Why I Voted Against Promoting Petraeus
Today I voted 'no' on the nomination of General David H. Petraeus, the current commander of the Multi-National Force-Iraq, to be Commander, United States Central Command. I was unable to attend General Petraeus' nomination hearing before the Armed Services Committee because I was managing the Supplemental Appropriations bill on the Senate floor, but I reviewed his testimony. I also posed a number of questions to General Petraeus after the hearing, and studied his responses.
I appreciate General Petraeus' evident intelligence and his expertise and experience in Iraq. He wrote the book on countering insurgencies for the Army. He led the 101st Airborne Division during the V Corps drive to Baghdad in 2003. He established the Multi-National Security Transition Command Iraq in 2004. He has served as Commander of the Multi-National Force-Iraq since January 2007. He is the architect of the so-called 'surge strategy' that is even now being played out in Iraq.
The 'surge strategy' is, in fact, one of the reasons why I believe General Petraeus should remain in his current position as Commander of the Multi-National Force-Iraq. Marshal Ferdinand Foch, Supreme Commander of the Allied Armies at the conclusion of World War I, observed in his 1920 book, Precepts and Judgments, that "great results in war are due to the commander. History is therefore right in making generals responsible for victories -- in which case they are glorified; and for defeats -- in which case they are disgraced." The jury is still out on the success or failure of the 'surge strategy.' General Petraeus should bring it to its conclusion before he is rewarded with a promotion.
Continuity of command has been a problem in Iraq. Historically, when the United States has been involved in protracted conflicts, continuity of command has been maintained, be it Generals Eisenhower or MacArthur during World War II, or General Westmoreland during the Vietnam Conflict. General Petraeus has only been in his current position for eighteen months. Since President Bush believes that General Petraeus has done well in his current position, but he, Secretary Gates and General Petraeus have all described the security situation in Iraq as tenuous and reversible, it does not seem prudent to remove the mastermind behind the fragile successes that have been thus far achieved.
Almost one year ago, on July 14, 2007, President Bush said in a radio address that, "When America starts drawing down our forces in Iraq, it will be because our military commanders say the conditions on the ground are right -- not because pollsters say it would be good politics." That strategy does not work well, however, when you keep changing commanders. No new commander is going to come in and say "reduce the troop levels on my watch," because if, through their lack of familiarity with the conditions on the ground, they are wrong, that defeat would be their disgrace, just as Marshal Foch observed in 1920. So, a year after President Bush's statement, troop levels in Iraq are only just returning to something close to the 'pre-surge' levels of January 2007, when General Petraeus assumed command in Iraq. If, as General Petraeus has said, no further decisions on additional draw-downs will be made until sometime in the fall of 2008, a new commander will be called upon to make that decision.
I am also concerned about General Petraeus' unwillingness to address questions regarding other regional issues, such as in Afghanistan or Iran, during his nomination hearing. Such evasiveness is not politic; it is troubling at a time when news reports suggest that the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan and that President Bush may be contemplating military action against Iran. Despite the press of his responsibilities in Iraq, General Petraeus must be concerned with how other operations or other political considerations in the same theater affect his options in Iraq. Equally, he must consider how political changes in his chain of command might affect his operations in Iraq, yet he will not admit even the existence of contingency plans for potential troop drawdowns that might be required by a new administration. If the competing priorities for manpower and material are to be sorted out at the CENTCOM level, it must be done with a clear understanding of what is possible and what is achievable, by someone willing to take a stand in support of all the men and women who will be called upon to carry out those priorities, not by someone who only salutes and carries out orders or by someone who knows only a fraction of the full situation. General Petraeus' career will be judged in large part by his role in the Iraq conflict; his reticence to address other regional issues raises questions about his willingness to devote the focus and the resources needed to address them properly.
Finally, the repeated rotations of U.S. soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan are taking a toll on our military. Elements of the 4th Infantry Division, 1st Infantry Division, 1st Cavalry Division, and the 172nd Infantry Brigade are facing a third tour in Iraq and Afghanistan. Elements of the 82nd Airborne Division are facing a fourth tour. With these repeated tours and the continuation of the 'stop loss' policy of forcibly retaining troops on active duty in order to maintain unit integrity necessitated by the strain this war is placing on our forces, it is difficult to understand why these troops should not be entitled to a continuity of command. The troops appreciate the effectiveness of working together as a unit when confronting danger on a regular basis. They deserve a leadership corps that, like them, functions together as a unit and stay together.
More than 12,000 service members are currently affected by 'stop loss' orders that prohibit them from retiring or leaving the service even though they are eligible for retirement or their terms of enlistment have expired. That total includes 6,800 active-duty Army personnel, about 3,800 Army National Guard personnel and almost 1,500 Army Reservists who are not allowed to leave military service despite having fulfilled their service obligations.
