Petraeus: We Need More Than Troops

"Industrial Strength Insurgency" In Afghanistan Must Be Overcome With Political And Economic Progress

(AP)  U.S. Gen. David Petraeus said Sunday that experience in Iraq shows it will take political and economic progress as well as military action to tackle increased violence in Afghanistan.

"You don't kill or capture your way out of an industrial-strength insurgency," he told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

His comments come as a debate over the need to redeploy troops from Iraq to Afghanistan has become a central issue in the U.S. presidential campaign.

Petraeus, who is widely credited with pulling Iraq back from the brink of civil war, is taking over as chief of U.S. Central Command, the headquarters overseeing U.S. military involvement throughout the Middle East, as well as Afghanistan and the rest of Central Asia.

He'll hand over the reins in Iraq to Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno Tuesday during a ceremony at the U.S. military headquarters at Camp Victory on the western outskirts of Baghdad.

Petraeus' counterinsurgency strategy has paid off in Iraq, where the number of attacks has dropped to its lowest point in more than four years. But he will face a new challenge with violence rising in Afghanistan.

It will be a delicate balancing act to tackle a resurgent Taliban enjoying refuge in the lawless border areas of Pakistan without losing ground in Iraq.

"We've got a situation in Afghanistan where clearly there have been trends headed in the wrong direction," Petraeus said. "Military action is absolutely necessary but it is not sufficient."

"Political, economic and diplomatic activity is critical to capitalize on gains in the security arena," he said.

The 55-year-old general assumed control of U.S. forces in Iraq some 19 months ago after U.S. President George W. Bush ordered some 30,000 additional American forces to Iraq as part of a so-called surge aimed at stopping spiraling Sunni-Shiite sectarian violence.

The reason for the decline in violence is hotly debated, but the U.S. military cites the troop buildup, along with a Sunni revolt that saw former insurgents turn against al Qaeda in Iraq and a Shiite militia cease-fire ordered by strident American foe Muqtada al-Sadr.

Petraeus also acknowledged the military's dual role, calling U.S. troops "builders and diplomats as well as guardians and warriors" in his farewell letter posted on the military's Web site.

"The progress achieved has been hard-earned," he wrote. "There have been many tough days along the way, and we have suffered tragic losses. Indeed, nothing in Iraq has been anything but hard."

Petraeus stressed it was premature to discuss strategy but suggested he will carry over lessons from his playbook in Iraq - including possible outreach to try to bring hostile players into the political process.

Petraeus, however, stressed the ultimate decision to reach out to militants would be up to the Afghan government.

"We did reaffirm in Iraq the recognition that you don't kill or capture your way out of an industrial-strength insurgency," he said.

"Clearly there are so-called irreconcilables who must be killed or captured or run out of the country," he added. "But reconciliation with some of those who are currently part of the problem and making them part of the solution is something that I know is being examined as an option."

Bush announced last week that one Marine battalion and one Army brigade would be shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan this fall and winter - far fewer than the 10,000 troops U.S. commanders there had requested. Meanwhile, about 8,000 U.S. troops will be withdrawn from Iraq by February.

George Friedman, the head of Stratfor, an independent intelligence risk assessment agency based in Austin, Texas, said Petraeus faces a more organized enemy in Afghanistan with the Taliban and must consider reaching out to them along with tribal chiefs.

"He's struggling with the question of limited forces and a political climate that's much different than Iraq," he said. "But it's impossible to imagine how the United States can create an Iraqi-style solution without the Taliban because they're getting stronger every day."

Petraeus and other military leaders have consistently warned that the security gains in Iraq are reversible and need continued U.S. attention - a point underscored by persistent bombings that bear the hallmarks of Sunni insurgents.

And while security gains have been remarkable, the Iraqi government has largely failed to take advantage of the calm to make political progress.

Petraeus said the new challenges in Iraq include stalled provincial elections that are expected to redistribute power among Iraq's deeply divided groups, growing tensions between Arabs and Kurds over disputed territory in the north and the need to provide new employment for Sunnis fighters currently on the U.S. payroll.

He also warned al Qaeda and "residual militia elements" remain a threat.

