By Delaena Kalevor
On Friday November 9 2012, Gen. David Petraeus resigned as CIA director amid a sex scandal with his biographer. The retired 4-star general and husband of 37 years expressed his remorse and poor judgment in indulging in this extra-marital affair. Even though I greatly admire Gen. Petraeus, I agree he did not conduct himself properly.
However, I am not here to pass moral judgment on his character - after all no one is perfect. Rather, I would like to address his intelligence, candor and leadership; and highlight some of the management lessons that myself and other aspiring thought leaders can draw from his life. In my eyes, Petraeus is still a great soldier and I don’t care what conversation you’re having; but when you mention the likes of Dwight Eisenhower, Vo Nguyen Giap, Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf, you should mention Petraeus. I’d hate for his otherwise stellar career to be defined by this single act of indiscretion and weakness.
Gen. Petraeus pretty much wrote the script on the US army’s counter-insurgency strategy during the Afghan and Iraqi wars. While, Donald Rumsfeld was blindly carrying on a bloody war of attrition against the Taliban/Iraqi insurgents, Petraeus was quietly but resolutely advocating his counter-insurgency strategy. Rumsfeld’s strategy was apparently to kill as many Taliban as possible to rid Afghanistan of their influence. That strategy of using overwhelming military might to break the enemy’s will is hardly effective. If it was, the U.S. would have defeated North Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap during the Vietnam War. The U.S. dropped more than 7 million tons of bombs on Vietnam and Cambodia during the war (more the twice the tonnage deployed during World War II) yet Saigon fell to General Giap and communist North Vietnam; eventually marking their victory over the United States.
By the same token, America’s overwhelming military might, even though it killed hundreds of thousands of people, was doing little to break the Taliban and the die-hard Iraqi insurgents. At the risk of being isolated from the Pentagon and appearing as a renegade general, Petraeus continued to advocate his counter-insurgency strategy. At a point, he was even assigned to train the Iraqi army – a move apparently intended to punish him for his independent thinking. I say this because, in a war this important to US Foreign policy, being assigned to a training position (instead of a combat position) could be interpreted as a punitive measure. A training position such as this definitely seemed like a dead-end job.
Still, Petraeus continued to push for his ideas. He had the moral courage to fight for his ideas and he used a rare combination of persistence, tact, ambition, intelligence and humility to forcefully drive them home. Because he was an intellectual, he had thought things through for himself, come to the conclusion that the Pentagon approach was wrong and he had the confidence to push for the right ideas. This is Thought leadership!
His big break came when President Obama appointed him Commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan to replace General Stanley McChrystal. As commander of NATO forces, Petraeus now had the leeway to implement his counter-insurgency strategy. Instead of carrying on a war of attrition, he started to build relationships with Afghan tribal leaders in the hostile countryside.
NATO patrols, which hitherto involved raiding Afghan villages to interrogate suspected insurgents, had a complete overhaul. Petraeus recognized that the insurgents had infiltrated the civilian population and had embedded themselves among them. So instead of raids, NATO patrols involved visiting tribal leaders to ask about how "things were going", "what they needed", "whether they needed a well drilled for drinking water", etc. Petraeus gained the trust of the communities as a result and the insurgency started to decline. The strategy simply involved three steps: clear, hold and build - isolating the insurgents by gaining the trust of civilians; consolidating the trust and securing the area; and building infrastructure and institutions to help the people.
His counter-insurgency strategy was the turning point in the coalition’s success in Afghanistan and Iraq. He literally won the war for NATO without as many casualties. Sun Tzu, would have applauded Gen. Petraeus. To paraphrase the great Sun Tzu, sheer military might alone does not necessarily convey an advantage in warfare.
The great Gandhi, decimated the mighty British empire without a single violent act. And I say Gandhi decimated the empire because that is my interpretation - India was the British crown's most prized possession. It was vast, densely populated and it had a great civilization. As soon as they (the Brits) lost India in 1947, they lost most of their other colonies (including my home country, Ghana) in rapid succession. So Gandhi did destroy the once mighty British empire. Again, Sun Tzu would've applauded Gandhi. Winning a war is not about killing people. It's about winning them over - breaking their will, mentally. And this is exactly what Petraeus tried to do with his counter-insurgency strategy.
In conclusion, despite his moral weaknesses, Petraeus is still a great leader. The greatest of his generation. He should be remembered for his great deeds not his indiscretion.
No comments:
Post a Comment