Lt. General James Thurman, the Army's deputy chief of staff for operations, has said that he hoped, but could not promise, that if the demand for troops stabilized at around 15 combat brigades, the use of the 'stop loss' could be ended by the end of Fiscal Year 2009, or the beginning of Fiscal Year 2010 - in September or October of 2009, more than a year from now. 'But demand exceeds supply right now,' he stated. For the 12,000 affected service members, and those who will become eligible to retire or leave service between now and late 2009, this amounts to another 18 months of forced conscription. Until the practice of 'stop loss' is ended, perhaps General Petraeus and other military leaders should remain in their current assignments until the U.S. can transition the responsibility for the security of Iraq to Iraqis.
Loading comments…
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
Senator Byrd thank you for your honesty and guts to stand up to this corrupt government thank you for standing up for us Americans who recognize what a bunch of crooks are in the white house.
I pray for your continued watch for our country I hope and pray others will have your courage to stand against their lies!
May God Bless and Keep you,
a southerner tired of the republican lies since 2000!
Thank you Sen. Byrd for all you have done to support our troops! Your honest and integrity were never more needed than now!
This is the Patriot and great American Senator Robert Byrd at his best.
Sycophantic political generals like Petraeus today (Westmoreland in my Army days) need to finish what they start. Byrd nailed it that The Bush League's habit of churning commanders is just another word for "alibi" to real patriots.
The idea Petraeus "deserves" to be promoted is too contemptible- or, in a lighter vein, too ridiculous to take seriously, yet there are Americans so confused by their jingo icons that is what they believe. Petraeus is being promoted to get ahead of the change in the White House. If he don't get his ticket punched now, it ain't never gonna be punched.
Sen. B. --
Something else you and your colleagues should ask Gen. Petaeus (a.k.a. God) -- why are there more Blackwater troops in Iraq than regular US Armed Forces? And why is he (Petaeus) content with our troops on-going lack of functioning equipment and shoddy supplies?
It seems that Gen/ Petaeus is more concerned with padding his resume for the 2012 GE than doing his current job in a manner that reflects well on the troops.
Shame on him! And he wants to be the next prez?!!
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Byrd for VP!
To invoke "stop-loss" in a fight against a third-rate, tin-pot dictator of a nation with about one-twelfth our population can best be described as criminal.
Senator Byrd,
You've written a brilliant explanation of your vote, but then, I'm not surprised because of your devotion to the Constitution and its principles! And as an aside, it was so wonderful to see both you and Senator Kennedy in the Senate the other day. Two great lions of Congress--may you both continue to serve the country you love so much!
Thank you
Senator Byrd - right on the Iraq war from the start and right on office boy David Petraeus.
Right on, Senator and thanks.
SonnyBono, Yes, Petraeus is a Bush Boy, willing to say and do anything for his boss. He is not to be trusted by the American people, nor should he get his "reward". Is it a chain around his neck or more salad for his uniform? Leave it to W. to reward the General before his "Mission has been accomplish
Senator Byrd demonstrates with his words and ideas that he is the Dean of the Senate (I was going to say "grown-up", but there are a few other grown-ups there -- Sens. Kennedy, Feingold, Sanders, Leahy, Obama, Dorgan, Durbin). May you stay with us for a long time, Senator Byrd. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Byrd, for yet another principled vote, and thank you for the eloquent explication.
Our old fiddler still has it. The Senate chapion of the US Constitution reigns. In a Senate where a lot of the members have the understanding of Larry the Cabel guy who on being denied entry to a restraunt said I have a copy of the constitution right here and it say we have a right to "bare arms". His passion for this country as for his friends like Ted Kennedy is never dulled by the years . He is our large Oak tree in the Senate. We love him and hope to celebrate his birthday as a 100 year old Senator.
Well done Senator Byrd. Thank you actually applying logic when voting.
The other night a group had a discussion about ways to improve congress. One idea was to remind our representatives of our grand Constitution by having them appear in the dress that was popular during the time of our founding. After bumping the idea about a bit, it was decided that the majority, a vast majority, would appear in red coats. You sir qualify to wear the garb of a patriot. Thank you.
New rule: Anyone volunteering for duty in Iraq or Afghanistan has to take their family with them. No more cushy duty spots in Europe; those families have to stay in the USA.
General Petraeus is simply a Bush sycophantic general (there were many who put their careers ahead of serving this country honorably and honestly) that got to his position in the US Military by echoing Bush and the neocons (I think the term is kissing their butts, but I could be incorrect on that metaphor). I hope when President Obama takes over in January 2009, he has a priority to have Petraeus retire with as much dignity as the Admiral Bush fired because he stood up to this American Dictator.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
