Talk:David Petraeus

It is simply incorrect, factually, to say that Petraeus was too late in 1970 to see combat in Vietnam. There were big battles in 1970! Combat in Vietnam continued until March 31, 1973, the end of combat operations.

I am a Vietnam veteran, but anybody can look this up and confirm that what I am saying is accurate.

General

Has Petraeus been promoted to General (4-star), upon his Senate confirmation as US forces commander in Iraq? GoodDay 22:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. - Thaimoss 02:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Then, I'll make the edit at his article. Thanks. GoodDay 02:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you got a source for that promotion? --GrummelJS 20:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Did I read this right, he had no combat time for 29 years; yet bush put him in charge of IRAQ ! father_bill —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Father bill (talk • contribs) 03:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Father bill, General Petraeus served in combat during Operation Iraqi Freedom as commander of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault). He also served there in a liaison capacity helping train Iraq security personnel. Both jobs are considered combat jobs, and both were completed whilst being a General Officer.--SOCL 06:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not yet promoted

Current congressional law states that general officers do not receive their promotion until they have arrived at their command - hence, LTG Petraeus will not receive his 4th star within a week or two when he arrives in Iraq. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cav Tanker (talk • contribs) 23:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

It looks like the only content which is permitted for Petraeus is unqualified praise. I don't have anything against the guy, but it is a fact that he could have served in Vietnam with 2.7 million of the rest of us, but Petraeus elected to remain safe in a military academy. Why must this simple truth be hidden from his biography?

nickname?

Need to cite a source about the nickname if it is going to be included. Cav Tanker 23:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

-Last I checked his nickname was "Eagle Six" off a cited quote that was on this page. Said quote and the story it was a part has edited from the section.

"Eagle 6" is the term of the Division Commander for the 101st Airborne Division, likewise, Petraeus was also "Devil 6" of the 1st Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division. Cav Tanker is refering to his nickname of "Peaches". To my knowledge, the earliest reference of this nickname can be found in the United States Military Academy's 1974 Howitzer (Yearbook) where it mentions it both on his company photograph and individual photo section.

--Signaleer 06:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Greek?

I heard he was Greek. His name sure sounds like a Greek nameWillgfass2 20:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• According to his son--my dear friend--either their grandfather or great grandfather changed the family name from Peterson to Petraeus in order to give it a more "classical" feel.--SOCL 00:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Petraeus Doctrine

Some editor keeps adding something about the "Petraeus doctrine", but in ways that are unencyclopedic and have been reverted. From a quick google search, the "Petraeus doctrine" seems to be a term used by Senator Lidsey Graham to describe Bush's surge [1], or used to describe his approach to counterinsurgency [2], which was formulated in the new army field manual. I don't know if it's worth adding right now, but we should keep this in mind if this phrase catches on. Joshdboz 22:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It has caught on - please see the following:

See Boston Globe, 1/28/2007; See BBC News, 1/11/2007, among many others!

If you delve into that term, you'll see it in Congress in addition to numerous respected media outlets. What causes you to supress this when it clearly is a term of common usage concerning the new Iraq policy? Whether it "catches on" as you say is clearly a weak criterion by which to determine if it's relevant now!

Here is but ONE (of many) examples:

The Bush plan and the Petraeus doctrine Analysis By Paul Reynolds World affairs correspondent, BBC News website

General David Petraeus

Profile: Lt-Gen Petraeus

With his new plan for Iraq, President Bush runs the risk of going against the principles of the US army's new doctrine of counterinsurgency.

The doctrine was written last year by the man who will command US forces in Iraq, Lieutenant General David Petraeus.

Its whole thrust is towards the long-term. The political imperative behind the Bush proposals is that the Iraq war is unpopular and that the US must get results soon, hopefully within a few months, certainly within a few years.

"I've made it clear to the [Iraqi] prime minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended," he said in his speech.

Mr Bush set no deadline but the language of urgency plays little part in the 282-page document "Counterinsurgency", written by General Petraeus with Marine Corps General James Amos and published in December 2006.

It was drawn up, as the preface suggests, to reverse the trend of neglect that counterinsurgency operations have suffered since the end of the Vietnam War more than 30 years ago.

There is, therefore, a potential clash between the president's need for speed and the doctrine's call for patience.

Bush proposals

The Bush plan calls for:

More than 20,000 US reinforcements

Most troops to be deployed in an effort to secure Baghdad and clear it of sectarian forces, including the powerful Shia militia, with new more aggressive rules of engagement, using both US and Iraqi troops embedded in the capital's nine districts

A parallel effort to hit al-Qaeda in Anbar province, using 4000 of the extra troops there

The Iraqi Government to take control of all provinces by November and to share the country's oil wealth with the Sunnis

Incidentally he has, as expected, rejected the Iraq Study Group's recommendation to wind down the US combat role as soon as possible and to engage with Syria and Iran. Quite the opposite. He accuses "these two regimes" of "allowing terrorists" to use their territories. And he said he would "disrupt the attacks on our forces" supported by Iran.

By linking military and host nation governmental actions, Mr Bush is following one of the principles of the Petraeus doctrine. But the "quick-fix" attitude goes against it.

It may be that Mr Bush has the necessary patience. But his time in office runs out in two years and two years seems a very short period in this war.

