Deconstructing a curmudgeon

Many military readers are familiar with Ralph Peters. A forward-looking theorist who has the street cred of time spent in uniform, Peters writes both fiction and non-fiction, and is widely read in the defense establishment. But that doesn't mean he's on target. Armchair Generalist recently peeled apart a Peters column and the results weren't the prettiest:

Ralph Peters is an amusing commentator. When he writes in the New York Post, he really lets loose with his fiery opinion. When he writes in the USA Today, he dials it back. And so now we have this slightly flammable piece where he opines on President-elect Barack Obama's foreign policy positions and how fast Obama will have to backtrack on them.

What follows is the excerpted Peters column, with Armchair Generalist's comments in brackets

The president-elect has pledged prompt troop withdrawals, and his base expects him to act. But he won't want to be seen as the "man who lost Iraq" [no, that would be GW Bush] and who reversed al-Qaeda's strategic catastrophe. Obama is fortunate that the improved security situation will, indeed, allow substantial withdrawals. Even so, troops in significant numbers will need to remain for years [years as in two] to guarantee gains.
Even if President Obama ordered an immediate, total withdrawal [which he hasn't suggested], dismantling our effort and moving out of Iraq would be a huge logistical undertaking: It will take years to dismantle what it took years to build up [actually, we could do it under a year and give the rest to Iraq]. And our actions must be calculated to guarantee the gains made at such great cost [which was levied by Bush].
During his presidential campaign, Obama made ambitious claims about this region, vowing to capture Osama bin Laden [and that was bad?]. Should the arch-terrorist be killed or captured, it will result from an intelligence break, not a campaign promise [it sure won't be as a result of Bush's priorities]. Obama also has vowed to do a better job at winning in Afghanistan than President Bush has [again, not a high hurdle]. But Afghanistan presents even deeper problems than did Iraq: It will take a generational commitment to ameliorate them, and they'll never be fully solved [especially not at 1/5th the funding of Iraqi operations]. You don't win in Afghanistan — you just make sure your enemies don't win, either [more air strikes!]. Although engagement in Afghanistan and Pakistan remains essential, the key is to have realistic expectations of what can be achieved [that's assuming that one has a realistic strategy from which to build objectives].

By: Brant