Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


Petraeus selection draws praise from Minnesota lawmakers

President Barack Obama announced that Gen. David Petraeus will replace Gen. Stanley McChrystal as his top commander in Afghanistan on Wednesday.
REUTERS/Larry Downing
President Barack Obama announced that Gen. David Petraeus will replace Gen. Stanley McChrystal as his top commander in Afghanistan on Wednesday.

WASHINGTON — Sen. Al Franken had heard the news about Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s Rolling Stone interview. The barbs directed toward the president, vice president and almost every senior diplomat in the theater not named Hillary Rodham Clinton.

It was a massive breach of protocol. Despite the protestations from the White House that McChrystal might have a shot of keeping his job, it seemed that change was inevitable.

Only one name seemed to make sense as a replacement, Franken thought — David Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command whose surge strategy is credited in large part with turning around the war in Iraq.

“It felt like the only guy you could put there,” Franken said.

Sen. Al Franken
REUTERS/Jason Reed
Sen. Al Franken

President Obama said that he accepted McChrystal’s resignation Wednesday not because of “personal insults” but because McChrystal did not adhere to the “strict code of conduct” that is necessary for success in Afghanistan.

“The conduct represented in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general,” Obama said in a Rose Garden statement Wednesday afternoon. “It undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system. And it erodes the trust that’s necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan.”

In a phone conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron, Obama confirmed that U.K. Lt. Gen. Nick Parker will oversee operations in Afghanistan until Petraeus is confirmed by the Senate, something congressional watchers said is likely to happen quickly.

“I think that the president handled this as well as he could,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar in an interview Wednesday afternoon. “I support what the president did.”

“I think Petraeus is a really good pick, he knows what he’s doing. I think there’ll be an easy transition in that he’ll have the support of the troops in the field.”

Rep. Tim Walz
MinnPost/Corey Anderson
Rep. Tim Walz

Rep. Tim Walz, who served in the National Guard for 24 years, also supported the president’s decision and looked ahead to Petraeus’ transition.

“I respect our commander-in-chief’s decision, and I have full confidence in General Petraeus’ ability to transition into his role smoothly and effectively. Our focus now has to be making sure the brave men and women who are serving our country in harm’s way have a clear mission, the support, and the leadership they need to get the job done,” Walz said.

Conditions on the ground
McChrystal’s replacement came as the casualties continue to mount in Afghanistan — 76 coalition troops have died this month, putting June on track to be the deadliest month of the war to date.

Allegations stand that corruption is still rife within the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and the Taliban have retaken parts of the country they had been forced out of in the months after the original U.S. invasion.

Karzai had lobbied to keep McChrystal, but in a phone call late Wednesday with Obama “welcomed” Petraeus’ appointment, according to a White House readout of the call.

Rep. John Kline, who recently returned from a five-day visit to Afghanistan, said the goal in that country remains the same: “A stable country that denies the Taliban and al-Qaeda a safe haven from which to launch attacks against Afghanistan, Pakistan, or the U.S. and its allies.”

“I think Gen. McChrystal has done an incredible job throughout his career. We owe him a great deal of thanks and respect,” Kline said, adding that he was “confident” that Petraeus “has proven his leadership in Iraq and is extremely well qualified for this job.”

Rep. Erik Paulsen said Petraeus’ nomination will “no doubt build on the good work that has already been done in the region.”

“Changing military commanders during a time of war is a decision that should never be taken lightly,” Paulsen said. “And while the recent events that led to this decision are certainly regrettable, I have absolute confidence that General Petraeus is the right choice to lead our brave servicemen and women in Afghanistan.”

Rep. Michele Bachmann
MinnPost/Raoul Benavides
Rep. Michele Bachmann

Reps. Michele Bachmann, Jim Oberstar and Betty McCollum struck a similar tone.

“I appreciate his service and the time he gave in Afghanistan. Unfortunately the effort isn’t complete there. I wish him well and hope that this mission is completed successfully,” Bachmann said.

“As Commander and Chief the President need to have complete confidence in the generals who report to him,” Oberstar said. “Gen. Petraeus has proven that he can develop and implement a successful strategy in the region without getting distracted by the politics and personalities of Washington D.C.”

“I support President Obama’s decision,” McCollum agreed. “Gen. Petraeus is an extremely capable military leader. I have full confidence in his ability to execute the President’s strategy in Afghanistan.”

Rep. Keith Ellison said he supports the decision to replace McChrystal and reiterated his calls for more civilian aid to Afghanistan.