The counterinsurgency doctrine

These are some key phrases of the counterinsurgency doctrine:

2. COIN [counterinsurgency] campaigns are often long and difficult
3. Counterinsurgents should prepare for a long-term commitment
4. Insurgencies are protracted by nature
5. US public support for a protracted deployment is critical
6. Offensive operations are only the beginning

Executing COIN operations is complex, demanding and tedious - there are no simple, quick solutions

Counterinsurgency operations

The document goes into great detail about how to plan for and carry out counterinsurgency operations.

It starts by recognising that an insurgency cannot be beaten without popular support. "Long-term success depends on the people taking charge of their own affairs and consenting to the government's rule," it states.

"Success in COIN operations requires establishing a legitimate government supported by the people," it adds.

It stresses the need for intelligence and for the intelligent use of force. "Some of the best weapons do not shoot," it notes.

It has a long section about training the HN or "host nation's" security forces, something that General Petraeus had charge of in Iraq.

Increasing reliance on Iraqi forces is part of the Bush plan. But again, the theme of the Petraeus doctrine is patience.

There is, therefore, a potential clash between the president's need for speed and the doctrine's call for patience "Developing the HN security forces is a complex and challenging mission...Training HN security forces is a slow and painstaking process. It does not lend itself to a 'quick fix,'"

'No short-cuts'

The prohibition against expecting a "quick fix" is reflected in a quotation from Sir Robert Thompson, a senior British civil servant in Malaya (and ex-Chindit guerrilla against the Japanese in Burma) who devised the counterinsurgency operations that eventually put down an insurgency there in the 1950s:

"It is a persistently methodical approach and steady pressure which will gradually wear the insurgent down...There are no short-cuts and no gimmicks."

The Americans consulted Thompson over Vietnam but were overwhelmed by the problems they faced there. General Petraeus perhaps hopes that the advice still holds good for Iraq.

Importance of detail

His document goes into tremendous detail, down to the importance of where an interpreter should stand (next to the person you are questioning), how much local police should be paid (enough to minimise the risk of corruption) and even instructions to US soldiers not to fraternise too much with local children (they could be at risk, insurgents are watching).

"Eat their food" is one recommendation on how to deal socially with local leaders.

General Petraeus explicitly uses a phrase once shunned by Mr Bush. He writes: "Soldiers and Marines should prepare to execute many non-military missions to support COIN efforts. Everyone has a role in nation building."

All this is a long way from the "shock and awe" tactics that were used to win the initial ground war in Iraq in 2003 and the first Gulf War to remove Saddam Hussein's troops from Kuwait in 1991.

Whether the strategy and tactics developed in the counterinsurgency document can be used to implement the president's new instructions remains to be seen on the streets of Baghdad and the towns and villages of Anbar province.

I have added this sentence to the 2007-present section: The "surge" strategy, as well as the ideas Petraeus included in the new US Army Field Manual FM 3-24 on counterinsurgency, have been referred to by some journalists and politicians as the "Petraeus Doctrine" Please review the Wikipedia:Manual of Style before editing more. Thanks, Joshdboz 17:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by IP editor

(moved here from top of pageAkradecki 05:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)) As a Vietnam veteran, I'd point out that somebody who is working for Petraeus' public relations must be editing this. It is simply an undeniable historical fact that Petraeus could easily have served in Vietnam in 1970. All he had to do is enlist. The Vietnam War was hot at that time; I was in Vietnam at that time. What Petraeus did was what a lot of service academy guys did -- wait out the war while getting an education at public expense. Once Vietnam was over, Petraeus pursued his career. When he finally did get into a combat zone, it was as a high-ranking officer in no danger. I don't have anything at all against Petraeus, but suggesting that he was somehow unable to serve in Vietnam is just silly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.145.131 (talk • contribs)

I'm the editor you're referring to, and I'm not on Petraeus' staff. I'm a Wikipedia editor who is a stickler for keeping articles on-policy. POV comments like you've been making have no place in an encyclopedia article. This is not a forum, a debate or a discussion. If Petraeus is criticized by reputable press for this, then report the criticism in a neutral way. Please see the note at the top of this page for the guidelines that apply to biographies of living persons, and please try to keep your additions in line with policy. As for this particular concern, please read the sentence carefully: it says, "He was commissioned an infantry officer upon graduation in 1974, too late to see combat in Vietnam." This is an accurate statement: hostilities had ended by '74. It makes no judgement about intent, one way or the other. The statement as it stands is completely neutral. To add comments that are intended to impune his character is to violate our policies and will be reverted. Thanks. Akradecki 05:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

One Correction

Gen. Petraeus co-wrote FM 3-24 with Lt. Gen. James F. Amos, not James Mattis, who is currently the commander of the I MEF in Iraq. See http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/Repository/Materials/COIN-FM3-24.pdf--67.100.207.90 17:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1991 injury

Michael Yon gives some interesting details about General Petraeus being shot in 1991 in the last part of this blog post (which is not a Wikipedia:Reliable Source). Ranger training?! Wow!

If someone can provide citations for this from RSes, it would make an interesting addition to this article. The incident certainly gives you some insight into the guy. Cheers, CWC 19:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's Sen. Bill Frist's first hand account of operating on Gen. Petraeus

http://www.volpac.org/index.cfm?FuseAction=BLOGS.View&Blog_id=670

I also read the same story in "In the Company of Soldiers" by Rick Atkinson. I don't have a page number as I listened to it as an audiobook.

Birth place?

Where was General Petraeus born? The article does not make this clear. Thanks. 128.119.149.96 05:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)