Home » News » A Fifth Star for General Petraeus

A Fifth Star for General Petraeus

by Ward Carroll on January 13, 2011

On a cold December evening in 1783 at Fraunces Tavern in lower Manhattan, Gen. George Washington bade farewell to his staff and resigned his command of the Continental Army. One hundred ninety three years later, on America’s Bicentennial, Congress posthumously promoted Washington to five-star “General of the Armies of the United States.”

Washington led the Continental Army against the British for eight years, the longest tenure for a combatant (wartime) commander in our history to be awarded a fifth star. But David Petraeus, who begins his eighth year as a combatant commander (presently as theatre commander in Afghanistan), will soon eclipse Washington’s tenure. In appropriate recognition of his long and extraordinary wartime service, the new Congress should authorize a fifth star for Gen. Petraeus, thereby promoting him to “General of the Army”—just below Washington’s rank of “General of the Armies” (plural).

After George Washington, the only other five-star “General of the Armies of the United States” was John Pershing, who was promoted to the rank after commanding U.S. forces in World War I. The nine remaining five star generals in our history were branch-specific commanders during World War II: Gens. Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, George Marshall, Omar Bradley and Henry Arnold were each “General of the Army.” Navy Adms. Chester Nimitz, William Halsey, Ernest King and William Leahy served as five-star “Fleet Admirals.” Each of these officers received the honor during wartime, with the exception of Halsey, who was awarded the fifth star three months after World War II ended, and Bradley, who was awarded his fifth star in 1950.

Like these great leaders, Gen. Petraeus’s breath of experience and outstanding results deserve to be recognized and honored. His wartime tenure began as the Commanding General of the 101st Airborne Division, responsible for over 10,000 combat troops during the initial invasion of Iraq. He led the 101st in an airborne assault into northern Iraq and then quieted the city of Mosul.

Gen. Petraeus then oversaw the creation and training of the new Iraqi Army, a Herculean task that was accomplished amid a rapidly deteriorating security situation. By the time he was through, he had stood up, equipped and trained over 100,000 Iraqi soldiers. They would be crucial in winning the peace in the years to follow.

In 2005, Gen. Petraeus led the Army’s command responsible for education and doctrine at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. There he wrote the Army’s manual on counterinsurgency operations. His COIN manual was the blueprint for the upcoming troop “surge,” which saved Iraq from the brink of calamity.

Gen. Petraeus left Fort Leavenworth in 2007 to take his new playbook to Iraq, where he became commander of coalition forces. He engineered one of the most stunning turnarounds in the history of modern warfare. Within 18 months, the general and his troops defeated al Qaeda in Anbar, ended a civil war in Baghdad, sealed porous borders with Iran and Syria, and created a sense of normalcy in Iraq.

After succeeding in the face of near-unanimous doubt, Gen. Petraeus was promoted to commander of Central Command in 2008, where he would oversee a two-front war in Iraq and Afghanistan. His tour at Centcom was cut short, however, when President Barack Obama asked him to replace the dismissed Gen. Stanley McCrystal in Afghanistan. It was a step down on the career ladder for Gen. Petraeus — but he was the president’s last hope to turn around Afghanistan. Demonstrating classic statesmanship, Gen. Petraeus relinquished his more prestigious post at Centcom.

The U.S. war against terrorism is now the longest war in U.S. history, and Gen. Petraeus has clearly distinguished himself as a leader worthy of joining the ranks of Gens. MacArthur, Marshall and Nimitz. A promotion would properly honor his service — and it would also honor the troops he leads and has led. Today’s soldiers have fought as valiantly as any in American history, and they deserve recognition of their leaders. Congressional approval of a fifth star would demonstrate the nation’s commitment to their mission.

David Petraeus is also a Soldier-statesmen who works with foreign diplomats and generals in hotspots across the globe. The prestige that would come with a fifth star would also likely help the U.S. in its negotiations with neighboring states — and show the enemies of freedom that we are fully committed to the war against terrorism.

It has been more than half a century since a U.S. general was awarded a fifth star. David Petraeus’s generalship has spanned 11 years, three presidents and seven Congresses. It is time to promote him to “General of the Army” and award him a fifth star. Our military deserves it, and he has certainly earned it.

(This op-ed originally appeared in today’s Wall Street Journal.)

– Pete Hegseth and Wade Zirkle, Veterans for Freedom

Share |

{ 106 comments… read them below or add one }

David H January 13, 2011 at 9:54 am

They want to put him in the white house.

