Comments (66)

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on February 5, 2007 9:19 AM:

Uh-oh. Now we're in big trouble. Has anyone ever known a Ph.D. to know how to anything practical?

Let's not forget Lt. General David Petraeus was in charge of training and equipping Iraqi troops from June 2004 to September 3005. We've all read about the lean, mean fighting machine that is the Iraqi army now.

In August 2005, Petraeus told Newsday that corruption in the Iraq Defense Ministry was none of our business after a billion dollars was stolen by the defense minister.

Remember the McClatchey story by Tom Lasseter last week?

"Iraqi soldiers, for example, often were pushed into the field by Iraqi commanders who didn't give them adequate food, clothing or shelter, said Etienne, a 1st Infantry Division platoon leader.

Etienne was on patrol one day when he saw Iraqi soldiers eating fresh vegetables and meat. The afternoon before, the same soldiers had complained that they had only scraps of food left. Who'd brought them their meal? It had come courtesy of Muqtada al-Sadr..."

I wonder if General Petraeus still thinks Iraqi corruption is none of our business?

iwaller wrote on February 5, 2007 9:38 AM:

yes, that's right Mrs Panstreppon. PhD's cannot be war advisors because they are impractical. Just like women can't be soldiers because they are ______. And queers/lesbians can't be soldiers because they are ______. I'll leave it to you to fill in the blanks--you seem to be good at it.

Don B wrote on February 5, 2007 9:42 AM:

I know that I am swimming against the tide on this one, but I have spent some time within the military structure as an analyst and can say that I have read stuff by at least three of these PhDs. They are NOT neocons and ARE critical of the whole Iraq mess. They are very experienced military people who understand insurgencies well and should be of great help. Petraeus has done the right thing.

Having said all that, they will still fail. We are way past fixing this thing. We will leave a mess no matter what we do. But maybe these guys can minimize it. That is as good as it can get now. If they had been brought on four years ago, maybe, just maybe, things would have turned out a little better.

Raenelle wrote on February 5, 2007 9:44 AM:

The PhD's have two problems on their hands--the Iraq War, of course; then there's Bush's anti-intellectualism and massive ego. I'm sure the PhD's are all going to be charmed by Bush's fart jokes and unquenchable desire to belittle those who challenge his mightiness.

Fides wrote on February 5, 2007 10:01 AM:

Bush is letting the war get turned over to people who know things? Read Books? Think, or at least pretend to long enough to do a thesis?

Thing must be more desperate than I thought.

S McMorrow wrote on February 5, 2007 10:01 AM:

"Petraeus, an expert in counter-insurgency ..."

For the past month, articles in every paper in the country have introduced General Patraeus in this way. Given that no one in the US has successfully fought a counter-insurgency campain, General Patraeus is no more an "expert" than Fox News commentators, until he is successful. Maybe a few of those PhD's would like to put their degrees on the line and fight counter-insurgency side-by-side with the soldiers they send?

johnieb wrote on February 5, 2007 10:05 AM:

I am more concerned that, in giving this team a hopeless mess, the administration is setting them up for the blame game to come, a "Who lost Iraq?"(China) for the twenty first century, thus depriving our armed forces of a sensible critique upon which to re-build. Perhaps that chance has passed.

Sinsiter eyebrow wrote on February 5, 2007 10:10 AM:

Petraeus was one of the few commanders who was praised by Ricks in Fiasco (and there were very, very few who were praised) for his more thoughtful approach to winning over the population, i.e. demanding restraint and cultural sensitivity in the way his soldiers went about conducting business, seeking engagement with local leaders, avoiding the use of force unless absolutely necessary.

However, I believe it is far, far too late to try that approach now and have it work. The lines are drawn, the population hates us as occupiers, they are neck-deep in blood and the intelligentsia have fled the country (along with 10% of the entire population). At this point, the most we can hope for is the avoidance of a Rawanda-like genocide. The best case outcome will likely be a weak, corrupt government propped up by militias in a Somalia-type scenario cursed with a decade or more of warlordism and bloodshed. That will probably be followed by the ascendence of another dictator, this time a religious extremist (like al Sadr) instead of a military coup because you can't have a military coup without a military. Stability and democracy is nowhere on the horizon.

Heckuva job.

Don Beal wrote on February 5, 2007 10:11 AM:

Please read Thomas Ricks book Fiasco before you criticize Patraeus. He insisted on dealing with the people of Iraq in a respectful way that was quite successful early on. The question remains if Iraq can be salvaged regardless the methods employed.

