0
   

General David Petraeus

 
 
gollum
 
Reply Sun 11 Nov, 2012 03:06 pm
Was he ever assigned to the battlefield where he was in the line of fire?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 1,017 • Replies: 9
No top replies

 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Nov, 2012 05:28 pm
@gollum,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus

gollum
 
  0  
Reply Sun 11 Nov, 2012 07:11 pm
@Butrflynet,
Thank you. I read that article before I posted my question. I think it suggests that he was not directly in harm's way.
Butrflynet
 
  0  
Reply Sun 11 Nov, 2012 11:36 pm
@gollum,
You might want to read it again.

Quote:
Involvement in the Iraq War
101st Airborne Division


Maj. Gen. David H. Petraeus (right), commanding general, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), looks on as Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, V Corps commanding general speaks to soldiers, March 21, 2003, Kuwait.
In 2003, Petraeus, then a Major General, saw combat for the first time when he commanded the 101st Airborne Division during V Corps's drive to Baghdad. In a campaign chronicled in detail by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Rick Atkinson of The Washington Post in the book In the Company of Soldiers, Petraeus led his division through fierce fighting south of Baghdad, in Karbala, Hilla and Najaf. Following the fall of Baghdad, the division conducted the longest heliborne assault on record in order to reach Ninawa Province, where it would spend much of 2003. The 1st Brigade was responsible for the area south of Mosul, the 2nd Brigade for the city itself, and the 3rd Brigade for the region stretching toward the Syrian border.
gollum
 
  0  
Reply Mon 12 Nov, 2012 05:08 am
@Butrflynet,
Thank you. I guess you are right.

But I'm not sure. I've never been in the armed forces. When a major general "leads his troops in combat" does it mean he is standing physically in front of them for the enemy to see and firing his weapon?

I am no longer young and have slowly learned over my life that the way something is described for the public is not always what really happened.
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2012 03:01 pm
@gollum,
You may not want to watch this video but who knows there are all kinds of people out there.


gollum
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2012 04:11 pm
@reasoning logic,
The video is not responsive to the question.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2012 04:15 pm
@gollum,
I somewhat warned you not to watch it but you did anyways so I would say that it was relevant to the question I had in my studies of human behavior.
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2012 05:48 pm
@gollum,
Do you think that the CIA should have different rules than the military that you support?

MAJ-H
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2012 05:46 pm
@reasoning logic,
Yes, the CIA should have differnet rules than the military. The CIA has a different mission assigned to it by Title 50 of the United States Code. The CIA conducts covert operation that the governement can deny. You would not want the miliary to be able to conduct covert missions in foreign lands. The CIA is set up so that all thier mission can by deined by the governement, the United States Military is set up with strict civilian governement oversight. This means that no US troops can conduct operations in a foreign country without first receiving orders from the President of the United States via the Secertary of Defense. This means if a mission is exposed involving the use of military troop the governement can not deny its involement. Now I think the intent of your question was should the CIA and the military have differnet ethic rules since the main point of this blog was the GEN Petraeus story. Now I would like to think that the CIA could operate at the same level of ethical standards as the military, but in this world of crazy fanatics the logical side of me understands why the CIA should have a diffent code of conduct. The military is held to a higher standard for the same reason stated above. The militarys actions are a direct reflection of the Commander and Chief, POTUS. The CIA's actions are not a reflection of the POTUS, but only of the office chief to which the agents report. Now, as all this ethics and standards relate to GEN Petraeus, and this is my opinion as an Army Officer with 21 years of service. What he did as the Director of the CIA was grounds for his removal, because it gave the appearance that the director could be compromised. BUT!! The affair in no way should deminish the great things he did in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is human just like everyone else and makes personal mistakes.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

well that's a thought - Discussion by dyslexia
 
  1. Forums
  2. » General David Petraeus
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/04/2022 at 02:59:50