Reply

Tim Parker January 13, 2011 at 9:57 am

He has deserved his fifth star. Mr. President, Commander in Chief. Please promote this Solider.Gallantly he has showed the world that he is a specially selected and well trained solider.

Reply

Bill Davis January 13, 2011 at 5:37 pm

Tim Parker…….. Please learn to spell "Soldier"

Reply

Benilda Robles February 2, 2013 at 2:56 am

Yes he is! He well deserve it.

Reply

peter gonzales January 13, 2011 at 9:58 am

Well, the general certainly has the credentials. History will be his final judge. As this promotion is in all reality one of great honor he deserves that at least. In a way he is much like General Bradley, a true soldiers general. Like Eisenhower he was able to keep the coalition together, like Marshall he is certainly a statesman. So why not honor him. There is no real argument to be made against it unless you feel jealousy for some other 4 star that you think should be equally honored and I cannot think of any at this time.

Reply

Robert January 13, 2011 at 3:18 pm

Here is an argument Pete:

To compare Petraeus to Ike, Bradley, MacArthur, or Marshall is ridiculous. If not Swartrzkoff, Franks, or Powell, then certainly not someone who basically bought off his worst enemies (Sunni tribes in Iraq) and we haven't seen anything in Afghanistan resemble complete victory as we saw from WWII. We may very well never see a clear-cut victory over Muslim extremist/terrorists – and while that may not put Petraeus in the same category as Westmoreland or Abrams (from Vietnam), this outcome in Iraq/Afghanistan doesn't exactly stack up as worthy of 5 stars either. Maybe we should posthumously give a 5th star to George Patton and Mark Clark (WWII) and Matthew Ridgeway (Korea) as well if Petraeus gets one.

Reply

Evan January 13, 2011 at 10:01 am

Not a bad idea, Petraeus for POTUS 2012. Obama would have to bow out and plead no contest.

Reply

Kris Alexander January 14, 2011 at 9:44 am

You're assuming that 1) that's the way the GEN actually thinks. 2) That his policies would be all that different from Obama's. Both are a stretch.

Reply

Jeff Fraser January 15, 2011 at 4:08 am

I'd vote for him.

Reply

tperk789 January 13, 2011 at 10:26 am

A great soldier – just shows how valuable he is in the field. Taking the step down from Centcom to theater commander; and it must be hard to have to deal with tribal-chiefs and sheiks who are far more shiftier than the most crooked American politician you could think of. He should have got his fifth-star long ago for having to smile and hand out money to those turds.

Reply

Doubtom January 13, 2011 at 10:55 am

For a campaign that consisted mainly of dealing under the table with our tax money to keep various factions of a totally screwed up country from attacking us, maybe we should create a brand new rank of Generalissimo of the Treasury.
This smacks too much of decorating a future presidential candidate to condition the American public to accept that we have to have a more knowledgeable commander in chief, especially if we're going to start all these endless and illegal wars based on lies. What's one more lie ?

Reply

Defense Tech January 13, 2011 at 11:14 am

Good catch, Army. We corrected the graphic. Thanks.

Reply

shane010 January 13, 2011 at 11:16 am

I think that General Petraeus has earned his fifth star. He took his ideas turned Iraq around and when asked to give up a higher position for a lesser one so that maybe they can get this Afghanistan thing under control and so hopefully they will be able to pull out of this country soon. Like some of the other comments made; he is just a well rounded leader and has planed these events that soldiers on the ground had to carry out. General Petraeus has spent too much time trying to defend this country to not be honored by a fifth star.

Reply

Oblat January 13, 2011 at 11:22 am

After losing Iraq to the Iranians and Afghanistan to the ISI it seems only appropriate that Patreus wears his 5 stars upside down.

But no the Republicans will just have to run with Palin in 2012, what a gift to comedians that will be.

Reply

Strange January 13, 2011 at 11:28 am

the level of complexity and matching strategy and tactics does

Reply

FormerDirtDart January 13, 2011 at 11:46 am

Pershing was never a five-star "General of the Armies of the United States." Pershing wore 4 gold stars.
Similarly, Washington has never been a "five-star General." The 1976 legislation and promotion orders never mention or suggest the five-star rank. Some have suggested that as the legislations intention is to firmly state that George Washington is the highest ranked soldier of the United States military, past or present, that his rank is more equivalent to the six-star "General of the Armies" put forward, but never adopted, for MacArthur at the end of WWII.

