The Redhunter

Redhunter,

Do you believe that in 2007 Gen. Petraeus had more of an effect on more people than Valdimir Putin?

Time's designation is not one given to the person who did the most good, it is given to the person who had the most influence.

As much as I admire Gen. Petraeus, he executes policy, he does not make it, and his good works have little impact beyond the borders of Iraq and to a lesser extent the United States.

Loop Garoo

Thank you for stopping by. I understand why you think that Putin deserves TIME's "Person of the Year" more than Petraeus. It's certainly an argueable point. And they did choose Petraeus as a runner-up, so it's not as if they ignored him.

I did address your concerns and questions in my post, though.

I realize that TIME's designation does not go to the person who did the most good but is given to the person who has the most influence - and I said so in the post.

Petraeus did more than just "execute policy" - read the post. In 2006 he authored and edited the U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual, which provided much of the basis for the "surge" strategy. If that doesn't count as influence I don't know what does. Of course the president ultimately gives the final orders, but by that logic only heads of state could ever get the "person of the year" award.

I disagree about the impact of Iraq - again reread the post and follow the links. What happens in Iraq influences not only Iraq, but the entire world. This is so because everyone is waiting to see if we can win or lose. If we lose then nations will see that we are the "weak horse" and will make their accomodations with the jihadists. China will be emboldened, etc.

Again, though, it's certainly arguable that Putin had more influence than Petraeus. And since it's not math, ultimately it's a matter of opinion. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Tom

Brooke quoted Time as stating the following (emphases mine):

He stands, above all, for stability—stability before freedom, stability before choice, stability in a country that has hardly seen it for a hundred years. Whether he becomes more like the man for whom his grandfather prepared blinis—who himself was twice TIME's Person of the Year—or like Peter the Great, the historical figure he most admires; whether he proves to be a reformer or an autocrat who takes Russia back to an era of repression—this we will know only over the next decade. At significant cost to the principles and ideas that free nations prize, he has performed an extraordinary feat of leadership in imposing stability on a nation that has rarely known it and brought Russia back to the table of world power. For that reason, Vladimir Putin is TIME's 2007 Person of the Year.

Therefore, I don't believe that Putin was a good choice for person of the year. While he may have brought stability to Russia, certain of his policies are not to be commended.

PS: Somewhere today I read that Stalin was Time's Man of the Year in 1942. Hmmmmm.....

Tom,

I apologize b/c I have limited time and do not visit regularly.

But here is the bottom line. What is victory in Iraq? I will adopt for the nonce, Dr. Washburn's definition of a stable democracy in Iraq. I may be paraphrasing but that is close enough.

The problem as I perceive it is that we, Gen. Petraeus, walking point, can only do so much. The political solution is up to the Iraqis. I have no confidence that the Iraqis will succeed in this.
I will expound later or again if you wish. But I think this was the major mistake in investing so much in Iraq. The Iraqis were bound to drop the ball. Therefore we become the weak horse b/c we tied the success of the mission to someone other than ourselves.

I ponder wheter we would have been better served to invade the tribal area of Pakistan and either have killed or captured OBL or flushed him to noher even more remote haunt.

Regards.

Always on Watch: Thank you for stopping by. You're right, Stalin did win it in 1942. Here's there complete list. Their rational is that they choose the most influential person, regardless of whether that influence was used for good or ill.

Loop Garoo; no need to apologize, everything's cool.

I'd say victory can be defined as creating a stable, secure Iraq, that is moving towards creating a pluralistic society with some degree of liberty.

You are right that we can only do so much in Iraq. The point of the "surge" strategy was to create a secure environment in which political progress can take place. Maybe the Iraqis will take advantage of this and move forward in an acceptable manner and maybe they won't. I think there's enough of a chance that they will that victory is worth pursuing - especially given the horrendous consequences of defeat.

As for going into Waziristan or Balochistan (the border area of Pakistan), instead of having gone into Iraq, here are my thoughts

1) What's done is done so arguing "instead of" is irrelevant. We are where we are.

2) Going into Pakistan at all would be like throwing gasoline onto a fire and hoping for a smooth result. I know you're familiar with internals of Pakistan so I won't bore you, but an invasion would ignite the Islamists to an extent that the Army might not be able to control (or might not want to control). Musharraf sits precariously on his perch and could be easily overthrown in the ensuing melee. The next government might be very unfriendly.

As you also know, the only practical way for us to get into Afghanistan is through Pakistan, so if we lose Pakistan it's going to be some awefully tough sledding just getting in and out of Afghanistan.

Lastly, there's no guarantee that even the entire 10th Mountain divisiion could find OBL in that place. And keeping any number of troops supplied in that area would be hell (logistics rules everything).

So what do we do about OBL, if he is in the Waziristan/Balochistan region? Sigh. Obviously what we've been doing is tryig to get the Paks to do it and they've failed, so I'm open to ideas. My thoughs are along the lines of what we're probably doing now; working through proxies. I imagine we've got black ops guys trying to buy off the local Sheiks and all that. It obviously hasn't worked but might eventually.

I just think that an overt attack into Pakistan would have the effect of throwing the country into a civil war or revolution, and it doesn't even have much chance of catching OBL. It's just too easy for him to hide.

But that's just my .02