Comments on: Petraeus Next NATO Chief?

By: Barry

Barry — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:58:17 +0000

"Things are going to get worse in Iraq as the surge draws down in the next two months. I can't help but wonder if this is an attempt to get Petraeus out of the (political) line of fire. That way later they can blame the inevitable decline on him being promoted." Posted by Tlaloc That's my opinion; I was looking for something like this for a while. The whole point of the surge, IMHO, was to 'kick the can' down the road a year. After the '06 election, Bush couldn't just 'stay the course', and he didn't want to withdraw troops. So he came up with The Surge. It successfully bought a year, but ain't gonna win the war. Petraeus, of course, knows this. If the war could be won, don't you think that he'd stay to win it? Or at least until it was absolutely clear that we were winning it, and only the 'clean up' work needed to be done?

By: Tlaloc

Tlaloc — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:30:04 +0000

Things are going to get worse in Iraq as the surge draws down in the next two months. I can't help but wonder if this is an attempt to get Petraeus out of the (political) line of fire. That way later they can blame the inevitable decline on him being promoted.

By: TikiPundit

TikiPundit — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:53:38 +0000

From the NYT article: "The Pentagon is considering Gen. David H. Petraeus for the top NATO command later this year..." and "...said Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, who served as NATO commander at the time and has since retired."

MSM is still getting it wrong with military positions, I see.

See http://www.nato.int/structur/structure.htm to learn how Petraeus or any other would never be in the "top NATO command."

Here's how it works:
The North Atlantic Council provides guidance to the NATO Military Committee. The "MC" is the highest military authority in NATO, and provides strategic guidance to ACO and ACT. GEN Petraeus would run ACO and report to the MC in his NATO role, and to the CJCS in his commander, EUCOM role.

The MC consists of chiefs of staff of member nations (in CS status); the committee is led by a Chairman, who is never American and has a Deputy Chairman, who has always been American. In PS status, it consists of military representatives at the 3-star rank.

By: Jim Henley

Jim Henley — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:04:51 +0000

Isn't the scuttlebutt that Fallon and Petraeus seriously disagree about troop levels in Iraq; ie Petraeus wants to delay post-surge draw-downs while Fallon wants them to proceed on schedule. In that sense, then, the promotion could be looked at as sidelining a gadfly.

By: Cernig

Cernig — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:29:00 +0000

They could always bump McMaster however many paygrades it takes and let him have MNF-I. Let the deskflying types scream all they want. After all, a lot of what Saint Pet is getting credit for is what McMaster pioneered at Tal Afar. He's popular with his troops and has been a major member of Pet's staff all through the Surge.

Regards, C

By: DC Loser

DC Loser — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:15:03 +0000

Berlin? More like drinking good Belgian beer in Mons.

By: Triumph

Triumph — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:05:24 +0000

Shifting Petraeus, the star American flag officer, to that assignment would signal the importance we place on the Alliance at a time when many are questioning its effectiveness as a collective defense regime.

This is an admission of failure. NATO generals do nothing other than sit around Berlin and drink schnapps.

This plan sounds positively Clinton-esque If Patraeus leaves Iraq the terrorists will prevail. He is the only one holding things together down there.