Reply

George Gauthier January 13, 2011 at 11:48 am

Sorrry, but the five star rank in WW II was reserved for the very highest echelon. Even generals in command of army groups like Bradley and Devers did not get that rank. The forces General Petraeus commands amount to a corps at best.

Reply

Ed! January 13, 2011 at 2:30 pm

For starters, Bradley gained his 5th star after the war in direct acknowledgment of his service. The 5 star rank is reserved in such cases as the commanding general needs to have the same or higher rank of the generals of our allies. Therefore if there is a 4-star or 5-star General in the command structure for NATO or ISAF, then it could be possible to have Petraeus as a 5-star General. That is the direct citation for the rank.

Reply

armyhistorian January 13, 2011 at 11:57 am

No. The Army had 8.3 million soldiers at the end of World War II – today's numbers and size of the conflict don't justify the rank.

By the way, the rank is upside down in the graphic.

Reply

FormerDirtDart January 13, 2011 at 11:48 am

the rank isn't upside down, it's just completely wrong. If flipped over it would still be incorrect.

Reply

bomb it May 15, 2013 at 12:39 pm

by the way no its not. look at some books or google it. But anyway your full of crap.
Patraeus deserves this just because he has more soldiers now doesn't mean anything. He still had to do the same things all the other generals did. the only difference is he has been better at it and can hold his own and hasnt stepped down or quit on us like everyone else. Get your facts straight or shut the hell up

Reply

TMB January 13, 2011 at 12:18 pm

Under our current system of armed forces, there are at least 3 other officers that Petraeus has to call "sir" by virtue of his current assignment. Regardless of sentiment, he can't outrank them.

Reply

Jack January 13, 2011 at 1:22 pm

Poor logic. Wsahington was 5 stars because it was an honor to him. The others were 5 stars due to a war of multinational forces who had 4 stars. Those otheres needed 5 in order to retain command.

Rank is not a reward like a medal or for long service. you don't get it just because you survived long enough…well…maybe you do ;-)

Still if the Army wants to…fine, but do it for better reasons then these.

Reply

brian January 13, 2011 at 12:23 pm

The 5th Star is about bringing rank parity between US general and allied forces whom have officers of equiv rank, its generally not a honorarium. Generally speaking the 6th Star is the honorarium rank, thats the Rank of Washington and Blackjack Pershing.

If you want to honor the man, give what he needs to win the war and don't bring him into politics. He's too good of a man to sully with that nonsense.

Reply

Moose January 13, 2011 at 12:32 pm

If he were to receive the 5th star it would more likely be his retirement rank, as it was with Halsey.

From a practical standpoint, having a 5-star in the field while Gen. Cassey sits on the Joint Chiefs with 4 is pretty unlikely. You gotta remember that as ISAF/USFOR-A commander he's technically lower in the chain of command than when he commanded CENTCOM.

Reply

Rusten Currie January 13, 2011 at 12:50 pm

The most obvious reason why he won't get it is simply because it is not warranted. His service and value to America's Army is beyond question. However as previously stated, the numbers and intensity of this conflict despite its duration do not warrant such a promotion. Aside from the fact that the CoS Army, cannot be outranked by a subordinate, the military simply doesn't work that way. I do think that a senior rank or a differet title would be appropriate, such as Field Marshall, yes quite Germanic, but…

Reply

YN1(SS) January 13, 2011 at 1:05 pm

Just because someone has been a general for 11 years does not mean that he should be given a fifth star. I do not know the exact date but would venture a very educated guess that ADM Mullen was promoted to RADM in about 1993. That would mean that he has been a flag officer for over 17 years. No one is clamoring for his promotion to Fleet Admiral. And remember, Gen. Patreus is junior to Adm. Mullen by at least two slots. No, being the commander of CENTCOM and then stepping down to bail out the President in Afghanistan is not deserving of a fifth star.

Reply

chaos0xomega January 13, 2011 at 1:25 pm

I have to agree. I have nothing but respect for General Petraeus, and would love to see the 5 star ranks reinstated, but I don't think the circumstances call for it being awarded to him. I don't want to say it, but for lack of a better phrase, he doesn't deserve it.

Reply

purpleslog January 13, 2011 at 1:28 pm

Don't forget about 5-Star-ish Admiral of the Navy George Dewey.

