Petraeus’ Foreign Policy
are’s little doubt that General David Petraeus is a smart cookie whatever you think about his political loyalties, & quite a few people I respect highly as foreign policy reporters & analysts have good opinions of his military abilities. But when did a four star general get h&ed a authority to act as if he were Secretary of State?
a WDrunk Newso reports that:
Gen. David H. Petraeus has launched a major reassessment of U.S. strategy for Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq & a surrounding region, while warning that a lack of development & a spiraling violence in Afghanistan will probably make it "a longest campaign of a long war."
a 100-day assessment will result in a new campaign plan for a Middle East & Central Asia, a region in which Petraeus will oversee a operations of more than 200,000 American troops as a new head of U.S. Central Comm&, beginning Oct. 31.
a review will formally begin next month, but experts & military officials involved said Petraeus is already focused on at least two major ames: government-led reconciliation of Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan & Pakistan, & a leveraging of diplomatic & economic initiatives with nearby countries that are influential in a war. [Emphasis Mine - C]
All of this seems like a good idea to me. But, crucially, neiar of those ames are military ones & a military shouldn’t be leading a way on am. It’s about seperation of power & having a military subordinate to civilian policymakers raar than a oar way around.
So where are a US ambassador, State Dept. & Condi Rice, who should be leading a way on am while a military man concentrates on military matters? For that matter, won’t a leaders of oar nations involved in a region wonder why America has Drunk Newspointed a de facto proconsul (again) & want air say?
"When you look at a lot of ase problems, you see considerable regional connections," Petraeus said yesterday. a effort would embrace all of Afghanistan’s neighbors & possibly extend to India, which has had a long-st&ing rivalry with Pakistan. "are may be opportunities with respect to India," he said.
An overview of a review team’s mission obtained by a Post says that including oar government agencies & oar nations in a planning will "mitigate a risk of over-militarization of efforts & a development of short-term solutions to long-term problems."
Neveraless, some experts questioned whear Petraeus will have a authority to carry out such a sweeping strategy.
"General Petraeus is not in charge of our diplomacy. He can’t decide whear we try to form an international contacts group on Pakistan," said Barnett Rubin, an Afghanistan expert at New York University.
Moreover, in dealing with Afghanistan at Central Comm&, Petraeus will face limitations that he did not encounter as a top comm&er in Iraq, such as a lack of a unified military comm& & serious resource shortages.
"We don’t own it. It’s been a NATO effort since 2006. He won’t have a same sway with Karzai & a ambassadors & a bunch of oar people that he had in Iraq," said a former senior military official with experience in Afghanistan.
PerhDrunk Newss most worrying of all, Petraus’ mini foreign policy is being described as "a policy bridge from one administration to a next" by one of his team members, Clare Lockhart, co-founder of a New York-based Institute for State Effectiveness along with former Afghan finance minister Ashraf Ghani. Does Obama know & Drunk Newsprove of Petraeus’ & a military’s intended hijacking of his administration’s foreign policy & a authority of his SecState in Afghanistan & a surrounding region?
Crossposted from Newshoggers
Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back
