A Soldier's Questions for General Petraeus

Today, confirmation hearings will be held to name General David Petraeus the head of U.S. Central Command (CentCom) in the Middle East and Central Asia. General Petraeus is currently the U.S. Commander in Iraq and the architect of the strategy which dramatically increased the number of U.S. troops in Iraq -- commonly known as "the surge." During General Petraeus' prior confirmation hearing for his current post, he avoided questions about the Bush administration's Iraq strategy and its overall effect on our national security. He also refused to answer questions regarding the administration's Iraq Strategy and the effect on the military readiness of our troops. General Petraeus' rationale, was that as the U.S. Commander in Iraq, he was limited to policy in Iraq and he would therefore limit his answers to questions regarding Iraq instead of America's national security and troop readiness.

What a difference a year makes. Now that General Petraeus is nominated to oversee the entire Middle East and Central Asia, there are questions that he must address in his confirmation hearing which he refused to answer in his prior hearing. As the head of CentCom for the Middle East and Central Asia, General Petraeus will leave his mark on U.S. foreign policy and military readiness for generations to come and in one of the most hostile areas in the world.

Michael Hayden, the Director of the CIA, is on the record as saying that the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region is "a clear and present danger" to the West and specifically to the United States. Director Hayden went on to say that if the U.S. is going to suffer another terrorist attack on American soil, it will almost certainly originate in this area. That said, I have a few questions for General Petraeus.

• With a Nuclear Pakistan, does this prompt a change in strategy from America's current foreign policy?
• Do you, General Petraeus, agree with Director Hayden's analysis?
• If you do, will you advocate for a strategic redeployment of our troops from Iraq and focus more on the Afghan/Pakistan border area?

General Petraeus is the author of the U.S. strategy on counterinsurgency operations. An instrumental part to the counterinsurgency strategy is having experienced company level commanders. In 2007, 58% of the West Point class of 2002 left active duty after completing their initial commitment. This is a 30 year high with previous years averaging between 10% and 30%. The Army is currently facing a deficit of 3,000 Captains and Majors this year and those numbers are likely to increase over the next few years .

• Does it concern you that the Army is facing these shortfalls?
• Without a change of strategy in Iraq, how will you maintain the deployment schedule our soldiers currently face?

I am a former Army Captain who left the Army after completing my initial commitment. I submit to you, General Petraeus: if the shortfalls and deployment schedule do not concern you, they should.

As an Iraq War Veteran, as a Congressional Candidate and as an American Citizen, these are just some of the questions for which I think we all deserve answers.

Comments

[ignorantwillyharper]

He will say what Bush wants to hear, because he wants that fifth star.

[UltraClassic]

Obama / Chamberlain '08

Jonathan, thanks for your service. I like you did my time in the Corps, both active and reserve and I played in the sand box like others.

You know and I know that company grade officers don't make man-power decisions. We lead troops into battle. That's what we do. On the surface, you make some interesting points but you conclusion is very simplistic. Are things a little tight right now? Yes. Are the critical? Far from it.

Obama / Chamberlain '08

[fedupwithpolitics]

Real men talk to their enemies before murdering women and children in wars.

[demigod]

Asking Petraeus what we should do in Iraq is like asking Custer what we should do in the Badlands. He can't give an answer based on rational reason, he's too committed to his cause. That's why we have civilian control of the military, or used to have. This military, with it's self-contained voluntary nature and it's militant Christian dominionism, is absolutely frightening. Support our troops ? I have a very, very hard time doing that. Anyone can see that the Iraq war was a stupendous blunder - everyone except Patraeus. I watched his Senate and House testimony back in April - it was amazing how he used words to parse away any recognition of the inevitable. But presenting as truth something you know is not is called LYING, and I believe that's what he did to the American people. Something Bush does every day.

[lgillooly]

Sadly,I think he may just be a yes man and do whatever the Prez tells him to do. He needs to remember that his first obligation is to the Constitution and NOT the President. I have been hoping and praying that Admiral Fallon would come out from the shadows and speak truth to power. It looks like he will follow Colin Powell and just slink away. Where are all the heroes? They are fighting in Iraq for nothing.

[egal]

Actually, the ranks of officers are anachronistic remnants of the days when we had royalty, or slightly less thinly veiled elitism, and their loyalty to their chain of command is written into their oath. He can't speak ill of the president or any leader's plans, even if he were aware of the faults.

Of course, principled people throughout history have chosen the needs of the people over the luxury of the leaders, the demands of humanity over the dictates of unprincipled military command, the hard right over the easier wrong.

But we seem to have a shortage of those in positions of authority.

[oldpotsmuggler]

And Harry Reid is said to be ready to give Bush and Senate Republics exactly what they want for supplemental war funding. When once more faced with the choice between a bad bill and no bill, he goes along with the minority party and agress to accept bad legislation.

If Clinton or Obama produced clear leadership right here and right now it would something I could get behind 100%.

[vippy]

I feel for General Petraeus, it is a case of "you are damned if you do and you are damned if you don't"
He cannot speak the truth for the pressure is on from the CIC and on the other side it is us the people.
He is a soldier first and has to follow orders and that includes saying nothing negative. He has to be
a real juggler trying to best answer what is most uncomfortable. Do you want to be in a position like that? Blame congress, they voted for this war too.

[wadenelson1]

Thou shalt not bear false witness ought to cover the "right" thing to do.

George W. Bush isn't the ultimate authority to whom Petraeus will one day answer. There's his own conscience, for starters. GWB will be back in Texas and reviled as the loser he was long before Petraeus career is over.

Do the right thing Petraus. Tell the truth. What GWB can or can't do for your career is immaterial.

[trollsbwild]

Spot on post. Too bad you will not be able to hear those questions being posed at this hearing.

Watch Patraeus say we're making progress in Iraq and need another three months to re-assess the situation.

[ejpoeta]

I am sure they will be too busy thanking him for coming before the committee to ask any substantive questions. And even if they do, he'll give some spinned answer that doesn't answer whatever question they ask.

[balkanization]

Great Post. Thank you, Mr. Powers. Mr. Beers also posted some questions for the Generals and isn't the following still one of the main ones: "How do you define success in terms of measuring what the Iraqi central government needs to be doing on this front? Have you set specific benchmarks? Has the Iraqi government been meeting those measures and integrating the Sunni groups into Iraqi security forces or giving them other work?" I just can't figure out how this war, or this surge, or this whatever is supposed to be evaluated, even on the administration's terms. Aren't we still being asked to purchase a pig in poke?