Reply

Lane January 13, 2011 at 1:40 pm

Point and match, well put

Reply

Daniel January 13, 2011 at 1:47 pm

I think he deserves to be promoted to the rank of a five-star general;his records are incredible and is worthy of emulation.Kudos!!! to you,Sir.

Reply

daskins January 13, 2011 at 1:51 pm

…county sheriffs & chiefs-of-police all across America are now routinely displaying a rank of 4-Gold-Stars — so real military Generals should at least have 5-Stars or more.

{..or perhaps cops shouldn’t be sporting military Flag-rank at all ??}

Reply

Robert January 13, 2011 at 3:12 pm

Yes, their funerals have taken on a military honor status as well. None of our troops ever got a funeral like the cops in Lakewood, Wa got (they were gunned down drinking coffee).

I would bet there are some police chiefs out there already who are wearing 5 stars.

Reply

stark0311 January 14, 2011 at 9:04 am

You two are actually comparing the rank insignia and rank structure of the federal armed forces with those of municipal law enforcement agencies? Very different groups serving different purposes based on different authorities. The comparison is irrelevant.

Reply

Jameson January 13, 2011 at 1:52 pm

Defense Tech: Henry Arnold was also General of the Air Force. That is a five star rank. You may want to include that.

Reply

Allen June 24, 2011 at 1:58 am

Jameson…well, "not exactly".

Henry "Hap" Arnold achieved his fifth star and permanent rank as a "General of the Army" on 23 March, 1946. He retired 30 June, 1946. His WWII rank was as a temporary five-star general in the U.S. Army Air Corps.

The USAF was established as a separate military branch of our military on 18 September, 1947. Congress nominated, and President Truman approved, Arnold's rank as General of the U.S. Air Force (again, five stars) on 7 May, 1949.
At that point, largely honorific, but reflecting his great service in WWII.

Not that you have, but others on this site, have raised and used the term "General of the Armies", suggesting such title having five stars. Not so. General of the Armies (plural) has never been bestowed in war-time. Only two men (later) have earned six stars: Washington and Pershing.

"General of the Army" (singular) is the correct term for the five-star rank.

From a Second Lieutentant, 11B10, (Infantry) during the Vietnam Era…

Allen Brandstater

Reply

Brian Black January 13, 2011 at 2:22 pm

If the US had a proper honours system, you wouldn’t have the problem of having to dish out military ranks, or diplomatic posts, in order to recognize an individual’s achievements.

In the UK there are (I think) six orders of knights. Across the six orders, excluding Royal Knights, there are eleven attainable ranks of knighthood, ranging from the humble ‘Knight Commander of The Most Excellent Order of The British Empire (KBE), to the grand ‘Knight of The Most Noble Order of The Garter’ (KG).

Reply

Dave January 19, 2011 at 6:43 pm

US Constitution: Article. I. Section. 9. Paragraph. 8.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Reply

Jacob January 13, 2011 at 2:31 pm

I dunno, I think this whole 5-star business should have been put off until we know how Afghanistan turns out. It's like declaring victory prematurely.

Reply

jsallison January 13, 2011 at 10:02 pm

Since we're not likely to see a hundred division army ever again depending on size of the force to determine necessity for 5 star flag rankers isn't going to work. More to the point what was the scope of MacArthur's responsibilities (we'll let the argument that he should have been left a retired brigadier in Manila aside, the bonus army bastage) ? Eisenhower's? King's? Marshall's? As a theater commander I could see the point, but, you'd also have to promote everyone above him in the food chain otherwise he just became chairman of the joint chiefs. And all the joint chiefs get the 5th star, as well to keep the pecking order intact. Do we really need to go there?

Reply

Sarge January 13, 2011 at 2:34 pm

But who will take his place he is the best of the best all of the other good generals have bailed. Give it to him but for the right reasons not for the president to get another photo opt.

Reply

GusGus January 13, 2011 at 2:47 pm

He's done a good job but doesn't deserve to be a 5 star, he doesn't come close to any of the previous 5 stars, but todays military hands out awards like they're goin outta style.

Reply

Raymond P Gallagher January 13, 2011 at 2:54 pm

Many of the reasons NOT to award the rank stated by earlier postings are very compelling and correct. Size of force commanded, overseeing the bribing of foreign personnel, type of warfare being conducted….WWII almost 4 years, multiple battlefronts vs a sand box.

