Austin Bay Blog

I do not think there is any question that at this moment in time General David Petraeus is one of America’s most widely respected leaders –in or out of uniform.

I had the privilege of speaking with the soldier-scholar at length this past Monday, August 4. Both my ArenaUSA channel and PajamasMedia will be running programs with the complete interviews. TheArenaUSA will be a convergence media program (audio-video-print) that will feature hyperlinked notes as well as a short video introduction — and of course other related programming, like the Strategic Overwatch video. (Registration is recommended but no longer required — so you can go straight to the video.) UPDATE: PajamasMedia has the interview as a “Deep Background” podcast.

If there is a theme threading the interview it is “achieving strategic goals in Iraq.” Petraeus gives both strategic and operational-level descriptions of the process he’s following to achieve near-term and longer-term goals. He also provides a sketch of several of those goals.

Pay attention to the questions about “strategic change.” Here is part of Petraeus’ answer to one of them (pinched from this week’s Creators Syndicate column) and my quick take on his reply:

“We’ve been at moments of strategic change,” Petraeus replied. “These are not light switch moments…what you have is more of a rheostat, many, many rheostat moments where in small areas local areas districts and eventually provinces there is an ongoing transition and has been an ongoing transition for the Iraqi forces to step more into the lead and the coalition forces to step back and provide enablers.”

Petraeus sketched a conditions-based approach to assessing a war of increments where victory only emerges over time. A “light switch” is Hollywood. Because it is complex, dynamic, and multi-dimensional, “rheostat warfare” escapes television’s appetite for soundbite analysis. Counter-terror, counter-insurgency, and for that matter, anti-crime campaigns are rheostat operations that take time to conduct and judge.

At one point I ask: “Do you have an idea of what victory would be in Iraq or the Global War on Terror?”

Once more pinching from the column:

Petraeus said the campaign plan had “near term objectives for summer 2008” and the security objectives have been met. If the Iraqi government passes “the provincial elections law then it can be declared that they have met them (plan objectives) in the political line of operation…” Diplomatic and economic objectives are also being achieved.

“We have objectives for 2009 and an end state as well,” he said. He did not elaborate on goals for 2009 but said the end state in short hand “is country that is at peace with itself and its neighbors. A government representative of and responsive to its people. A productive member of the region and the global economy.”

“But again,” he warned, “we have considerable drill downs that describe the objectives relative to in the security line of operations, relative the enemy… relative to the Iraqi forces, the different types that are here.”

He’s saying a smart and resilient enemy “always has a vote.” In Iraq’s case what Iran does or does not do matters.

If you want to “look forward” with General Petraeus’ interview as a reference and critical guideline, TheArenaUSA’s Strategic Overwatch program (an update to the Consequences pilot tv episode) provides a useful tool for thinking about what the path to achieving these goals in Iraq will look like over the next 12 to 36 months– that’s what a scenario ought to do, provide an instructive and creative insight into a dynamic, changing situation.

Note this exchange regarding the “incremental” nature of the warfighting process –lifted from Ed Driscoll’s transcript– but how “the incremental” builds over time to reach goals:

AUSTIN BAY: Gen. David Petraeus, let’s pick up on your rheostat analogy. You’re giving us a conditions-based approach to assessing victory in a very intricate, complex and long struggle. Now this is an incremental victory–one step up; a half-step back. Enemy action results in a coalition response; coalition actions result in an enemy response. That’s war among human beings. It strikes me that some of those conditions include a sovereign Iraq that is largely responsible for its own internal security, but is also a United States ally. These are some of the conditions mentioned in the Update Strategic Overwatch video at the ArenaUSA.com. That said; if you would, please comment on a sovereign Iraq emerging as a US ally.

Did you get a chance to look at that video?

GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS: Just briefly, I’m afraid, Austin. But let me just come back to what you just said because the way you stated that is exactly right. It is incremental, and it does have fits and starts. It is this exercise of pushing the stone up a hill, a Sisyphean endeavor at times where you do make two steps up and one step back. Sometimes you get one step up and two steps back.
But, overall, over the course of the past year or so, really since the start of the surge of offenses in particular, that was the large comprehensive offensive launched in June 2007 when we had all of the surge brigades on the ground, since that time, there has been a fairly steady degree of improvement week in/week out, month in/month out. Certainly, again, there have been flare-ups at times. The militia counterattacks, when Prime Minister al-Maliki ordered Iraqi forces and the Basra, were really quite a substantial — more than a flare-up.
But, over time, those were dealt with, more than dealt with, in fact, and very severe losses inflicted on the militia.

That’s a perspective on the current “over all.” Where else might these “increments” lead? For example, the Strategic Overwatch scenario (in one of the slides) provides a glimpse of what future (and maybe not so future) Iranian troublemaking might look like:

…more Shia Arab strife occurs in Lebanon (stoked by Iran) with the goal of distracting Iraqi Shias and/or “radicalizing” Iraqi foreign policy…

Petraeus spent a great deal of time discussing the Iraqi Army — its increasing professionalism, its increase in size, and its modernization. Again, the Strategic Overwatch has a “look forward”:

Iraqi Army continues to re-arm and modernize; Iraq and the U.S. agree to a “long range cooperation agreement” the Iraqi people see as advantageous to Iraq…

The Iraqis will have to continue their military modernization and professionalization process, but they will also expect the US to be a reliable ally.

I came back to the Iraq “emerging as a US ally” is a victory condition. In paraphrase, he said: “That is certainly one of the objectives,” Petraeus said. The US would want an Iraq “taking resolute action against” Al Qaeda in Iraq, Shia militias, and “special groups” supported by Iran.

I encourage you to listen to the entire interview. Check out both on-line presentations –TheArenaUSA convergence media program will also include selected transcripts of General Petraeus’ comments (and ultimately include some footnotes). Pajamas will post an entire transcript later this week. (Thanks to Ed Driscoll.)

Defining victory in war is tough. Achieving victory is, of course, an even harder proposition.

UPDATE: StrategyPage has the column posted.

UPDATE 2: A real update here, as of 12:33 PM CDT. TheArenaUSA program will be up later this afternoon PDT.