Ergsmipt wrote on February 5, 2007 10:12 AM:

"Gen. David H. Petraeus' circle of war doctors, a brilliant, independent-minded bunch of PhDs"

Couple of problems we can all see coming:

1. The war has been wrong from its conception, and its strategy--though never clearly thought through or articulated--hasn't changed. The doctors are tweaking tactics to prolong a strategic blunder--and an ongoing series of war crimes.

2. Has anyone counted the number of PhDs who provided the "intellectual" support for the earlier stages of this war?

klyde wrote on February 5, 2007 10:14 AM:

This should work out well. I mean I'll bet only a handful of the insurgents hold advance degrees.

Jaysus our media are a bunch of suckers

Connor wrote on February 5, 2007 10:18 AM:

just wanted to say hi to all seen some names from the past and took a mental walk down memory lane.

David wrote on February 5, 2007 10:24 AM:

there are a couple of recent New Yorker profiles of Kilcullen and other folks on this new dream team

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060911fa_fact3

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/061218fa_fact2

John H. Farr wrote on February 5, 2007 10:25 AM:

Neither Patraeus nor his "war doctors" can be that smart if they see any way out of this except in a fast-moving convoy heading for Kuwait. And don't they know their commander is a madman? When they throw down their weapons and diplomas and walk away is when I'll cheer, and I mean until my throat is bloody raw and I have no voice...

Meanwhile, there's this: http://www.richardthompson-music.com/audio/DGKM.mp3.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on February 5, 2007 10:40 AM:

iwaller, Have you ever talked to a CPA with a Ph.D. in accounting? I have and they would not know how to audit their way out of a paper bag. Read some of the nonsense spewed by Harvard economists with Ph.D.s about the role of the auditor after the Enron debacle for a belly laugh.

General Petraeus is a Ph.D. who apparently does not believe corruption contributes to an ineffective army. Duh, General Petraeus, if the Iraqi defense ministry steals all of the money for weapons, food and pay, the ability of the troops to fight might be impaired, don't you think?

A lot of US tax dollars have been spent to train and equip the Iraq army and as far as I am concerned, corruption in the Iraq government damned well better be our business.

Ever read that US and Iraqi corruption is a major impediment to making progress in Iraq? It is and if you don't believe me, ask Stuart Bowen, Bush's special inspector general for the reconstruction of Iraq.

From a 9/06 WP story:

"A $75 million project to build the largest police academy in Iraq has been so grossly mismanaged that the campus now poses health risks to recruits and might need to be partially demolished, U.S. investigators have found...

"This is the most essential civil security project in the country -- and it's a failure," said Stuart W. Bowen...

The report serves as the latest indictment of Parsons Corp., the U.S. construction giant that was awarded about $1 billion for a variety of reconstruction projects..."

But General Petraeus would rather cling to his pie-in-the-sky theories about fighting counterinsurgencies than admit that a bunch of crooks was stealing anything not nailed down. Don't look to Petraeus and his gang of experts to admit that US contractors are robbing the US taxpayer blind and creating a lot of ill will among the Iraqi people along the way.

A couple of years ago, the Pentagon tried to put out a line of crap that their guys had been busy studying how to conduct major warfare rather than how to fight counterinsurgencies. Bullshit. The Pentagon knew in 1991 that chaos would ensue if Saddam was overthrown. Which is why the first President Bush did not overthrow Saddam. The Pentagon studied how to conduct a war in Iraq for twelve years and look at the end result.

IIRC, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara surrounded himself with Ph.D.s and a lot of fucking good that did the country.

I'd like to hear why you think General Petraeus is going to appoint anyone any smarter or more creative than he is.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on February 5, 2007 10:49 AM:

Petraeus did do great work while he was IN Iraq. He understands what needs to be done. Fiasco did a good job of explaining what he did and its effectiveness.

Where the universe breaks down is . . .

Petraeus' own work - including his thesis - states that many more boots are needed to run an effective counter insurgency. We need to find about 350 thousand souls to drop into Iraq to do the job correctly by his standards. Our President's little manly muscle man 'surge' falls way short . . . plus all the folk Petraeus has to deal with have been retreaded multiple times.

The other issue is that Comander Codpiece is still in control and has shown ZERO capability to listen to any human being that is not in lock-step with his trite little belief system. Bush shown a marked tendancy to fire anyone who disagrees with him or issue orders that create the worse possible outcome while the guy in between himband the troops tries to mitigate the damage.

Hopefully, Petraeus will be able to say to the shrub "YES SIR! Will do it your way!" while getting way with doing his way on the cheap.

