When I argued last summer that General David Petraeus should be considered for a fifth star, my remarks were met with skepticism and even ridicule.
I must admit that my idea was not original. A couple of weeks before, D.B. Grady -- a former paratrooper with U.S. Army Special Operations Command, a veteran of Afghanistan and an author -- had written an article in the Atlantic supporting the idea of making General Petraeus a five-star general, a General of the Army.
Brady said, in part:
It's difficult to find a war in American history where so much depended on any one man. [Petraeus] is the face of this war, the spiritual commander in chief amongst presidencies deficient in military authority. He is the only man, general or civilian, who can stand before the American people, the American soldier, and military families, and discuss the conflict without being second-guessed or dismissed out of hand as a partisan hack....
General Petraeus embodies that commitment. And as General of the Army, he will be given an unambiguous mandate with the unfettered support of the president and the nation.
Just last week, two other distinguished combat veterans, Pete Hegseth and Wade Zirkle *, also came out in strong support for the new Congress to authorize a fifth star for Gen. Petraeus. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed they write:
The U.S. war against terrorism is now the longest war in U.S. history, and Gen. Petraeus has clearly distinguished himself as a leader worthy of joining the ranks of Gens. MacArthur, Marshall and Nimitz....It has been more than half a century since a U.S. general was awarded a fifth star. David Petraeus's generalship has spanned 11 years, three presidents and seven Congresses. It is time to promote him to "General of the Army" and award him a fifth star. Our military deserves it, and he has certainly earned it
My original article on this issue was rather long.
Having had the benefit of hearing from the skeptics and naysayers, let me summarize my previous comments in light of such criticism:
The history of our "generals of the Armies" and "generals of the Army" is a long and distinguished one going back to 1866, when Congress authorized the grade of General of the Army and conferred that grade upon Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant.
More recently, during and immediately after World War II, our nation has had nine five-star generals and admirals.
The last five-star general to serve our nation was Gen. Omar N. Bradley who became General of the Army in 1950.
So here we are, 30 years since our last five-star general died, winding down one war and stepping up the pace of another one. It's time for another George C. Marshall, another Douglas MacArthur.
Would our nation -- our war effort in Afghanistan -- benefit from the appointment of a five-star general, a General of the Army, and should it be Gen. David Petraeus? I say "yes" to both.
Petraeus has now become the face of the Afghanistan war -- many say our last and only hope to win that war. If we are serious about winning in Afghanistan, then let's give the commander of that war the rank, prestige and authority to match our seriousness and our commitment.
It will show that the president and Congress unequivocally trust and believe in Petraeus -- Americans already do -- and that he has their total support.
There is no person more qualified and capable than Petraeus to succeed in Afghanistan. After all, he literally wrote the book on counterinsurgency operations and he validated it in Iraq.
He is replicating it in Afghanistan. He has already declared, "We are in this to win."
Yes, there will be some protocol issues, some "chain of command" confusion, some egos bruised with all those four-star Chiefs of Staff and other four-star generals running around. Protocol issues can be fixed. The chain of command -- from Gen. Petraeus through the Secretary of Defense directly to the President -- can be quickly explained. Bruised egos can be soothed -- or brushed aside.
Defeat or retreat in battle cannot be fixed, brushed aside or explained away.
* Messrs. Hegseth and Zirkle are directors at Vets for Freedom. Mr. Hegseth served in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division, and will deploy to Afghanistan in 2011. Mr. Zirkle served two deployments to Iraq as a Marine infantry officer, and is a recipient of the Purple Heart.
I don't dismiss their opinions as at all unworthy, nor invalid, nor unimportant, but they are predictable.
D. B. Grady claims that Petraeus can "discuss the conflict without being second-guessed or dismissed out of hand as a partisan hack." Well no, maybe he wouldn't be dismissed by the soldier, but those of us who know Petraeus for the partisan hack, opportunist, and utter failure that he is can easily dismiss him.
At best we are fighting to a draw in Afghanistan, and Petraeus, and other hacks like him, has simply prolonged that fight. Petraeus was the one who made the political case for the "surge" of war in both Iran and Afghanistan in the first place, and in doing so has given political cover to those who enthusiasticly support that fight continuing ad infinitum. Yes, he is a partisan hack.
Really people, when is enough, enough?"
But he didn't do those things and the wars drag on do to the lack-a-luster performance by the Pentagon brass. The whole lot should be kicked out.
I think we have too many 4 star generals. The rank has been diluted to a point that we now need to add an extra star so we have a leader.
But considering that we were left with all the yes men who survived the Rumsfeld Pentagon purge I'm not too surprised. They all supported war with Iraq on the cheap and they were wrong.
"Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command, derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad... Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" and added, "I hate people like that".
Here's an article about Fallon and Petraeus and the stark contrast between the two: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235
The ass kisser in Chief is firmly entrenched and celebrated. If memory serves me, Fallon, the true hero, later resigned in protest of the Bush Administration's hyperbolic rhetoric pushing for confrontation with Iran.
We need more leaders with the integrity of Fallon, and could do without that "chickenshit", Petraeus. Five Stars indeed!
They won wars.
Not fought them to a stalemate. Not fought them in such a way that there will never be an end. They fought hard, they fought to win, and then they came back home as heroes for their victory.
Petreaus has exhibited none of that. Worse yet, your premise that he is the only man possible to lead this army in Afghanistan, well, frankly scares the bejeebus out of me. Quoting the Pentagon Echo Chamber doesn't help either, "...a war in American history where so much depended on any one man. [Petraeus] is the face of this war, the spiritual commander in chief amongst presidencies deficient in military authority." "Spiritual"? Really? Has he become God now as well?
Look another star will not make him either more or less competent. It simply enriches his pension when he bails from the service to become a millionaire in the private defense industry. No thank you.
Show me some REAL victories in this ludicrous "war on terror" and we'll talk again. Until then, I'd say Petraeus has a win/loss of 0-1 with a losing score going into the ninth inning of the double-header. Really not grounds for new contract negotiations. Play ball.