Petraeus

Via the Powerguys, I saw Tigerhawk's coverage of a speech at Princeton by Lt. General David Petraeus.

Petraeus is the former commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command and NATO Training Mission in Iraq, and before that commanded the 101st Airborne during the liberation of the country. We've met him before in this space.

He chops up a number of the fantasy-based community's favorite dreams about the war.

Interesting stuff; read the whole thing, naturally (Tigerhawk did a great job).

But a few points I think bear calling out:

• The "Only One Iraqi Battalion Ready for Combat" Canard - The media and the left have been harping on this as a sign of failure, without really knowing what they're talking about. Says Petraeus: "Level 1 is fully independent, “capable of planning and executing operations, and sustaining itself, without coalition support.” This is a very high standard, and because it requires no coalition support in combat, whether logistical or in the form of indirect fire support. As reported this week, only one battalion operates at this level now, but the press accounts did not make clear what a difficult standard this is. Indeed, two other battalions had reached this level but were downgraded because of personnel changes (my sense was that a key officer was transferred)." A question I'd love to ask Petraeus; "Level 1" means a unit that can plan its own missions, supply itself in action, and take on the enemy without any Coalition support, including no artillery, artillery, or "fire brigade" of US troops standing by to bail them out, as gauged by similar standards to the US military. How many of the NATO units in Kosovo would fit that description? How many French and German non-special-forces units - the ones that John Kerry was so hot for the US to wait on - could meet that standard? Petraeus notes that the media misses the huge success story - the huge preponderance of the Iraqi military that operates at Level 2 (independant, but need help with logistics and artillery support) and Level 3 (fully capable of fighting alongside US troops and being more dangerous to the enemy than themselves).

• The "We Shouldn't Have Disbanded the Iraqi Army" fallacy - Petraeus' position is a bit nuanced here: while there should have been a better plan for employing the troops and junior officers, the Iraqi Army that existed before 2003 was largely useless: "I do not necessarily accept the idea that we should not have disbanded that Iraqi army. It was bloated with general officers – there were 1100 generals in one province alone, each one of whom expected us to do what they wanted – and it was an army that had not fought." Petraeus details the difficulties of training troops from the old Iraqi military - which never taught marksmanship - to US standards.
  
• The One-Sidedness of the Media's Coverage - Petraus hasn't much good to say about the mainstream media's coverage of Iraq: "General Patraeus said that they have given the media an enormous amount of information, including countless important metrics for measuring progress, but that it is largely ignored. He observed that the enemy “On many days it is impossible to break through the steady drumbeat of sensational attacks occurring in Baghdad throughout the country. The opening of the new military academy got no coverage at all, even though it was a big event with the whole Iraqi government in attendance." Tigerhawk adds "Patraeus is obviously extremely unhappy with the monomaniacal press coverage.

You could do worse than reading the whole thing.

Posted by Mitch at October 4, 2005 07:16 AM | TrackBack