The best thing Congress can do is bring the war budget back into the real budgetory process and stop funding via special appropriations.

klyde wrote on February 5, 2007 10:52 AM:

Mrs P. I would have asked how someone could think comparing holding a PhD with gender or sexual orientation made a good argument.

redjade wrote on February 5, 2007 10:53 AM:

Quote: "Essentially, the Army is turning the war over to its dissidents," Thomas Ricks writes, "who have criticized the way the service has operated there the past three years, and is letting them try to wage the war their way."

Right there is the crux of the problem even before they have tried anything.

Can these dissidents go to Bush and say: 'This war cannot be won, and it should have been started by you, Mr President'? Of course not.

These 'dissidents' can only offer plans of how to fight the war - not if the war should be fought at all.

megisi wrote on February 5, 2007 11:00 AM:

"Has anyone ever known a Ph.D. to know how to anything practical?"

Yes.

benjoya wrote on February 5, 2007 11:03 AM:

petreus wrote the army's conter-insurgency manual. using his recommendations, we would need 200K troops in baghdad alone.

rohay wrote on February 5, 2007 11:04 AM:

All their degrees won't make a difference until getting out is an option for them to consider. Until then, they're just doing the bidding of a doomed crusader.

gcrit wrote on February 5, 2007 11:06 AM:

Judith Miller was embedded with Gen. Petraeus unit & she so impressed him that he wrote a personal letter to the judge overseeing her trial asking that he not send her to jail. This was written up in the Washington Post.

MillionthMonkey wrote on February 5, 2007 11:11 AM:

Anyone who has read Fiasco knows who Petraeus is, knows how he was not listened to, and is probably willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. As far as I can tell he is being criticized here for not leaving the military at the start of the war.

And he will fail, because he will still have to obey whatever orders come down from Commander Codpiece. This country is repeating the mistakes of the Third Reich when they allowed Hitler to micromanage his generals from his headquarters in Berlin. He was so valuable to the British that they held off assassinating him.

V LaRoche wrote on February 5, 2007 11:12 AM:

Oh, great: what better strategy than to say, "don't call Bush dumb--we sent SEVEN PhDs into Iraq and THEY couldn't solve it either! So there, you hissy-pissy Bush Bashers!"

It could be spun as, "of course it failed--you had THINKERS and FEELERS in there, instead of solid-steel airtight military minds!"

What better way to further discredit the idea that education is useful for things. "PhDs--hah! They couldn't win the war in Iraq with PhDs. Don't gimme any PhD crap. Shoulda turned em into glass in 2003. The PhDs LOST this war! Burn the universities--they're to blame!"

michele wrote on February 5, 2007 11:16 AM:

hey S McMorrow ,
Some of those PHDs have fought along side the soldiers and even have received a purple heart.
Read
www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060410fa_fact2 - 96k t.

rss wrote on February 5, 2007 11:20 AM:

In regards to the belittling comments made about PhDs in this thread, isn't that the same attitude some of us attribute to Mr. Bush? Yes, PhDs sometimes say and do things that are stupid, just as high school drop-outs do. But I've met some pretty intelligent and thoughtful people in both categories. Using a PhD as a label isn't any more useful to us than using "neocon" or "liberal."

Paul Mace wrote on February 5, 2007 11:45 AM:

First, the Petraeus doctrine of "clear and hold" is neither new nor untested. The whole strategy was designed in Vietnam by combat veteran Marine Col. William Corson (PhD.) and was called CAP [Combined Action Platoon]. Want to understand Iraq? Read Corson's "The Betrayal", about that other war. Then, if you accept the practicality of the tactic, do the math. Baghdad is clearly a demonstration project: "Look, see...this works." After which we will replace American CAP units with Iraqi Army units. Bets on how that will work out?

Agjobs wrote on February 5, 2007 11:47 AM:

Mrs Panstreppon said: "The Pentagon studied how to conduct a war in Iraq for twelve years and look at the end result."

Yes they did do all of that planning, however because the Administration and the Republicons hated any and all things that came out of the Clinton Administration, Rummey threw all of those plans away. This was reported in hearings before the Armed Services Committee awhile back. They were the deciders and nobody especially people who knew what they were doing were going to change their minds. Expect the same result now.

Frank wrote on February 5, 2007 11:57 AM:

I have sympathy for Patraeus. To take on an assignment like this is courageous in itself. To try to square things away in Iraq is to call for Saddams ghost to participate with those PHDs in their study of what to do. Saddam ruled by the point of a gun. I submit, that this is the only way to obtain any semblence of peace in a country that has fourteen hundred years of simmering hatred between sunnis and shias.. As to the Kurds, they rightly want out of a crowd of religious zealots that publicly thrash their backs with thongs until bloody, in celebrating an religious event.