BUT…..I might be inclined to agree if we saw results.

How about Osama Bin Ladens head on a plate before a star is given out. Adolph Hitler did not last as long as this six foot plus target with a regular need for dialysis has. What is taking so long? Saudi Arabia still calling the shots?

Reply

Retread Sarge January 13, 2011 at 3:04 pm

I didn't know we had "won" in Iraq…they look about as stable as Afghanistan right now and we sure as hell haven't won over there and will never get out the way things are looking now.

Reply

Belesari January 13, 2011 at 10:04 pm

Yea because The government in kabul controls the country and has a proffessional army that is conducting a major counter insurgency. All the while witnessing the withdrawl of US and Coalition forces.

Afghanistan is as stable or more stable than most governments in the region. In many places it would be in a outright civil war atm it isnt even with political instability.

Reply

alex January 14, 2011 at 4:10 am

Really? Kabul is in charge? Of the opium crop, maybe. Where on earth do you get your information, and can I borrow your rose-tinted glasses?

Reply

crackedlenses January 14, 2011 at 10:22 am

He's got a point. Right now Afghanistan has a government and is not embroiled in a civil war. The other countries around Afghanistan would have ceased to exist if they had been in Afghanistan's shoes…..

Reply

Robert January 13, 2011 at 3:09 pm

To compare Petraeus to Ike, Bradley, MacArthur, or Marshall is ridiculous. If not Swartrzkoff, Franks, or Powell, then certainly not someone who basically bought off his worst enemies (Sunni tribes in Iraq) and we haven't seen anything in Afghanistan resemble complete victory as we saw from WWII. We may very well never see a clear-cut victory over Muslim extremist/terrorists – and while that may not put Petraeus in the same category as Westmoreland or Abrams (from Vietnam), this outcome in Iraq/Afghanistan doesn't exactly stack up as worthy of 5 stars either. Maybe we should posthumously give a 5th star to George Patton and Mark Clark (WWII) and Matthew Ridgeway (Korea) as well if Petraeus gets one.

Reply

rob January 13, 2011 at 4:41 pm

OK, I know this is knit-picky, but this single sentence destroys any credibility for the argument that might have otherwise been present in the article. "Like these great leaders, Gen. Petraeus’s breath of experience and outstanding results deserve to be recognized and honored." A person has "breadth" of experience, not "breath".

Also, as someone else has already pointed out, Pershing never wore 5 stars, he wore 4 gold stars. Though his title, as well as Washington's "General of the Armies" technically outranks the "General of the Army" 5 stars, making them equivalent to a 6-star general, as was Dewey as the "Admiral of the Navy".

Reply

Wells January 13, 2011 at 6:14 pm

hed do a petter job president than Obama

Reply

Clive January 14, 2011 at 3:22 am

Like that'd be difficult.

Reply

Greg January 14, 2011 at 11:46 am

Yea our last 2 republican presidents ere sooo much better then Obama. Please give me a break.

Reply

crackedlenses January 14, 2011 at 12:39 pm

Yes, actually they are. I take it you approve of what Obama has done, or at least blame it all on those before him…..

Reply

Onrappel January 15, 2011 at 2:09 am

Nooooooo they’re not. It is what it is. Bush-Obama. Make the comparison. Anyhow the thread was about Petreaus a fellow Screaming Eagle. Stop trolling Wells.

Nadnerbus January 13, 2011 at 6:25 pm

Oblat is just here to make comments to get the rest of our panties in a bunch. I'm not sure if he really believes what he says, but regardless, the aim of his comments is clearly troll bait and not legit debate.

Though personally, if Palin gets a nomination nod, the Republicans are in trouble.

Reply

crackedlenses January 13, 2011 at 10:10 pm

If people hate Obama enough they'll vote for her; that's the main reason she and McCain got votes in the first place……

Reply

rymac January 15, 2011 at 1:41 pm

Must be a DAC or former DAC. AH

Reply

Ron January 13, 2011 at 9:05 pm

The General maybe deserving but not now. Should they decided to have a five star general that star should be given to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Then when they replace General Mullen his replacement should be promoted to five star and all Chairman after that.

Reply

Robert January 13, 2011 at 9:48 pm

I would love to see this happen. Having served under him during my time in Iraq, I would love to see his abilities rewarded with a 5th star. We went through numerous commanders before he came along and actually got things done.

