Current wars deserve a general ranking with best from WWII - Petraeus may get a 5th star - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Washington (CNN) -- Members of the Senate and House armed services committees currently are talking to the Pentagon about the next round of hearings on Afghanistan, trying to coordinate sessions with the U.S. commander there, Gen. David Petraeus. When Petraeus, probably the best-known military man in the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, returns to answer questions, the television lights will shine on the four stars he wears on each shoulder. Now a new debate is swirling in Washington, thanks to an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal pushing for Petraeus to get a fifth star, like military giants of the past. "The U.S. war against terrorism is now the longest war in U.S. history, and Gen. Petraeus has clearly distinguished himself as a leader worthy of the rank held by Gens. MacArthur, Marshall and Nimitz," Pete Hegseth and Wade Zirkle, of the group Vets for Freedom, wrote in the Wall Street Journal. Hegseth served in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division and is bound for Afghanistan. Zirkle, a Marine, deployed twice to Iraq. They make the case that Petraeus deserves the higher rank and that others will benefit if he gets it. "A promotion would properly honor his service -- and it would also honor the troops he leads and has led," they write. "Today's soldiers have fought as valiantly as any in American history, and they deserve recognition of their leaders. Congressional approval of a fifth star would demonstrate the nation's commitment to their mission." Hegseth aid Thursday that the response to their suggestion has been overwhelmingly positive. He laughed off a question about whether he had heard from Petraeus himself, saying he didn't expect to. "We're just hoping to gain some traction," Hegseth said. He said congressmen already have volunteered to push the promotion forward, although he said he could not provide names. A spokesman for Petraeus would not discuss the idea with CNN. Most senior officers are selected by a promotion board of their peers. But for three-stars and above, the president makes the choice, and the Senate must confirm the decision. Right now, including Petraeus, there are only 12 four-star generals in the U.S. Army. Currently, there is no legislation allowing the appointment of officers to a five-star grade, according to Pentagon information. The last general receiving a fifth star was Omar Bradley in 1950, and it took a special law to make that happen. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, recommended a fifth star during a congressional hearing back in 2008, when Petraeus was leading the surge of troops in Iraq. "If I could promote you to five stars, I would," Graham told Petraeus. The issue prompted tweets to CNN's @natlsecuritycnn account. "An incredibly silly idea," says one answer to the question of the fifth star. "As much as GOP want to deify him he's not a Washington or a Pershing," says another. A supporter tweets, "He deserves by his achievements." In the halls of the Pentagon, people shied away from questions. Asked about how the nuts and bolts of the promotion would work, one Pentagon worker admitted that it has been so long since Bradley that he didn't even know whom to call. Another person, back from the battlefield, shrugged it all off. "Most people do think it's laughable," he said. He didn't want to have his name tagged to any comment about a past or future boss. The latest publicity is an echo of a call to elevate Petraeus: a July article in The Atlantic magazine. The author, D.B. Grady, a former Special Forces paratrooper who served in Afghanistan, said that another star for Petraeus would give President Obama a chance to convince the U.S. military and allies that he's committed to the mission in Afghanistan. "If you are wearing a uniform right now, and I talk to soldiers every day, there's a great deal of fear out there, a great deal of suspicion. President Obama needs a bit of bolstering in the military," Grady said. "Petraeus is deified in the military. It's win-win. With this there is no doubt that the world will appreciate we are taking it seriously in Afghanistan." Critics of an additional star for Petraeus warn that it could interfere with the chain of command. He would outrank his superior at Central Command, Marine Gen. James Mattis, as well as the Joint Chiefs chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen. But Hegseth says that should cause no problem, that Petraeus' stature already means he has direct contact with the White House and Congress and the secretary of defense. Max Boot in Commentary magazine praises Petraeus but opposes the promotion, saying it would have a negative impact on the chain of command. He suggests waiting. "I do think that when Petraeus is ready for retirement -- something that I hope will not happen anytime soon -- Congress should consider granting him another star if by that point he has turned around the war in Afghanistan as he did in Iraq," Boot writes on commentarymagazine.com. There are no such concerns from Grady. "It's just the nature of war today," he said. "Gen. Petraeus and Gen. Mattis are on equal footing. ... If Petraeus dropped dead tomorrow, hit by a stray bullet, or retired there is not another unifying force to speak out about the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq. He is the man."[/QUOTE] Source: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/13/petraeus.five.stars/index.html?hpt=Sbin[/url] A 5th star for running wars that should of never been started by the US. Unnecessary, if you ask me :sigh:

Wasn't Petraeus booted? Or am I thinking of McCrystal?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;27445135]A 5th star for running wars that should of never been started by the US. Unnecessary, if you ask me :sigh:[/QUOTE] I don't think Petraeus was the one who decided to have the war. The 5th star should be judged solely by his performance.