The question really is where to get a Saddam like leader to restore order in Iraq if the nation is not partioned.

New Mexican wrote on February 5, 2007 12:03 PM:

It requires no education to see the truth of "If you're in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging."
rohay is right, there's no improvement in sight as long as withdrawal is not an option.

Sinister eybrow wrote on February 5, 2007 12:13 PM:

Petraeus is undoubtedly a smart man and, according to Ricks, really did make a difference when he was first there. However, there is a vastly different dynmaic now than in 2003. At this point, Petraeus could be a one-man armored division able to call down lighting bolts and have 10 PhD's, and it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference.

One of the prices of past incompetence is that it closes off future paths to success. That's what we're seeing now. The roads out of this mess are essentially all closed except for one, and that leads to Kuwait.

SeeDee wrote on February 5, 2007 12:14 PM:

Thomas Ricks' book 'Fiasco', cited by Don Beal, attempts to defend Petraeus' idea of "dealing with the Iraqi people with respect. What a phony premise!

If Ricks' or Beals' own country was attacked by some 'super-power' without any real justification, was occupied by a foreign army that has engaged in all sorts of atrocities, had destroyed, or nearly so, the basic infrastructure that attends to modern-day life, was witnessing the coercion of their 'phony government into yielding the most significant wealth their country possesses, and, worst of all, indicated an intention to remain as occupiers for MANY years...if this were the case for Ricks' and Don Beals' country don't you think it is a bit ridiculous to speak of ANY general advocating 'respect for the Iraqi people'??

Daniel wrote on February 5, 2007 12:34 PM:

Not sure I'd consider Ohio State a "top-flight university".

stephen miller wrote on February 5, 2007 12:37 PM:

I read Fiasco. Perhaps had Petraeus had free hand to manage the occupation in the first year, and had we left at the end of 2003, things might be different. But Cheney had other ideas. And now it's way too late to simply smarten up the command, too late becuase due to the dynamic we have created, even a smart occupation won't fly.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on February 5, 2007 12:48 PM:

Crediting General Petraeus with effectively fighting the insurgency in Mosul between March 2003 and June 2004 is not exactly a ringing endorsement of his competency since northern Iraq was not a hotbed of insurgency in the first place.

Petraeus then moved on to training and equipping the Iraqi army from June 2004 until September 2005. I notice no one here has claimed that Petraeus did a good job training and equipping the Iraqi army.

My guess is that Petraeus did such a lousy job training and equipping the Iraqi army that the Pentagon became alarmed at the prospect of one of its "stars" going down in flames. Hence, Petraeus was hauled back to the US to write a rehash of every other counterinsurgency manual ever written.

Anyone have any thoughts on the son of Edward Meese handling Iraq reconstruction? You know, the Iraq reconstruction program riddled with fraud and corruption that the Iraq Study Group which included Meese's father never bothered to mention?

Doppler wrote on February 5, 2007 12:52 PM:

The first key decision was the blunder to enter Iraq in the first place. The most recent key decision was the blunder to escalate. Common sense says our armed presence incites among the natives hatred and efforts to expel the infidel occupying force. Four years of blundering about with tens of thousands of civilian victims, many killed by our forces, many more killed because we failed to provide security in a region we had occupied, and therefore taken responsibility for, make it impossible to now "win the hearts and minds of the population," which "intelligent counter-insurgency theory" identifies as the "center of gravity." A bunch of Ph.D.s aren't needed to understand that when you are going down the wrong path, the sooner you turn around, the better off you'll be. It's a fundamentally defective strategy that has us pursuing the unachievable, not lack of smarts or experience in its execution. .

Stanely Evans wrote on February 5, 2007 12:58 PM:

I'm not sure whether PhD's have the common sense to accomplish anything or not. But I know elaborate security plans and learned theories won't end the violence in Baghdad or Iraq; It also takes lots of military power.

I found the following force estimates in Wikipedia: By the end of Saddam's reign, he was maintaining a regular army of 375,000 troops, a Republican Guard of 80-100,000 troops and the Special Republican Guard of 15-20,000 troops; he was well protected. But his real power came from the extensive intelligence gathering network made up of numerous intelligence agencies and thousands of agents. Much of Iraqi society was under constant scrutiny from the Ba'th party which provided a pervasive neighborhood watch program. This extreme watchfulness prevented insurgencies from developing to the point we are seeing in the current situation. Today, thugs, vandals, gangs bent on ethnic cleansing, death squads, or anyone with a gun, make the rules. Even those charged with maintaining law and order seem to be taking part in the lawlessness. The police can't be trusted, the army often runs away or never shows up and the authorities put their lives at risk by opposing the mob rule or by being part of the establishment.

