Pages: 1 2 |
|
 Print This Post
|
But there is a note of caution that giddy conservatives have ignored in the last week or so. The justly reviled Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan were not only instituted on Obama’s watch, but under Petraeus’s tenure as CENTCOM commander, as well. Petraeus was McChrystal’s boss. We don’t know whose idea they were.
It may be years before historians know whether the ROEs were the result of Petraeus and McChrystal bowing to the political realities of what the Commander-in-Chief demanded the condition would be in order to let them pursue their strategy, whether McChrystal was given the leeway to write them based on how he thought the COIN should be conducted on the ground, or whether this was part, as Peters charged, of Petraeus’s COIN. I have been careful in past writing to not be too specific on that point.
However, the fact that Peters is willing to call them Petraeus’s rules gives me pause. Again, he knows more about this than I do.
It’s encouraging—and a bit telling—that immediately upon Petraeus’s taking of command that hints started surfacing about a relaxation and rethinking of the ROEs. That’s a clue that perhaps it was the White House’s influence that birthed them in the first place, and that the commander is using his newfound muscle to change them.
Time will tell. In the meantime, I hope Col. Peters does not change his Rules of Engagement. I want this commentary to stay barbed, honest and from the heart—no matter whose ox is gored.