[QUOTE=jjsullivan;27445177]Wasn't Petraeus booted? Or am I thinking of McCrystal?[/QUOTE] McCrystal was the one that got booted.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;27445135] A 5th star for running wars that should of never been started by the US. Unnecessary, if you ask me :sigh:[/QUOTE] The man has been doing his job, it's not his job to question the morals of why the war started it's his job to make sure America wins. Fair play to the man if he gets it.

[QUOTE=jjsullivan;27445177]Wasn't Petraeus booted? Or am I thinking of McCrystal?[/QUOTE] General McChrystal was booted (then retired), General Petraeus was the replacement.

[QUOTE=Ccharlton;27445965]The man has been doing his job, it's not his job to question the morals of why the war started it's his job to make sure America wins. Fair play to the man if he gets it.[/QUOTE] Uhhh nobody made him join the military.

I think he should get the 5th star for winning the war, not drawing it out.

Those wars are nothing alike. Eisenhower will roll in his grave if this happens.

[QUOTE=Goberfish;27445317]I don't think Petraeus was the one who decided to have the war. The 5th star should be judged solely by his performance.[/QUOTE] We were fighting a war we didn't need to and we pretty much lost, I'd say his performance was horrid.

[QUOTE=DrMonumbo;27446468]Those wars are nothing alike. Eisenhower will roll in his grave if this happens.[/QUOTE] The type of war back then is a near impossibility now.

So let's just downgrade the scale yeah?

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;27446435]Uhhh nobody made him join the military.[/QUOTE] So due to the fact that he joined on his own free will, he deserves no awards for his service? What are you trying to say here

I think he's doing an excellent job with the situation, but a 5th star? Lets see him turn Afghanistan around.

[QUOTE=Timebomb757;27446808]So due to the fact that he joined on his own free will, he deserves no awards for his service? What are you trying to say here[/QUOTE] I'm saying he's a fucking moron for willingly doing the dirty work of the politicians and can't think for himself.

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;27446898]I'm saying he's a fucking moron for willingly doing the dirty work of the politicians and can't think for himself.[/QUOTE] Holy shit you're dumb.

[QUOTE=Goberfish;27445317]I don't think Petraeus was the one who decided to have the war. The 5th star should be judged solely by his performance.[/QUOTE] Given how long we've been at war, I would say he needs one less star. [editline]16th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;27446898]I'm saying he's a fucking moron for willingly doing the dirty work of the politicians and can't think for himself.[/QUOTE] Military men, generals being most important, should never decide politics. Best he follows orders. Besides, if he doesn't, they'll find someone who will.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;27447067]Given how long we've been at war, I would say he needs one less star.[/QUOTE] You don't understand how this type of war works do you? This whole thread is filled with ignorance to the extreme.

[QUOTE=Explosions;27447086]You don't understand how this type of war works do you? This whole thread is filled with ignorance to the extreme.[/QUOTE] You don't understand that there shouldn't be an ongoing war to begin with, do you?

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;27446898]I'm saying he's a fucking moron for willingly doing the dirty work of the politicians and can't think for himself.[/QUOTE] You're an absolute moron. [editline]15th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;27447181]You don't understand that there shouldn't be an ongoing war to begin with, do you?[/QUOTE] Whether we should be in this war or not, Petraeus has done his job in it to the maximum of his ability.

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;27446435]Uhhh nobody made him join the military.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;27446898]I'm saying he's a fucking moron for willingly doing the dirty work of the politicians and can't think for himself.[/QUOTE] :frog:

[QUOTE=GoldenGnome;27447184] Whether we should be in this war or not, Petraeus has done his job in it to the maximum of his ability.[/QUOTE] If this is his best, why promote him when the war has been so drawn out under his direction?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;27447290]If this is his best, why promote him when the war has been so drawn out under his direction?[/QUOTE] Because these type of wars are drawn out by default! The entire point is getting the Afghan government on its feet and training the National Army. These things takes years to do and, quite frankly, things are going very smoothly. The Taliban have been defeated at every turn and resistance is dying off. I don't see any failure here. Also, Petraeus has been in command in Afghanistan for 6 months out of 10 years of fighting. He is not drawing out the war.