I think this current grand plan is doomed to failure and the generals and Maliki are just the convenient scape goats of the month.

OCPatriot wrote on February 5, 2007 1:02 PM:

The implausibility of changing our military (a killing machine, no slur intended), which did such a great and heroic job in winning the war against Saddam's troops, into a nation building machine (not something we've ever been successful at), a social service agency (not something we ever aspired to in Iraq), a referee in a civil war (an unthankful job if ever there was one), a terrorist-fighting group (even the Israeli Army couldn't do that successfully), all of this is so great it boggles the mind. Yet Bush (and maybe Patraeus) believe it can be done. Cockeyed optimists? And even if they can do this, it will take too much time to convert a military force into these different occupations. Too little, too late. What about the effect of cionverting a killing machine into a peace-keeping and nation-building group? I'd think it might destroy the first capability, wouldn't you?

Richard L. Adlof wrote on February 5, 2007 1:12 PM:

And at least these folk have PhD's in the field they practice in . . . Unlike the MBA's of our last quagmire . . .

Dr Wu -I'm just an ordinary guy wrote on February 5, 2007 1:31 PM:

.

Can Ph.D. generals save us from the MBA (Bush, Harvard) & the CEO's (Rumsfeld, Cheney) that started this damn war?

(somehow I don't think so...)

pzykr wrote on February 5, 2007 1:32 PM:

Great schtick, MillionthMonkey! lol

Mary Morrison wrote on February 5, 2007 1:33 PM:

How could anyone, no matter how great their qualifications, make this wrong war right?

pzykr wrote on February 5, 2007 1:36 PM:

actually, that attribute should have been to V LaRoche---poster's names go _beneath the post. anyway, at 11:12 am today...

MFA wrote on February 5, 2007 1:47 PM:

As to the "Petraeus Guys":

I, for one, welcome Iraq's new overlords, the Best And The Brightest of our generation.

And good luck with that.

vox clamantis in red state wrote on February 5, 2007 1:50 PM:

If Petraeus and his bunch use their heads, the intelligent way to approach the mess in Iraq would be to order the troops home-- to Wassington and demand the entire administration resign or be removed from office and sent to some distant land where they can learn to grow cabbages and tomatoes.

Jillian wrote on February 5, 2007 1:58 PM:

The problem for this little herd of PhDs is that the orders from the White House amount to Just Kill More Iraqis.

The measure of success they're held to is fairly obviously the proportion of Sunni 'terrorists' (al-Maliki) and Mahdi Army middle tier fighters and Iranian 'advisors' to Shia militias (Bush/Cheney/Rice) they do in.

That the Iraqis will work to confuse the American efforts in Baghdad hopelessly and all sides chaotically betray or abet the other sides, generating maximal chaos, would seem to be the obvious countermeasure to Petraeus's strategy, which requires him to have superior tactical information most of the time.

These PhD fellas might keep US forces from creating as large a civilian bloodbath as seems there would be otherwise. But the WH is extremely desperate to do in the people who are defeating them and will unflinchingly walk over the bodies of tens of thousands of women and children to do so now. My ugly expectation is that in two or three months they'll send in some real butcher of a general and Petraeus & Co will go under the bus.

bakho wrote on February 5, 2007 1:59 PM:

The Bush Iraq plan is not now, never has been and never will be for the US to leave Iraq. Bush has ALWAYS said that US troops will still be in Iraq when he leaves office. Bush intention is for US troops to be there at least a decade and possibly until the oil runs out. Why else are we building permanent bases?

The current mission is to try to calm down the situation to make it possible for the US to stay. Bush is doing none of those things that would end the conflict with the US leaving Iraq. McCain and most of the GOP support Bush policy.

markg8 wrote on February 5, 2007 2:10 PM:

"the Army is turning the war over to its dissidents'...which is essentially like giving them the smoking hulk of a Corolla that's been used as a car bomb and telling them to
win at Daytona with it.

I see this as the opposite of Bush firing those dozen or so federal prosecutors across the country
and replacing them with Republican political operatives. Petraeus and his guys are being given the Iraq tar baby now when the prospect of
success is gone so their careers will be just as damaged as the fools who followed Rumsfeld and Cheney. The neocons don't want their critics having a clear path to the Joint Chiefs. So they get to play musical chairs too.

Paul Mace wrote on February 5, 2007 2:10 PM:

Yes, bakho--exactly.

