maybe Martin Sheen.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:57 PM on 04/23/2008

Petraeus isn't a General--He's a tool.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:23 PM on 04/23/2008

The stars on his shoulder indicate a general status, in case you missed that.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:21 AM on 04/24/2008

Nice threatening photo of him. But actually that'll be the expression on terrorist's faces when he helps lead the charge against them.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:30 PM on 04/23/2008

Silly. They need terrorism just like they needed the New Pearl Harbor...wars bogus

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:53 PM on 04/23/2008

Back in '91 right after the fall of the Wall, we were taking bets on who the new enemy would be. Middle East in a number of forms was near the top of the list, primarily due to the oil. But watch--we are slowly and steadily being aimed at the People's Republic of China as the next Really Bad Guys! I have no use for totalitarian regimes of any kind--including our own--but I'll be damned if my kids will fight and die in Asia like my generation did. Not for Exxon, not for General Dynamics, not for Bechtal, not for any of them.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:48 PM on 04/23/2008

He looks pretty relaxed and rested to me. With Bush at the helm, bin Laden probably feels that way, as well.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:41 PM on 04/23/2008

Isn't it always the yes men and women who get ahead! Admiral Fallon Sir, we do salute you!

Semper Fi Sir . . .

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:47 PM on 04/23/2008

Yes, what if an underling of Petraeus reported directly to the President? Petraeus probably would not like it much.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:42 PM on 04/23/2008

Admiral Fallon spoke the truth... And now he's suddenly out?

We've seen this movie before but it gets more and more disgusting when it's replayed. Not only do they not learn from their mistakes, they (the Bush administration) double up on it.

At the same time that Bush is not listening to his men "on the ground," He is presenting the Congressional Medal of Honor to someone from Baylor Univeristy where he is trying to set up his presidential library despite student and faculty protests.

Yet he has given fewer Medals of Honor to troops fighting an American war than any other President in history.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:34 PM on 04/23/2008

Who will replace Bush's pet? Any ass-kissing officer that wants an extra star.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:33 PM on 04/23/2008

Totally predictable. Bush converts another formerly honorable man into a bootlicker. How does a weak, inarticulate buffoon make people behave like this?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:32 PM on 04/23/2008

It's called large military contracts upon retirement.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:41 PM on 04/23/2008

With Fallon now out of the way there isn't anyone to stand in Bush's way to launch a limited air war with Iran. More than likely just before the Democratic convention. Wag the Dog!
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/23/petraeus/index.html

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:28 PM on 04/23/2008

Fallon is taking over for Conan O'Brien.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:46 PM on 04/24/2008

He said what bush wanted him to say and this is his reward. Alas

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:56 PM on 04/23/2008

.

Funny,

his nose is longer and increasingly brown.
.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:26 PM on 04/23/2008

I saw it BROWN too. LOL

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:05 PM on 04/23/2008

Must have went to town with your mom last night.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:28 PM on 04/23/2008

Awc, I had hope for you, but you are getting worse. One can tell he is a Fox News watcher by his mentality!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:44 PM on 04/23/2008

awcbuddy, Mom jokes huh? How old are you? 12 I would guess.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:34 PM on 04/23/2008

Yeah, let's put up another "butt-kisser" gag for kicks. The one hundred of them on this thread get funnier and funnier.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:23 AM on 04/24/2008

Former Marine and Republican congressman Paul Broun of Georgia does not care for pornography, but he especially doesn't like the smut [Playboy] that the men and women of the armed forces can purchase from military exchanges.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/04/military_pornography_stores_042208w/

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:04 PM on 04/23/2008

Gee, what happened to the topic about the 84 year old man that was selling nuclear secrets to Israel ?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:04 PM on 04/23/2008

Selling secrets? Jews invented the Atom Bomb. Or didn't you know that?

(I hardly think they need us.)

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:12 PM on 04/23/2008

A question for Gen. P: How does he want to be remembered? Will he go down in history like Gen. Rommel, or like Gen. Jodl?

Gen. Rommel considered loyalty to his country more important than loyalty to his "decider". Gen. Jodl considered loyalty to the C-in-C more important than his country. Only one of these Generals is now remembered in the context of honor, and a higher morality.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:54 PM on 04/23/2008

Hmmm...let's see, is George Bush dictator for life? No. Thanks for trying.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:29 PM on 04/23/2008

What do Bush and Hitler have in common? How about, they are both guilty of waging wars of aggression, based on lies and deceptions, with a comliant mass media, and a populace that was willing to go along for the ride so long as the victories look easy. Add to that a disregard for the rule of law, and a belief that "God is With Us". There are too many similarities to ignore. Bush is leading us down a slippery slope into a hole that we may not be able to get ourselves back out of.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:44 AM on 04/24/2008

Actually there is pretty much no similarities. Hitler didn't invade Poland to save the Pols from a brutalizing, fascist dictator. Didn't lie about anything, I'd like to see you prove it (move on past the 900 false statements-don't care, don't care). It is a free media and they can report whatever they want. Bush has followed the law to the corps, otherwise he would not be in office. And Hitler was an atheist. There are no similarities to ignore in the first place.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:34 AM on 04/24/2008

I must digress on a few points:

a. Hitler attacked/invaded Poland as an act of aggression (there was no imminent threat). Bush attacked/invaded Iraq as a "pre-emptive" act of aggression (there was no imminent threat).

The international legal rules governing the use of force take as their starting point Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits any nation from using force against another. The charter allows for only two exceptions to this rule: when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII). Iraq was NOT posing any specific discernible offensive threat to the US and Bush did NOT have formal UN Security Council approval for military action in 2003.

b. As for lies, I do not think you are being honest with yourself if you can HONESTLY state that Bush and/or his Administration has NOT lied about anything -- at any time during his tenure...! Jeez, there are sites dedicated for the sole purpose of documenting his multitude of lies (like http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm and http://www.bushlies.net/ and http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_lies.html); besides the government records/documents.

[..continued...]

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:21 PM on 04/24/2008

[..continued...]

Bush is such a compulsive liar that he lies even when he doesn't have to, even for the most trivial things (like when he said he caught a fish years ago and the size/weight he mentioned was like twice the size of the world record; or when he said he read 60 books one summer).

c. I blame the media for a fair degree of complacency in regards to journalistic integrity over the past couple of years (not following thru with sufficient, detailed investigative work; or merely being the White House's stenographer). What gets reported still gets determined by the corporate higher-ups. [unless it's a Climate/Environment rep