Will Petraeus change Iran policy?
Nancy Youssef sends this on today's Central Command announcement:
The naming of Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top Iraqi commander, to head U.S. Central Command and Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, Petraeus' deputy, to become the new Iraq commander suggests that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wants the counterinsurgency strategy the two men have championed to define U.S. relations in the region that Central Command oversees. That includes, among other nations, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq.
The appointments come at a precarious time, both in Iraq and the region. Petraeus’ surge strategy, which led to a significant drop in violence, has been in peril in parts of Baghdad after Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki launched an offensive in Basra last month.
But Iran may be the bigger issue. During his congressional testimony earlier this month, Petraeus said Iran has been aggravating violence in Iraq, but stopped short of calling for U.S. military action against Iraq's eastern neighbor.
Petraeus' comments, however, were more hawkish than those of his predecessor, Adm. William “Fox” Fallon, who abruptly retired last month after Esquire published a story in which Fallon said he was standing in the way of a tougher policy toward Iran. Gates and Fallon both denied there was a rift, but Fallon said that the perception of one forced him to leave.
The appointment of Odierno as Iraq commander marks something of a redemption. He'd previously been criticized for having a ham-handed "kinetic" approach to warfare that lacked the subtlety counterinsurgency requires. His aggressive tactics against the insurgency in northern Iraq during his previous stint there are often blamed for inflaming tensions, rather than tamping them down.
But in his announcement, Gates said that Odierno had built strong relationships with the Iraqi leadership as Petraeus's No. 2 in Iraq.
Until Fallon’s retirement, Odierno was slated to be the Army’s vice chief of staff. Now that post will go to Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, who during his service in Iraq was among the first commanders to recognize that U.S. killings of innocent Iraqis had helped fuel the insurgency. "I would argue in many instances we are our own worst enemy," he told me in June, 2006.
Free American I agree with you completely, the system is broke we have supreme court justices that make a mockery of the constitution, we need
http://www.5tt5.com
Posted by: شات | January 23, 2009 at 03:04 PM
Take away any existing strong central power and it will create power vacuum to that nation. Any nation. Invade and install anyone to authority who is pro you and not recognized by the people who you invaded and you will get you your ‘insurgents’. It is not hard to find any opposition (the ‘Yes I obey as long as you keep me in power and be close to me’) to be a new regime and pronounce him the righteous ones and those who oppose are the evil ones. If none can be found at home you can find any ex-citizen outside the country. That has been the way for the occupying power.
In Iraq, the Sunni and shiah is in a political war with each other ( base on a long history of blood feud from differences of their views on their religion, but the problem was 'under control' under Saddam) , even the Shiah is rivalry to each other and so is any other factions in that nation for all we know. Not to mention the Kurds and Anti Americans foreign fighters that joins later to take sides with them (whose common ground is opposition to Americans unfair middle east foreign policy that supports Israel and now an occupier of another Muslim nation). Any Muslim brothers is bound to be there to fight you. You can label them in endless terrorist names but in short and simple the media call them Al-Qaida anyway. ( Well some fighters would be caught first by their own government before they manage to get there mostly by the dependent and pro West government that was mostly carved and installed after WW2).
As for Iran, religiously and politically they would support their Muslim brothers too any side they choose to be. But right close to their borders and within they have their opposition ( maybe not highlighted yet or temporarily remove from terrorist list for convenience) that by nature is supported by the US. ( The next candidate for another new regime change).
When you look back to this power vacuum issues and theories (Civil War, New powerful Iran without its rival Iraq, Iran Influence and the spread of it to other middle East Countries) it came into light when Bush Senior Gulf War didn’t go all the way to topple Saddam. You can say Germany, Japan, South Korea was not like that for your equation.
I suggest reading Robert Fisk articles from independent.co.uk links would give you a new perspective of middle east and Iraq (from a westerner point of view based there long before the Iraq war to add to those information you have from soldiers who fought the US war on terror after 911 later.)
Posted by: Telanbara | May 31, 2008 at 06:16 PM
Telanbara-
Firstly it's only the militants who are ostensibly nationalistic. The rest are foreign nationals seeking to kill. Preferably Americans, but kill Iraqis with just as much glee too and create grief for Iraqis in the process. How retarded is that? And as for the "nationalistic" ones, the expression "like a fish caught on dry land, struggles to avoid any helping hand" comes to mind. Americans are there trying to help Irais build a free and proseprous country like was done in Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc. (makes one think one of the best things that can happen to a country is to lose to America) but they're too stupid to get it and would rather kill than work to build a free and prosperous country and are no better than an Iraqi version of the mafia also causeing nothing but grief for Iraqis.