As I said above, the Petraeus plan for Baghdad is a demonstration project. Then we merely get back to the actual question: assuming you can create an Iraqi Army and Police force capabale of supplanting US forces, how long will that take? There is no evidence, current or historical, that there is a remotely acceptable answer to that question. If you are McCain, the answer is: "As long as it takes. Because the alternative is defeat, and that is unacceptable." I'm thinking after Petraeus comes Rocky Balboa.

HomeFries wrote on February 5, 2007 2:12 PM:

"Rank is nothing, talent is everything."

Lt. Col. David Kilcullen
Chief adviser on counterinsurgency operations to Gen. David H. Petraeus

I can dig it.

Gen. Petraeus gets his chance to turn Iraq around. Should have also mentioned "Surge" to continue the heavy use of mercenary auxiliaries (see WaPo http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/03/AR2007020301372.html ). This looks like the kind of team that should have been assembled in the beginning. Now? Too little, too late? We get one last shot. Good luck General, and good luck USA. We need it.

Robin Boerner wrote on February 5, 2007 2:58 PM:

yes, that's right Mrs Panstreppon. PhD's cannot be war advisors because they are impractical. Just like women can't be soldiers because they are ______. And queers/lesbians can't be soldiers because they are ______. I'll leave it to you to fill in the blanks--you seem to be good at it.

Posted by: iwaller
Date: February 5, 2007 09:38 AM

Actually my fiance, John Mitchell, had a US Army general with a well known name tell him at the start of this war that lesbians made the best soldiers. Very un-PC. But, they didn't get pregnant in theater, they were tougher, they didn't complain about not being able to dye their hair, were more career oriented,etc.

This general said he would have put a line on the enlistment test for women asking is they were gay. Extra points.

Why was my finace talking to a US Army general? They knew each other for years. John was in the Command Center at Ft Richardson Alaska and this guy was in the field in the sandbox.

Sorry if that upsets the folks here that believe otherwise. Just reporting what I know they believe to be right.

Also, PHD's are not the problem. It's how they got them. They need to have hands on experience at the bottom. Front line Lt's, prior enlisted etc. Classroom Prince's will screw this up for sure. Put a bet on it in Vegas. Sure thing.

John started as a kid. High school drop out and juvenile deliquent. Joined the Army, went Ranger. Went to school at night. Got his GED and now has his Master's and started on his PHD...also in Archaeology. He also knows something or two about guerrila warfare from what he did in the Army. His website was claimed by the Pentagon with being the first to take out a US Army Command. The Commanding General, the Chief of Staff and their aide were all fired within days of it going up. The general eight months into a three year tour. They replaced him with The Cleaner, MG Charles Jacoby. The guy who buried the Afghanistan prison scandal. The Army had to bury the dirt at Ft Richardson.

It's the way of the Army...never just admit you screwed up and need to stop. Plow on, "retire" the first guy (how many generals have retired this year) and hope the paying public doesn't catch on too fast.

Mate that with a Great Decider CIC who could fuck up a wet dream and with have the Iraq tar baby we have today.

The future is easy to predict from here. We took too long to implement a functioning government after the invasion, we will take much too long to implement this surge. We will shortchange the troops with equipment they need, allow graft and corruption to steal resources from them. We will make sure every platoon leader has his own lawyer and after just a three months of large truck bombs we will start making secret plans to bring them all home. Within six months public plans will be in the news. Chaos will ensue and the Bush Regime will blame the MSM, the liberal, Pelosi and the tooth fairy. Anyone but their incompetent selves.

Pompano Pete wrote on February 5, 2007 3:16 PM:

There still exists a way to save a shred of dignity and even provide a bit of help.

Leave Baghdad in two months. Reinforce Anbar Province with a defined mission to eliminate foreign fighters from infiltrating from Syria. Right now that's the favored option for the jihadists and we can plug that hole.

Put a fairly sizable force, one corps, in Southeast Iraq with two defined missions - protect the southern oil fields - prevent infiltation/incursions along the Iranian border.

This redeployment would turn the country over to the Iraqis while protecting everyone's strategic interests.

rational wrote on February 5, 2007 3:19 PM:

Hitler had plenty of PhDs working for him. What did they do? They built massive death machines, built V1 rockets, built deadly weapons, and were on the verge of building an atom bomb.

The point is: doesn't matter if you have a PhD or not. What matters is where your heart is. If Patreaus truly had sympathy for the Iraqis, he would have resigned and left the Army instead of continuing to occupy them. He made his choice -- he wants to move up the ranks and will do whatever it takes. Don't get suckered into all this "sensible PhDs trying to do the right thing" nonsense. That has nothing to do with having a heart or common sense.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on February 5, 2007 3:58 PM:

Boyls & goyls,

The point of the story is that we the people are confused . . . What we gotta understand is . . . That 'America' is winning the war that the Administration is fighting.