Reply

Belesari January 13, 2011 at 9:52 pm

……..I love all ya'll shit suckers here who have decided to tell everyone "this isn't war!"

Bet its a war to the men fighting and dying in it.

Whether he deserves 5 stars-note he probably doesnt give a shit-or not isn't my call to make. Is he a good general? Seems like it. Let the military decide.

But please dont act like this isnt a real war. It is its more complex politicaly, militarily and culturaly than most wars we've been in.

Reply

crackedlenses January 13, 2011 at 10:17 pm

You make an excellent point. This isn't really a war against governments and organized militaries; this is a war with Islamic terrorists who are just about everywhere…..

Reply

Belesari January 13, 2011 at 11:28 pm

Hell thats the bad part there ARE governments involved from Iran to others who are shipping in weapons and training etc.

Reply

stutefish January 13, 2011 at 11:36 pm

The last time I checked, the military had two very distinct kinds of insignia:

There are medals, badges, patches, and so forth, that signify deeds accomplished and honors earned.

Then there are the insignia of rank, that signify responsibilities and duties assigned, and authority delegated by the government.

The general's stars are insignia of rank, granting the soldier so recognized certain authority, along with certain responsibilities.

This article is something of a travesty, portraying the duties demanded of a of a five-star general as if they were a prize already earned.

If the nation has need of a commander of such a rank, to take on responsibilities and exercise authority beyond that granted to a four-star general, then by all means let us consider all the worth candidates for such a grave task.

If, on the other hand, we desire to recognize Petraeus's outstanding service, I'm sure there are suitable awards that can be bestowed, without turning insignia of rank into a door prize.

Reply

chaos0xomega January 14, 2011 at 1:32 am

You know, it always seemed odd to me that the service chiefs weren't awarded the 5th star. I mean, if you think about it… nothing says General of the Army like being the Chief of Staff of the Army

Reply

alex January 14, 2011 at 4:13 am

Except 'CoS', historically at least, isn't a command position – you're a CoS TO a commander [in this case, POTUS, I suppose].

Reply

stark0311 January 14, 2011 at 9:09 am

I agree with alex's comment below, but I Would say that there's a good discussion to be had about whether the CJCS ought to be a 5-star. Maybe the VCJCS too.

Reply

Oblat January 14, 2011 at 5:24 am

Irrelevant, so was Reagan.

Patreus's primarily loyalty has always been to whoever can advance his career.

Reply

crackedlenses January 14, 2011 at 10:20 am

Reagan switched; besides, party affiliation means nothing. Beliefs and record are everything when it comes to elected officials…..

Reply

sooperfly January 14, 2011 at 7:52 am

He may be good, but he's not that good. If this thing in SWA is won, then I might think he would be worthy once he is retired, but not on Active Duty.

Reply

stark0311 January 14, 2011 at 9:06 am

"Rank is not a reward like a medal or for long service. you don't get it just because you survived long enough"

Excellent point, Jack.

Reply

Wee Willie January 14, 2011 at 9:12 am

I have immense respect for General Petraeus … but this is the dumbest suggestion I've seen lately. Promotion is based on two criteria … demonstrated ability … and a billet that needs filling. It is not an award. THE question here should be whether the United States NEEDS a 5-star billet … and, IMHO, the answer is clearly no.

Reply

JamesFetterman January 14, 2011 at 9:31 am

General Petraeus has been a successful general officer, but I agree with many that a Fifth Star is not approrpiate. I do think he should be rewarded, and that is why the military has medals for commendation and for bravery. He should be awarded an appropriate commendation type medal that reflects his accomplishments. I really do get tired of Congress wasting our money and time doing things like promoting dead heros.

Reply

LCarol January 14, 2011 at 11:12 am

It certainly is something to consider. He has wisdom intelligence and leadership and ability to see the whole picture from all angles (as far as I can tell) Size him up with any other presedential candidates. he'd be a good president.

Reply

crackedlenses January 14, 2011 at 12:42 pm

Army guys do not automatically make good presidents….

Reply

@mika2k1 January 14, 2011 at 11:14 am

Another criminal with no honor or integrity as a human being, working for the criminal US gov mafia. Petraeus should have resigned long ago. Same for all military and other US gov personnel. The US gov mafia is little more than a thieving corporate imperialist enterprise. Petraeus is smart enough to know exactly who and what he's working for. He has forever condemned himself. And so have you in participating and not condemning and sabotaging this criminal racket.