Posted by: kart_125cc | May 29, 2008 at 11:32 AM
The problem lies whe someone thinks that his rights is greater than others. It will never end. The posts on this blog will go on..Its helps to learn from history on how this all started. For some reference read 'Behind War on Terror'
I solute the military men and women who faces all the hardship in war but not the US government and administration, but my respect is more to the brave men and women who have been wrongly label as terrorist, axis of evil, insurgents etc.. for being only nationalist willing to liberate or die for their country; who have the guts to stand against the most powerful and sofisticated military machine in the world with their AKs and RPG and his life how short that will be. Fisabilillah.
Telanbara Asia.
Posted by: Telanbara | May 29, 2008 at 12:48 AM
jrw you are obviously an iranian and therefore have the same twisted view of things as your leaders who "believe everyone who does not share their beliefs are infidels and should die." go back to iran if you think its so great.
Posted by: tekdog | May 28, 2008 at 08:32 PM
I wish the policy was to go where the need is greatest... Sudan, Burma, etc. and not where the oil is king... however I salute the men and women of the US military... they asked for it by joining but still it is a hard job to do and to do multiple tours... truly much respect to them all...
Posted by: Sonny | May 28, 2008 at 06:49 PM
war is hell no matter how you look at it. most dont want to go to war. but terriost need to be eliminated no matter where they are. i dont want them killing people in cities in this country. they want to kill you in the usa, get a dam cluehow dam stupid are you? when it happens again and i hope it doesn but it probably will, i dont want to hear you idiots crying ,they killed my wife or my daughter or my baby, better get a clue. oil is going up , gas is up , groceries are up and its only gonna get worse. the middle east controls the market, chinese banks own us. sound familiar.we broke the sovite union financily, they are trying to do the same to us now. humm, maybe its time to store canned goods, weapons and amunition. i se a big crash coming in this country.better be prepared, its gonna get real bad here.what are you gonna do when gas starts to hit 7or 8 dollars a gallon and your wages cant keep up and neither can your company. not lookin good at this time.i thank god for this country and love it with all my heart, we are headin for severe times like we havent seen since the depression.
Posted by: terry | May 27, 2008 at 12:32 AM
Some points to ponder:
Name one government that has an antagonistic relationship with the "west" (US, ES, etc.) that also has a respect for human rights equal to that of the "west".
Name one government that respects human rights to a degree equal to the "west" that has an antagonisitic relationship with the "west"
If we wait for perfection in ourselves before helping others, then no one will ever help anyone else.
Posted by: kart_125cc | May 26, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Here's a prophecy! It will be American jets taking care of this Iranian "nuke" problem, no matter what what country the Pilot's license has on it! ;-)
We do it, or the Israeli's will. Then we'll really have a mess on our hands!!!
Posted by: Malcolm Bliss | May 26, 2008 at 10:40 PM
Okay, I am all for service members and what they do, so I only intend to comment on the political side of the conflict, or the insufficiently developed or strategized political side of the conflict.
We didnt need to go there. Whether it was greed or revenge or moral authority, we dropped the ball by going. Why the fuck would we want to choose a heterogenous people to liberate. Oh yeah, because Saddam was so bad. Ever heard of Stalin?
Iran is better positioned to be our ally (in no part because they are more homogenous). They hate Al-Qaeda, but of course they support Hizbollah, so we couldnt possibly favor their company. The Cold War was all about entangling alliances, and we did it well, far better than the Soviets. Besides, the last major work by Hizbollah before the Iraq invasion was Beirut, 1983. How good of us to give them a rallying point.
And for all who are ready to tar-and-feather me for not laying out my full and unconditional support for Israel, dont get too excited, they arent going anywhere. HRC doesnt have to say we will obliterate Iran because everyone knows we would. I wonder if Israel thinks they are safer since 03'? As far as politics goes, let me pose this question: If you thought a country had illegitmately settled outside of their territory wouldnt you also by extension have to call that entire state illegitmate, perhaps even calling for its destruction?
my main point is that Iran's actions ARE ALL A RESULT OF OUR SABER-RATTLING IN THEIR BACKYARD! What the hell would you think if you had the most powerful army waiting in the wings. I would probably jump at every effort to make their job extremely difficult so they would lack sufficient will or capability to strike in my front yard.
Of course, most will tell me that Im forgetting about China and Russia's involvement with Iran. No, Im not, but I am noting that China and Russian aid generally revolves around securing access to Iranian oil. Rest assured there are several areas of their economy where we could buy influence. Energy is just one.
Im not saying we're a bad country or we have no idea about the region though it's pretty clear the administration does have some serious failings in its understanding. I just think when we seek new alliances in the GWOT we need to pick ones that will be mutually advantageous, because if we were out to save the world without consideration of our interests we would be in Myanmar or Sudan.
Posted by: chris | May 13, 2008 at 09:23 AM