World Affairs Board - View Single Post

S-2 · 11-19-2007, 12:53 PM

I noted this when it hit a couple of weeks ago and somehow failed to comment.

First thought, particularly given that this is a BG selection board, was that the refs have thrown a "make-up" flag to correct the penalty call on McMaster...and maybe I'm right.

That would be the most narrow perspective of the implications behind Petraeus' recall for this task, however. It reaches further, by far.

We could see, if we've over-estimated Petraeus' talents but not his influence, a battle between traditionalists and an emerging "COIN mafia"- a dissembling internecine light-heavy redux under slightly different terms and conditions, but with the same dibilitating bureaucratic in-fighting that's accompanied these type seismic shifts in the past. A visible manifestation of this was the heavy-light track at IOBC some years ago, as example.

Hopefully, Petraeus' participation on this selection board goes far deeper than highlighting our pertinent but topical COIN emphasis-

1.) Acknowledging the need to sustain our conventional over-match capabilities AND be masters of unconventional warfare, we need general officers that are strategically attuned more than ever- with the requisite disparate command and educational experiences (both military and civilian post-graduate) coupled with demonstrated proficiencies in prioritized languages. Minimum.

2.) OIF has increasingly taken on the face of Petraeus. Probably no single officer in the U.S. Army has been so linked to this conflict. His involvement from division through MNFC-I command has been intimate. As such, I personally doubt that any officer knows as much about those men/women who are before the selection board. He knows of, or has worked with many (maybe most) at some point in his career-quite probably within the last four years.

3.) There is the benefit of a visible signal within D.A. of a ground-shift emphasis in the way we develop and select general officers by the appointment of Petraeus. Whether we are headed in the correct direction is undetermined. Without question, though, we aren't going to do business as before. Criterion will change. Change is good, in this case, even if misdirected. Wherever we're headed, the world is changing fast. So must our requirements for the selection of general officers coupled with new skill-sets for the rank.

Clearly, this will be an interesting board. What follows, though, will be even more important.

11-19-2007, 12:53 PM	#2 (permalink)
S-2 *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-11-06 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 2,304 Country:	Shek Reply I noted this when it hit a couple of weeks ago and somehow failed to comment. First thought, particularly given that this is a BG selection board, was that the refs have thrown a "make-up" flag to correct the penalty call on McMaster...and maybe I'm right. That would be the most narrow perspective of the implications behind Petraeus' recall for this task, however. It reaches further, by far. We could see, if we've over-estimated Petraeus' talents but not his influence, a battle between traditionalists and an emerging "COIN mafia"- a dissembling internecine light-heavy redux under slightly different terms and conditions, but with the same dibilitating bureaucratic in-fighting that's accompanied these type seismic shifts in the past. A visible manifestation of this was the heavy-light track at IOBC some years ago, as example. Hopefully, Petraeus' participation on this selection board goes far deeper than highlighting our pertinent but topical COIN emphasis- 1.) Acknowledging the need to sustain our conventional over-match capabilities AND be masters of unconventional warfare, we need general officers that are strategically attuned more than ever- with the requisite disparate command and educational experiences (both military and civilian post-graduate) coupled with demonstrated proficiencies in prioritized languages. Minimum. 2.) OIF has increasingly taken on the face of Petraeus. Probably no single officer in the U.S. Army has been so linked to this conflict. His involvement from division through MNFC-I command has been intimate. As such, I personally doubt that any officer knows as much about those men/women who are before the selection board. He knows of, or has worked with many (maybe most) at some point in his career-quite probably within the last four years. 3.) There is the benefit of a visible signal within D.A. of a ground-shift emphasis in the way we develop and select general officers by the appointment of Petraeus. Whether we are headed in the correct direction is undetermined. Without question, though, we aren't going to do business as before. Criterion will change. Change is good, in this case, even if misdirected. Wherever we're headed, the world is changing fast. So must our requirements for the selection of general officers coupled with new skill-sets for the rank. Clearly, this will be an interesting board. What follows, though, will be even more important. __________________ "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski Last edited by S-2 : 11-19-2007 at 16:48 PM.