Oil prices are being maintained at an all-time high. America's dominance in the world is being eliminated. Family members of current Executive Branchers are making moolah hand o'er fist.

What the American people want is treasonous . . . If we end the war in Iraq, how could Bush and the dark Sethlord Dick continue their unfettered war against America and the American people?

The Adminstration hopes to do drag Iraq out for two more years and potentially stir up other trouble in the region . . . The PhD's may just buy them the time by avoiding the immediate pull-out of troops . . .

Plutocracy, guns & oil . . . Oh my!

King George wrote on February 5, 2007 4:35 PM:

Wooah

A cold winter night, fell like a net
I've gotta raise my polling yet
I need you to soothe my head
Turn the blue states to red

Dr., Dr., give me the news,
I gotta bad case of blaming you,
More kills gonna cure my ills,
I gotta bad case of blaming you.

A lack of grace don't make no honest heart
I proved that buddy, from the start
You think I'm down, and now a lame duck
Oh yeah?, just watch, you stupid f***

Dr., Dr., give me the news,
I gotta bad case of blaming you,
More kills gonna cure my ills,
I gotta bad case of blaming you.

Wooah

I know you like it, you like me on top
Tell you buddy I ain't gonna stop

I have you down, now your rights are zip
Smile of Judas on my lip
Served my base, gave them "wood"
You've got it bad and we've got it good

Dr., Dr., give me the news,
I gotta bad case of blaming you,
More kills gonna cure my ills,
I gotta bad case of blaming you.

Preserved Fish wrote on February 5, 2007 5:39 PM:

So the comments here are either:

1. PhD's suck he will fail.

or

2. PhD's are good but he will still fail.

Okay, ask the real question at this point:

3. Can he fail less drastically than someone else, with other advisers, would in this same bad situation? Because sure, it's foobared. But there are degrees of bad. It's like climate change: It sucks; some really bad stuff will happen anyway because we've acted badly for too long; but it still should make a great difference whether it sucks really, really badly, or just garden-variety sucks. We can't hope for the best any more. But we damn well better hope for something better than the worst.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on February 5, 2007 6:14 PM:

The WP story was a fluff piece on Petraeus and I was making fun of the idea of Ph.D.s to the rescue. After re-reading the article, I still don't see any indication of anything the brain trust has done or said that is so radical other than criticize the way the war has been waged. That's radical?

One Ph.D.from MIT, Ahmed S. Hashim, concluded his critique by arguing that the best course would be to partition the country along ethnic and sectarian lines. Swell. We could have done that three years ago.

Col. H.R. McMaster is based this year at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a London think tank, but is likely to visit Iraq every month or two. That's a real hands on approach if ever I heard one.

Petraeus's chief economic adviser, Col. Michael J. Meese, will coordinate security and reconstruction efforts, trying to ensure that "build" follows the "clear" and "hold" phases of action. What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Much ado about nothing.

Jackie wrote on February 5, 2007 6:35 PM:

What many are missing here is one of the points of the original article: these PhD's are not your typical grad school stereo-types. They paid their dues in the Army, went to Ranger school, learned how to lead soldiers by listening carefully to the mentorship of senior NCO's assigned to work for them, earned CIB's, Purple Hearts, etc. alongside their soliers. They are not socially inept, or befuddled as to what their politically correct opinion should be.

The army has slowly begun to realize that it's brightest and best should spend time studying outside of the Army to ensure a senior leadership that is capable of informed decision making and that is socially aware of the culture and history of America, that is well read, that is capable of being "thinkers," that can comprehend the complexity of the problem they are being asked to engage in. Otherwise we'd have an army lead by the type of political robots most have been refering to in their posts. THAT'S WHAT IS SO INTERESTING ABOUT THIS GROUP!!!

V LaRoche wrote on February 5, 2007 7:06 PM:

"Brightest and best" . . . hm, wasn't there a book with a similar name . . . ah, yes, it was called The Best and The Brightest, and Halberstam talked about all those smart, smart, REALLY smart people who were gonna git 'er done in the Vitnam.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on February 5, 2007 8:11 PM:

Jackie, You know that these Ph.D.s are capable of informed decision making and are socially aware of the culture and history of America, are well read, capable of being "thinkers," and can comprehend the complexity of the problem they are being asked to engage in from reading that Washington Post story?

Or do you assume they are because they have Ph.D.s?

Jackie wrote on February 5, 2007 8:30 PM:

No assumption. That would be naive. The best a cynic can do is investigate themselves. Every doubter should be well informed prior to criticizing...right?