"There are still very significant challenges and there will be for the foreseeable future," he said, warning against an overly rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.

"What we're wary of doing in a country that has had a surprise around every corner is unduly jeopardizing the gains for which our soldiers and our Iraqi partners have fought so hard," he said.

[noloyalisti]

I think we should all be prepared for the Rupublicons to set up another false flag attack like 911. They were able to frighten so many ignorant American sheeple, especially easily fooled conservatives. With the attack that may have been planned, they were able to set up a fake War of Terror to get elected. They were also able to suspend the most important parts of the Constitution leading toward a fascist dictatorship here is America.

And people want more of the McSame. Wow! This time, when the attack comes we will know who planned it and carried it out.

[pmsnbc1]

Obama''''s outta funds, and his polls are tanking.



my, my - it is a predicament, isn''''t it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by speakinup21 at 03:04 PM : Sep 15, 2008



Nobama''s real problem is that average Americans are starting to see this empty suit for what he really is. a far left liberal with no accomplishments and less experience than the Republican VP candidate.

[mydiatribe]

"This problem will eventually solve itself..." superdem at 02:39 PM
Spoken like a true hardcore Barry Obama RETREATIST!

Screw it we can''t fix it right now so we will quit.
Defeatist from the left have whined during every war, this is no time to elect one as President!

Vote Mc Cain/Palin! Send a strong message to our allies. America is in this for the long haul we don''t quit on our allies!

[superdem]

This problem will eventually solve itself - we simply cannot sustain our position in Iraq indefinitely. At some point, Americans will say enough. For many, that point has already come, but somehow many others cling to fantasies of "winning" or "honor" or some other construction. The Romans tried to hold Britain and Germany, they couldn''t do it. The British tried to hold Afghanistan, so did the Soviets, they couldn''t do it. When we''ve lost enough money and enough troops, we will withdraw. Apparently we have not lost enough of either. When we DO withdraw, then the Iraqis can settle their own differences. Right wingers say there will be a bloodbath - if so, then it is on the Iraqis, and a long time coming. Whoever rises from the ashes can build a stable Iraq, and the longer we prevent this outcome, the longer it will be before a stable Iraq exists. So long as we prop up strawmen who will do our bidding, Iraq''s ultimate solution is postponed.

[antoniof123]

Posted by speakinup21 at 02:28 PM : Sep 15, 2008

The fact still remains that Obama was right from the get go. You can''t change facts well, you wing nuts try but it will not work.

[royalia]

This compassionate president has doubled the national debt. I am not going to type the words I would like to use. And who gets the new national debt and budget deficity? The next president. I know you dittoheads will still try to blame this on Bill Clinto and Jimmy Carter, but the blame lies squarely on George W. Bush.

"We need to counter the shcokwave of the evildoer by having individual rate cuts accelerated and by thinking about tax rebates." - George W. Bush, 10/04/2001. What intellect you have Georgie!

[royalia]

RE: "And when it all comes crashiong down you''''ll be able to thanks yourselves for doing so.. GOOD JOB."

I hate to tell you this, but it is ALREADY crashing down, thanks to a former governor from Texas with big oil connections. The crash is Bush''s fault. Let''s see, Afghanistan is slipping back to chaos, the economy is in recession (I know you and McCain are in denial though), and we''ve got a dinosaur and chipper lady in lipstick (who like to hide e-mails just like Bush) that are going to save us?

[inventagod2]

The USSR found this out the hard way - and the US has yet to learn...

[chris32324]

when the invading forces come up with a bigger cash crop then opium then you might have half a chance at bringing about democracy to afganistan,without that,there will be no way,never going to happen.

[alphaa10-2009]

OBungler said, "When faced with the reality of the HUGE tax hikes the democraps will require from EVERYBODY...this just doesn''t fly, sorry."
---
Yours not only doesn''t fly, it doesn''t clear even a pre-flight check. Bush wants to escape taxes, so he routinely shovels his deficits upstairs to be passed along to his successor.

This debt overhead is called the national debt, which is debt and only debt-- no matter how much you want to believe Cheney when he lectured Secretary of Treasury O''Neill, "Reagan proved deficits don''t matter".