Reply

crackedlenses January 14, 2011 at 12:41 pm

I hope the Islamic terrorists are nice to you after you finish dismantling your protectors…..

Reply

steve January 14, 2011 at 3:58 pm

An admirer of Patraeus here, but doesn't he command something around the size of what's basically a field army? Kinda small for a 5 star I should think. Not taking anything away from the man but 5 stars??? I don't really think it makes sense.

Reply

Vince January 14, 2011 at 7:11 pm

This is a different war then WW2 never forget tht almost 3000 Americians were killed on 9/11, the largest lose of life in our country EVER, so comparing his actions to those great generals of WW2 is like comparing the guy who invented the light buld to the people who worked on the A-bomb, there is no room for comparision. Who says that he can not become the next COS when he finishes his job in the stan. As for running for POTUS, I do not think he would do that, guys like him are great generals, not good pols.

Reply

Janar Wasito January 15, 2011 at 11:37 am

according to the logic in the article, Gen Jim Mattis, USMC, who is Petraeus' boss now, should pin on his 5th star ahead of Petraeus. Mattis was a 1-star general when he lead the first Marines into Afghanistan to Camp Rhino, vicinity Kandahar, in late 2001.

Reply

Matt Holzmann January 15, 2011 at 3:18 pm

Petraeus developed the Army's COIN manual at Leavenworth based upon his experience in Mosul. The follow on commander had other ideas which changed the picture considerably. This is a recurring and serious theme in the history of both Iraq and Afghanistan and is a part of the problem set for each theater over the course of 9 years of conflict.

Petraeus was then allowed to implement his ideas in on a theater level in Iraq, which became known as the Surge, over the objections of Rumsfeld and the JCS. He created a new theory and then implemented and for all intents and purposes, it worked. In some ways, it would equivalent to Mahan commanding the Atlantic Fleet in combat. It is a rare combination to find a theoretician and superior battlefield commander in one man.

He has a hell of a resume is all I'm saying. We can yap all we want but the issue of rank rests with the Pentagon, whose mystery is only exceeded by its power….

Reply

Hunter78 January 15, 2011 at 6:00 pm

No way. His generalship in 2 peacetime half-wars does not match up to the theater commanders of WW2. The article is a complete snow job, you get dumber just reading it. Comparing him to George Washington is a travesty. But with today's love for celebrities, he might just get it.

Reply

TARFU January 17, 2011 at 11:59 am

Need to fix the graphic when sharing this article. It is upside down in Facebook.

Reply

PAUL January 17, 2011 at 9:43 pm

HE DOES NOT DESERVE A FIFTH STAR. SINCE WHEN DO WE PROMOTE LEADERS THAT CANNOT FOLLOW ORDERS OR KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT. MACARTHUR WAS RELIVED OF COMMAND AND SO SHOULD HAVE PETREAUS.

Reply

wigwamjones January 18, 2011 at 10:47 am

The term is 'breadth of experience', please. Not "breath of experience."

Reply

PolicyWonk January 19, 2011 at 8:44 am

While I agree General Petreaus is is an accomplished soldier who has served his country with honor and distinction – a promotion to 5 star is not warrented at this time. Our nation has simply not been in the kind of global conflicts (or one where our national survival was at stake) that the other 5-star generals have/had been through (the scale isn't even close).

Reply

Paul January 20, 2011 at 12:48 am

Victory against the Taliban and then I say it’s been earned.

Reply

Skypilot59 January 20, 2011 at 8:47 am

For those who attempt to compare today's war with the numbers of troops we
had in WWII, get real. With today's force multiplying weapons, we may never
have millions of people in combat again. It just doesn't take 10 B-17s, 10b0
crewmen, and hundreds of dumb bombs to disable an airplane factory anymore.
One B-2 can get the job done. And how different would the Battle of the Bulge
been with a few dozen MK-19s. The awkwardness of having a combat general
outranking the CoS is valid, though.

Reply

jud January 22, 2011 at 7:31 pm

I could not agree more with this article (except there has only been 2 presidents in his war not 3). He has more then earned a fifth star.

Reply

Luanne January 23, 2011 at 4:47 pm

He really deserves the promotion!!!

Reply

MSG Richard R Lorenz February 28, 2011 at 11:23 pm

No doubt, he earned it and deserves it. Who cares if the numbers are right-Army. He did the job. That was his job, but he went way above the call of duty. He deserves to be a 5 star.