But yes, the point of Thomas Ricks mentioning these soldiers, specifically, is because they represent that ideal citizen soldier. While the task given might possibly be doomed for failure because of the parameters, the task still stands assigned. Let's hope if failure looms and is evident, that Petreus will voice that certainty.

albertchampion wrote on February 5, 2007 8:57 PM:

the bushits opened pandora's box. anyone with a bit of wisdom would have known that it was better kept closed.

but there was this fifth column - mossadists, shin betists, zionists, maffiyaists - who promoted that opening of the box.

general shinseki appears to have been the only honorable man. he told the truth to the lunatics and was cashiered.

any general staff officer who refrained from resigning at that time indelibly stained his honor.

as i have written many times, the paradigm for this presidential regime was lbj & mac. it is like viet-nam all over again: in for a dime, eventually you will be in for a dollar. as it was then, it is once again - there is nothing like military misadventuring for the looting of the nation's treasury...and that is what this is about.

i would love to see the ORDER OF BATTLE equations for this catastrophe. i find it quite telling that the issue of ORDER OF BATTLE goes undiscussed. i always thought that it was the most overlooked aspect of the viet-nam invasion. it is a subject discussed most eloquently by the cia analyst, sam adams[RIP] in his memoir, WAR OF NUMBERS. another rip, colonel david hackworth was responsible for the publication of the adams' story.

as a rule, invasions of other countries are the unwisest of ideas. unless you have this orwellian pov that sees perpetual war as the course of perpetual enrichment for a certain class - the war profiteers. of course, general staff officers will be a part of that class. aand that is their incentive for playing ball with the resident and him myrmidons.

finally, the role of the mercenaries[blackwater, sandlines, et alia] needs to be discussed. where do they fit into the ORDER OF BATTLE? and who directs their activities? i think that the merc activities need to be scrutinized very closely...after all, mucho dinero is being sluiced to those entities. and it occurs to me that they just might have an interest in exacerbating, prolonging the conflict. succinctly, are the mercs placing ieds? shooting down usa choppers? functioning as death squads?

i could say so much more, but i think you get my drift....

William Morkill wrote on February 5, 2007 8:59 PM:

Chess game? Not even Gary Kasparov in his prime could pull a draw out this game. How many Phd's can you stand on the head of a pin? Out now.
Impeach the war criminals.

William Morkill wrote on February 5, 2007 9:05 PM:

Ok, so Phd's get some cred. Who can forget that
brightest and best Phd, Robert McNamera (sp).

Anonymous wrote on February 6, 2007 2:37 AM:

"They paid their dues in the Army, went to Ranger school, learned how to lead soldiers by listening carefully to the mentorship of senior NCO's assigned to work for them, earned CIB's, Purple Hearts, etc. alongside their soliers. They are not socially inept, or befuddled as to what their politically correct opinion should be.

The army has slowly begun to realize that it's brightest and best should spend time studying outside of the Army

Posted by: Jackie
Date: February 5, 2007 06:35 PM "

Ranger school was long ago and far away for these guys....as far as being befuddled about their PC thoughts...well no one but a true politican and ace ass kisser ever gets a star on his (or her) shoulder. They are also the ones that get the school slots. Not only the brightest and best..the most likely to do as told.

I am ex-Air Force...drove lots of pretty boys around at Keesler, my fiance was an instructor at RIP...I happen to be very fond of Ranger's.

None of this counts. They might be nice guys. Very clubby at a cocktail party or two. Be able to stump me at Shakesperian literature. But, I am from NY. I know the streets and the street games criminals play. If they play too rough with the Baghdad scum they get court martialed. If they show mercy they get no respect from them.

The British said that the Muslims will either be under our boot or at our throat..I believe around Kipling's time. Nothing has changed. And, we are long past the point of viciousness. Barring another 9/11 false flag (they are too smart to give Bush a real one), this war is shot. We have lost the stomach for war as a nation. We haven't hurt enough as a country to really want blood from another country.

I was in NY on LI for 9/11, On 9/12 Bush could have had anything...he blew his war wad on Haliburton and Blackwater. On not preparing for something other then a photo op in an over stuffed flightsuit.

These men might be good guys. Smart as hell, fast on their feet. The timing is all wrong. They should have stood up three years ago to The Decider and said this is what we need. That would have ended their career on the spot. So no, they kissed ass and got promoted. Now they are sacrificial lambs. Bush needs his scapegoat. It's these generals and Nancy Pelosi if she isn't smart enough to get Bush first.

epenisa wrote on January 11, 2008 1:07 AM:

Hi all!
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
Bye