Fallon out, Petraeus In
on 04/23/2008 at 11:35 AM
I feel that this is not a good thing - simply because Petraeus spent his time in Mosul learning the ways of the Iraqis - which is why Mosul wasn’t the hotbed it was until the 101st left - then it fell apart. General Petraeus was brought in to deal with Iraq and he did. . .
It had to come - no one in the military stays in a Command long. General Odierno was the Commander of 4th ID while we were at Fort Hood - most of his guys believed in him. His wife was a great Commander’s wife. His real command ability - I can’t comment on.
I do know - for whatever the left screeds on about General Petraeus - 9 out of 10 of the people under him would follow him into hell - and that includes my son who served under him during the 2003 invasion - and that alone speaks well of a General Commanding a Division. As most of the soldiers don’t think much of those that ‘on high’.
My son also served under General (RET) ‘You are stuck on stupid’ Honore and said he was a hoot to work under. . .
I can’t claim to know any of them, can’t claim to know anyone who has worked for them. But....
Gen. Odierno has apparently had enough time on the ground in Iraq to understand what his CO is trying for, and how he’s going about it. Executing an already existing plan shouldn’t be too much of a hardship, if any. Where we’ll see if it screwed things up is if the situation suddenly takes a turn that requires the kind of innovative thinking that made Petraeus the hero of Iraq. Maybe if we’re lucky it will turn out we already passed that point while Gen. Petraeus was in command.
Regardless, what we should be able to count on is a nice effect on morale for those serving in Afghanistan. They know their new boss is the same guy who just finished turning Iraq from a stalemate to a win. The only real dangers I can spot are 1) Petraeus trying to apply the exact same solutions to Afghanistan and failing because of detail differences between the two operating environments (not bloody likely I’d think, given that he’s already shown a willingness in Iraq to look at the REALITY on the ground and scrap doctrine if it doesn’t fit the real world) and 2) Failure in Iraq because the new CO doesn’t understand the nature of the job well enough to execute the plan *well*, and doesn’t have Petraeus on hand to babysit him, hold his hand, and make sure it comes out right. I’d call that *more* likely, as innovative, unconventional thinking is something that’s hard to teach. But I still wouldn’t call it *very* likely, as by the time you’ve reached the general officer grades, senior command has been weeding out the less capable for a long time. That and if the guy really isn’t a gifted enough strategist to run it effectively without help, Petraeus probably already knows this about him.