“I have long argued that in order to achieve peace and security in the region, we must have a civilian surge coupled with transitioning our troops out of combat missions and readying them for redeployment,” Ellison said in a statement.

“I continue to call on President Obama and Gen. Petraeus to increase public diplomacy to ensure long term stability, and to bring our troops home from this near decade long conflict.”

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (6)

  1. Submitted by Richard Schulze on 06/24/2010 - 09:40 am.

    Best headline…

    //So, for the second time in three years, Gen. David Petraeus is bailing out a president.”//
    Tom Ricks

    It’s good that Obama handled himself in a smart way, but it would be more valuable if Afghanistan got some of the benefit.

  2. Submitted by Bernice Vetsch on 06/24/2010 - 12:43 pm.

    A Russian analyst on their news station (RT-TV, St. Paul’s cable Channel 11) opined that the U.S. needed not just a few thousand more troops but 600,000 in order to “win” in Afghanistan. I believe he thought it would still take decades. Do we really want that? How can we pay for it?

    How about giving up the idea that Afghanistan can be transformed from without into a democracy with a strong central government, and that its native Taliban class can be chased out of the country, exterminated or converted into a different kind of folk from the group that used to govern the villages but now work to remove our military presence from their country.

    Howard Zinn came to the conclusion late in life that no war is “good.” Even with motives we consider important or altruistic (gotta help our oil companies) we still are responsible for all the deaths and destruction any war causes.

  3. Submitted by Thomas Swift on 06/24/2010 - 12:55 pm.

    Looking back, Democrat legislators weren’t so kind to Gen. Petraeus.

    Regarding Petraeus’ surge in Iraq:

    “This whole surge strategy was simply a means to an end, and that end was to get the Iraqis to make progress,” Walz said, “which they have failed on, and failed almost in a dramatic fashion.”

    “Rep. Keith Ellison, a Democrat, said the surge had failed and it was time to bring troops home.”

    “In a statement, Democrat Rep. Betty McCollum said, “Today’s testimony by General Petraeus offered a dramatic moment, but absolutely nothing to dispel the brutal reality that after 4 1/2 years of war and the loss of nearly 4,000 American lives, Iraq remains a pathetic, violent, failed state.”

    “Democratic Rep. Jim Oberstar said in a statement that Petraeus was viewing the troop surge “from the narrow point of view of reducing violence in Iraq in the short term. Other sources are showing us that the limited gains we are making are ephemeral, our gains are lost as soon as our troops’ attentions are diverted to another place.”

    Of course all of them were wrong which is perhaps why they’re singing a different tune today….

    Too, I guess things look different when someone is covering your hindquarters before an election.

    I doubt that Gen. Petraeus is much impressed with the “praise” he’s receiving from the Democrat congress, but I’m sure he’ll give this task his very best efforts.

  4. Submitted by Thomas Swift on 06/24/2010 - 01:07 pm.

    Oh, and by the way:

    “I support President Obama’s decision,” McCollum agreed”

    I can visualize the pull string being re-wound into her head, can’t you?

  5. Submitted by Richard Schulze on 06/24/2010 - 04:31 pm.

    The idea that we could makeover Afghanistan has always been stupidly idealistic. Look at how badly that has gone in Iraq, an actual country with actual institutions of a sort. Afghanistan by contrast is mostly back in the pre-industrial era, with cultural attitudes that come from the Middle Ages.

  6. Submitted by Charley Underwood on 06/26/2010 - 10:07 pm.

    Looking at the big picture here, getting rid of McChrystal was absolutely essential. Looking at the militarization of the police (e.g. the Republican National Convention and any other big event of this century), we are already in some trouble with our civil liberties. If McCrystal had gotten away with the rank insubordination, it would have been a disaster to any pretense of a civilian-controlled U.S. military. Personally, I really like the idea of democracy and don’t particularly relish the idea of our military dictating to the commander-in-chief, whether through the iron fist of a coup d’etat or through the velvet glove of more subtle means.

    That said, Afghanistan is still a disaster. Bombing civilians with drones controlled thousands of miles away is a sure-fire way to earn entire clans of enemies for as long as any of us live. We cannot “win” this war, even if we had some notion of what winning might mean. It will merely bankrupt us, both financially and morally. The American empire will end in Afghanistan, just as the Soviet empire did. Like the former Soviet Union, we are destined to a crumbling infrastructure, a pitifully weakened world posture and short, brutal, often alcoholic lives. It’s sad, because it didn’t have to end this way.

Leave a Reply