Petraeus Reveals Son Served in Afghanistan

[Perknose]

My comment for the dim-witted 'What? No comment!' trolls is, "Hypocrisy not found in this soldier."

WASHINGTON -- Challenged by a congressman to "be honest" about how long American troops might have to fight in Afghanistan, Army Gen. David Petraeus revealed that he has a personal stake in ensuring that the U.S. war objectives are met -- his son, Stephen, whose recent combat tour was kept "very quiet."

In an emotional exchange with Rep. Walter B. Jones, R-N.C., Petraeus said, "if I ever felt that we couldn't achieve our objectives," he would be "very forthright" not only with his superiors in the military chain of command but also with President Obama and members of the Congress.
Noting that Obama has said the U.S. will have combat troops out by the end of 2014, with the Afghan government in position to provide its own security, a skeptical Jones said he could imagine a senior military leader coming before Congress in 2015 and pleading for more time and more sacrifice.

"You know, 15, 16, 17 years, for God sakes, how much more can we take, how much more can we give treasure and blood?" Jones asked.

Petraeus replied: "I may not be at this table, probably won't be, in 2015, but I'll tell you that my son is in uniform, and Lieutenant Petraeus just completed a tour in Afghanistan, which thankfully we were able to keep very quiet, and left in November after serving as an infantry platoon leader. We're very proud of what he did. He thinks he was doing something very important."

 

[101mpg]

Wow can't believe this isn't bigger news or I haven't heard about this until now, a week later. This should be bigger news than when Prince Charles was deployed but I guess there is a lot of other news in the world, and America is fascinated now by it's new war in Libya and has lost interest in the longest war in America's history, and Dancing With The Stars just started a new season and all.

 

[Zebo]

It usually takes after war is over for indoctrination to wear off and sometimes even then it doesn't. 2x CMH winner Butler didnt publish war is a racket until 5 years after he retired.

 

[Atreus21]

Always liked Petraeus.

 

[werepossum]

Wow can't believe this isn't bigger news or I haven't heard about this until now, a week later. This should be bigger news than when Prince Charles was deployed but I guess there is a lot of other news in the world, and America is fascinated now by it's new war in Libya and has lost interest in the longest war in America's history, and Dancing With The Stars just started a new season and all.

It was intentionally kept quiet, so as not to make his son and his men a bigger target than your typical troops.

Petraeus is awesome. I really wish he had political ambitions. But then, I suppose if he had political ambitions, he'd be more like the Weasel than himself.

 

[Double Trouble]

Whether you agree with Patraeus or not, he had his own kid in harms way serving the country, unlike most of the usual "filled with hot air" politicians in DC.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Always liked Petraeus.

Yep, if the Afghan war is won under him, he could be the next president (if someone could convince him to run). He turned Iraq around, left and right seem to like him.

 

[Lemon law]

If the son of Petraeus wants a military carer like his father's, he pretty well has to make at least one combat tour.

As for oh double wow. Petraeus is willing to put his own son in harms way may or may not stand the total test of credibility, because some combat duty areas are far more dangerous than others.

But still, Petraeus has proved to be a very able general who also better understands that winning in Afghanistan will involve greatly reducing corruption and Nato caused civilian causalities.

 

[werepossum]

Petraeus is not putting his son in harm's way. People serving in the military are adults who volunteer to forgo their freedom and risk their lives for their country, often at the command of idiots totally unversed in military matters. Implying that children of generals or politicians who do or do not serve are reflections on their parent(s) demeans those who do serve. They are not markers or proxies, but are brave, patriotic individuals on their own merits.

It does speak well of Petraeus though that his son was inspired to follow him into harm's way though.

 

[Lemon law]

As for the question of a Petraeus for Prez movement, I agree its possible and he is popular.
But do not credit Petraeus for turning around Iraq. That was really caused by the Sunni awakening project, but then again, Petraeus sure knew how to exploit the reduced violence. Nor should we put Iraq in the Win column yet, Iraqi stability is miles wide but not over a half inch deep.

But sadly, I doubt Petraeus will turn Afghanistan around, too little funding for economic development, too few troops, no Nato ability to hold any captured gains, and in every sense, too little too late. Come 2014, its unlikely that Afghanistan will look any better.

 

[ichy]

But sadly, I doubt Petraeus will turn Afghanistan around, too little funding for economic development, too few troops, no Nato ability to hold any captured gains, and in every sense, too little too late.

There's also the problem of Afghanistan's utterly backward and barbaric culture. They're stuck in the dark ages, and as much as I'd love to drag them kicking and screaming out of their ignorance and into the modern world that is impossible.

 

[Double Trouble]

Petraeus is not putting his son in harm's way. People serving in the military are adults who volunteer to forgo their freedom and risk their lives for their country, often at the command of idiots totally unversed in military matters. Implying that children of generals or politicians who do or do not serve are reflections on their parent(s) demeans those who do serve. They are not markers or proxies, but are brave, patriotic individuals on their own merits.

It does speak well of Petraeus though that his son was inspired to follow him into harm's way though.

Yeah, it's true that those serving are independent adults that have made the choice to serve. The point isn't that they are somehow proxies, it's just to show that someone like Patraeus isn't just making decisions with other people's lives on the line, he's personally got skin in the game. It makes him more credible in terms of his actions to direct the war effort.

 

[RbSX]

Wow can't believe this isn't bigger news or I haven't heard about this until now, a week later. This should be bigger news than when Prince Charles was deployed but I guess there is a lot of other news in the world, and America is fascinated now by it's new war in Libya and has lost interest in the longest war in America's history, and Dancing With The Stars just started a new season and all.

Prince Harry you mean? Charles is his father.

 

[f1sherman]

Always liked Petraeus.

Always thought the guy was A Phony Hero for a Phony War

 

[waggy]

Always liked Petraeus.

i do too. only issue i have is that he had the affair. other then that i respect the guy.

 

[bononos]

Always thought the guy was A Phony Hero for a Phony War

He wrote the counterinsurgency manual and tamed the troubles in Iraq/Afghanistan sufficiently for US to pull out...

 

[Lemon law]

If General Petraeus is the best idea the US military can come up with, that is exactly explains why the US military manages to win every war and then manages to lose every peace. Thereby managing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory ONCE AGAIN.

Ya hoorah, we have discredited another US general with a trivial stupid sex scandal, and Al-Quida are dancing in the streets saying thank you US politicians. As we can assured someone even more clueless will replace Petraeus.

As it will occur to none off us, that once the US military wins a war, it becomes the job of US politicians to WIN THE PEACE. A peace that cannot be won when we support a corrupt Karzai government who are nothing but drug dealing thugs that caused the rise of the Taliban in the first place.

 

[yllus]

He wrote the counterinsurgency manual and tamed the troubles in Iraq/Afghanistan sufficiently for US to pull out...

That is extremely debatable.

 

[chucky2]

I can not imagine why you continue to write on matters involving the military. It has been shown time and time again, you are utterly enable to grasp such things and/or are just flat out wrong.

Get this straight: In todays landscape, the military is not allowed to 'keep the peace' post conflict, in scenarios where keeping the peace is actually needed. They are not given the manpower, tools, or leeway to do so. It is, by far and large, not their fault things devolve into sh1t once they roll through.

Blame the people whose fault it actually is, Politicians (which includes State), for f*cking things up.

Chuck