Bush deficit spending nearly has doubled the national debt. That means Bush aleady has passed tax hikes onto the next administration, whoever wins the election. The sole objective for Bush is to escape blame for his own fiscal irresponsibility.

Bush also desperately wants a rewrite of history about Iraq. Yet, the embarrassing stories persist about Bush seeking to capture Iraq for the oil companies from his first day in office. By no small coincidence, it is the oil majors which fund his politics-- and which fund McBush''s politics, as well.

McBush opposed offshore oil drilling back in June. Days after his speech, however, McBush reversed his position. Days after that, McBush attended a San Antonio fundraiser, closed to the public, which raised $1.8 million from the oil industry.

[alphaa10-2009]

claydowner said, "The critics of the Iraq war really do not understand that just pulling out of Iraq won''t really change anything ..."
---
Critics of the war advocate long-term success as national policy--and invading Iraq is a non-starter. As you point out, if pulling out the troops does nothing to change local politics, we must ask, why have American troops there, at all?

Bush, Cheney and certain advisers, however, are naive neocon militarists with an ulterior agenda, and focused on Iraq well before 911. Cheney acknowledged before his secret 2001 meeting wiith the oil majors (to craft a "national energy policy") that Iraq was the last largely untapped asset in the geopolitical scramble for oil. It was clear Bush and Cheney intended to capture Iraq first-- no matter what means, fair or foul, would be required.

What supporters of the Iraq invasion never understood is military occupation is not a sustainable option for this country. We are not a colonial power, and cannot justify any pretext for the occupation offered by Bush-- especially his bogus claims of national security.

Bush has led the country on a consistent path to disaster. Our blood and treasure have been spent at a profligate rate by the same Bush who inherited a budget surplus in 2001. Bush neary doubled the national debt because he refused to raise taxes to pay for his war. But the costs have been incurred, and must be paid. The cost of Bush''s war will be passed along to the next president (regardless of party).

[alphaa10-2009]

Sunni cooperation with US forces made the later troop surge more effective, but the troop surge, itself, did not create Sunni cooperation.

The heralded troop surge was the creature of Washington politics, not military planners, and unfortunately another deceit foisted on the American people.

The principal criticisms of the troop surge are (1) US troops have neither the numbers nor the staying power to function as the permanent police of Baghdad and (2) Bush has not increased troop levels elsewhere, so The Thirty Thousand must come out of the US budget for other Iraqi provinces.

The surge becomes simply a Bush public relations exercise, robbing Peter to pay Paul-- last seen when Bush pulled combat units from Afghanistan into Iraq.

In contrast, the so-called "Anbar Awakening" is widely-credited for the reduction in violence. The Awakening councils are locally-driven by Sunni nationalism (not to be confused with an Iraqi nationalism under Saddam). The Awakening is not pro-American, per se, but an effort to recapture local control of local politics. The Americans are a means to an end, and most Iraqis (especially Sunni) want US troops out.

[jntlw-2009]

What General Patraeus is stating is what Barak Obama has been saying all along. Barak Obama is the man to be our next president. Obama has the foresight and good judgment. McCain has a great militry record but lacks in good judgment and is playing the same old policies as Bush. Bush policies has been the downfall of this once great nation. We need a strong leader with foresight to put us back on the right path. Obama is the man!

[misha128-2009]

Sunni regions were considerably less organized than the Shiite and Kurdish regions because of their initial violence levels and non-participation were not aided with the passage of the Reconciliation Law. The Reconciliation Law (falsely claimed success), intended to reinstate qualified Sunnis excluded in the initial post-war setup of the government, backfired as significant numbers of "previously qualified" Sunnis were disqualified (not expected) and fewer "previously disqualified" Sunnis were reinstated than expected.

Further indications of failure came with the backsliding provincial elections (another claimed success) as they were first delayed and then canceled entirely for 2008. The Sunnis remain under represented and their regions remain disorganized due to a boycott of the national elections and the cancellation of provincial elections.

The formal sharing of oil revenues between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds is only a interim agreement as the Oil Law is not completed.