[QUOTE=Explosions;27447362]Because these type of wars are drawn out by default! The entire point is getting the Afghan government on its feet and training the National Army. These things takes years to do and, quite frankly, things are going very smoothly. The Taliban have been defeated at every turn and resistance is dying off. I don't see any failure here. Also, Petraeus has been in command in Afghanistan for 6 months out of 10 years of fighting. He is not drawing out the war.[/QUOTE] Okay, even then so - six months out of 10 years and they want to make him a super general?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;27447290]If this is his best, why promote him when the war has been so drawn out under his direction?[/QUOTE] [highlight]THE WAR ON TERROR CANNOT POSSIBLY BE WON[/highlight] I'm dead serious. This is literally a war against an idea--the idea that the threat of force can bend someone to your will. Sure, there are some true landmarks by which you could call victory. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein, a genocidal man, was killed and the US stayed until there was peace again under the new government. That was a victory. And given enough time, you could also route the terrorist cells out of Afghanistan, stabilize the government, and return the nation to a state of peace. The thing is, there are terrorist cells all over the world. There are cells in Yemen, The UAE, Pakistan, Ireland, The USA, etc. This idea will not die because this idea works. Unstable countries create desperation. And unstable countries can't stop desperate people. Even if the entire world were stable, there would always be dissent. People will fight. That being said, if we can make Afghanistan a better place than when we entered, maybe it will be worth it. I wouldn't say it would be an overall victory. Too much has been lost for that. But some large good must come out of this for it to have been alright.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;27447447]Okay, even then so - six months out of 10 years and they want to make him a super general?[/QUOTE] You just argued that he should get less stars for the war taking so long, and now you're saying that it hasn't been long enough to give him another. I am perplexed.

Holy fucking shit people in this thread are dumb. [editline]15th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=ASmellyOgre;27447604][highlight]THE WAR ON TERROR CANNOT POSSIBLY BE WON[/highlight] I'm dead serious. This is literally a war against an idea--the idea that the threat of force can bend someone to your will. Sure, there are some true landmarks by which you could call victory. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein, a genocidal man, was killed and the US stayed until there was peace again under the new government. That was a victory. And given enough time, you could also route the terrorist cells out of Afghanistan, stabilize the government, and return the nation to a state of peace. The thing is, there are terrorist cells all over the world. There are cells in Yemen, The UAE, Pakistan, Ireland, The USA, etc. This idea will not die because this idea works. Unstable countries create desperation. And unstable countries can't stop desperate people. Even if the entire world were stable, there would always be dissent. People will fight. That being said, if we can make Afghanistan a better place than when we entered, maybe it will be worth it. I wouldn't say it would be an overall victory. Too much has been lost for that. But some large good must come out of this for it to have been alright.[/QUOTE] Yes, you can't destroy every single terrorist cell in the world. However you can keep places from turning into a safe haven for terrorists, for example the Pakistani/Afghan boarder. The only single way to win the war in Afghanistan is to gain the trust of the locals, as hard as that is, we need to route as much Taliban influence in the area as possible. Taliban go to towns just recruiting young boys to become suicide bombers for as little as 5 USD. If we can gain trust with locals, we can win the war, if we don't then we lose. [editline]15th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;27447447]Okay, even then so - six months out of 10 years and they want to make him a super general?[/QUOTE] I never quite remember your posts that much, but I actually thought you were intelligent. Actually it turns out you are pretty dumb. [editline]15th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;27446898]I'm saying he's a fucking moron for willingly doing the dirty work of the politicians and can't think for himself.[/QUOTE] No words can describe the amount of dumb that comes from your face.

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;27446898]I'm saying he's a fucking moron for willingly doing the dirty work of the politicians and can't think for himself.[/QUOTE] Shut your trap and do as you're told, Private.

The idea behind granting him a fith is not only the presitge and "lols" of it, but that as a General of the Armies he will be able to co-ordinate and command the full measure of American armed forces without competing against other generals.

I like how the guy's done mostly nothing and is getting a 5-star rank. Militaries have always done this sort of thing for morale. In WWII, Germany, on the verge of losing, began awarding Marshal ranks and Iron Crosses to soldiers who'd done nothing but support Hitler. This is all for morale. Petraeus in reality probably is the least-skilled of the NATO generals: at least they've done something other than sit on their asses.