Sunni insurgents (most are still disqualified from government jobs) were paid and guaranteed future jobs (government) by US forces in exchange for their cooperation (the "Anbar Awakening") cannot be satisfied with the proceeding issues. Especially considering the risks associated with the eventual withdrawal of US troops, opening the real possibility for civil war a between the factions considering all the unresolved issues.

It sounds like General Petraeus'' advice also still applies to Iraq?

[blamegovt]

General Petraeus has always supported the Iraqis and that is the primary reason why he is very respected in that country. Thanks to him and our American sons and daughters defending our nation.

[bob5ford]

We need to get the heck out of there. What we need to start doing is worrying about South America. Bolivia and Venezuela both have socialist governments that are popular at the moment. As soon as they start to have problems they will blame the US. Venezuela has already invited the Russians to base military aircraft there. The next real threat we face will not be far away across an ocean but in our own back yard. And it won%u2019t play out on the evening news, it will play out in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California and possibly Florida if Cuba becomes involved with a real shooting war. With our military tied up overseas where they don%u2019t belong it will be up to the militia to fight this war. Sound surreal? It may be real, sooner then you think!! Venezuela%u2019s government took over the cement plants owned by Mexico there recently. They say the banks are next. It%u2019s getting closer. Update, Bolivia and Venezuela kicked out our ambassadors and recalled theirs. Russian forces based there will be next.

[mart7lin]

When Petraeus speaks, McCain and neocons don''t listen. IRAQ NEEDS MORE THAN TROOPS. "Political, economic and diplomatic activity is critical to capitalize on gains in the security arena," he said.
THIS IS WHAT OBAMA HAS BEEN SAYING.

OBAMA HAS A BRAIN (McCain/Palin thinks foreign policy is being able to see Russia from her house! The Russians are laughing at them too.)

[bob5ford]

We need to get the heck out of there. What we need to start doing is worrying about South America. Bolivia and Venezuela both have socialist governments that are popular at the moment. As soon as they start to have problems they will blame the US. Venezuela has already invited the Russians to base military aircraft there. The next real threat we face will not be far away across an ocean but in our own back yard. And it won%u2019t play out on the evening news, it will play out in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California and possibly Florida if Cuba becomes involved with a real shooting war. With our military tied up overseas where they don%u2019t belong it will be up to the militia to fight this war. Sound surreal? It may be real, sooner then you think!! Venezuela%u2019s government took over the cement plants owned by Mexico there recently. They say the banks are next. It%u2019s getting closer. Update, Bolivia and Venezuela kicked out our ambassadors and recalled theirs. Russian forces based there will be next.

[bob5ford]

We need to get the heck out of there. What we need to start doing is worrying about South America. Bolivia and Venezuela both have socialist governments that are popular at the moment. As soon as they start to have problems they will blame the US. Venezuela has already invited the Russians to base military aircraft there. The next real threat we face will not be far away across an ocean but in our own back yard. And it won%u2019t play out on the evening news, it will play out in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California and possibly Florida if Cuba becomes involved with a real shooting war. With our military tied up overseas where they don%u2019t belong it will be up to the militia to fight this war. Sound surreal? It may be real, sooner then you think!! Venezuela%u2019s government took over the cement plants owned by Mexico there recently. They say the banks are next. It%u2019s getting closer. Update, Bolivia and Venezuela kicked out our ambassadors and recalled theirs. Russian forces based there will be next.

[bob5ford]

We need to get the heck out of there. What we need to start doing is worrying about South America. Bolivia and Venezuela both have socialist governments that are popular at the moment. As soon as they start to have problems they will blame the US. Venezuela has already invited the Russians to base military aircraft there. The next real threat we face will not be far away across an ocean but in our own back yard. And it won%u2019t play out on the evening news, it will play out in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California and possibly Florida if Cuba becomes involved with a real shooting war. With our military tied up overseas where they don%u2019t belong it will be up to the militia to fight this war. Sound surreal? It may be real, sooner then you think!! Venezuela%u2019s government took over the cement plants owned by Mexico there recently. They say the banks are next. It%u2019s getting closer. Update, Bolivia and Venezuela kicked out our ambassadors and recalled theirs. Russian forces based there will be next.