Reply

john kovacich April 3, 2011 at 11:41 pm

maybe they should compromise and give him 4 1/2 stars!!

Reply

Hal April 30, 2011 at 7:15 am

For those of you who compare Gen. Petreaus favorably with our WWII commanders I suggest you read a little history of them. Petreaus has never held a combat command below a division. The so-called surge was an idea that came from Bush. Petreaus merely executed it by requesting reinforcements and spending big bucks to bride the Sunni tribal leaders to our side. We didn't win the war in Iraq, we just started pulling out and saying we won it. Look what's happening there now and has happened since we left. Now we are pulling out of Afghanistan and will soon we saying we won there too. I can see no reason we should even be suggesting that Petreaus should be given a fifth star. He is a pure politician!

Reply

PMI October 20, 2011 at 7:06 am

We decisively won the war in Iraq in about a month's time back in 2003.

You can argue that we didn't decisively win the occupation/reconstruction but it isn't the same thing.

Reply

blight_ October 20, 2011 at 8:31 am

"Counterstrike: The Untold Story of America's Secret Campaign Against Al Qaeda" argues that it was more the intelligence/data-mining angle that won the war; and once they acquired enough data to suggest that radicals were leaving various Arab countries to fight jihad, they took the intel to Middle Eastern nations and presented them concrete proof that their citizens were leaving to fight jihad, and that one day they would come home and cause trouble for the regime.

It had to be more than just throwing troops at the problem, though turning the Sunnis against Al Qaeda helped considerably.

Reply

blight October 20, 2011 at 8:53 am

My read of "Counterstrike: The Untold Story…" gives the impression that it was events outside of Iraq that caused foreign intelligence agencies to clamp down on their citizens leaving the country, cutting off Al Qaeda's manpower. Undoubtedly, working the money and manpower angles deprived Al Qaeda in a big way, especially in the absence of a state sponsor willing to risk losing plausible deniability to go all in.

Reply

Chad July 27, 2011 at 11:42 pm

Let me say this, I served under General Petraeus in Iraq for a short time before he was replaced by General Odierno. The rules of engagement, tactics we used, and overall combat effectiveness dramatically changed after he left, and in small certain ways it was better, but in the overall picture it screwed us over as the troops on the ground. Limiting us to what we could do to engage the enemy.

Reply

Chad... again July 27, 2011 at 11:42 pm

When he took over CENTCOm he took over an overwhelming task of both wars, and even though Iraq was winding down, their was and still is troops lives on the line. When he took command of ISAF he took on an even harder job of commanding a war in an environment that goes from desertlike conditions to Mountains, to marshlands. He did a great job while he was in command, surging more troops in and helping to bring Al Qaeda to its knees. Now the wars are not over, but they have been drawn down and have been hurt badly. General Petraues is an outstanding leader who I respect deeply and along with General Mattis I consider one of our last fighting generals such as Schwarzkopf, Abrams, Ridgeway, Patton, and Jackson.

Reply

Matt October 20, 2011 at 5:11 am

There will never again be great generals and admirals like those who earned five stars in World War II (and those who deserved a fifth but never got it, namely Patton, Spruance, and Mitscher). They're in a class all by themselves, and no one has since equalled them. Petraeus is a fine commander, absolutely, but four stars is enough.

Reply

Colonel C.E. Rogers January 1, 2012 at 7:27 am

TO: Janar Wasito; According to the Military Rules of Rank Structure, Gen. Jim Mathis, USMC can not be promoted to the Fifth Star Rank unless first, there is a U.S. Navy Admiral promoted to the Fifth Star Rank of Fleet Admiral. The reason is the Marine Corps is not a Branch of the U.S. Armed Forces, they are listed as a Divison of the U.S. Navy and thus, there can not be a Superior Officer from the Marines to Command the entire U.S. Navy.

Reply

irishger January 14, 2012 at 5:44 pm

he saved countless lives with his manual and almost singlehandly dragged organised warfare into the 21st century ,im from ireland but have watched from afar with awe and respect of his achievements and reverence ,definately deserves the fifth star

Reply

Merle Berens July 7, 2012 at 10:18 am

Give General David Howell Petraeus his fifth star. He deserves it!

Reply

Danilo February 13, 2013 at 9:08 pm

Gen. Petraeus does not deserve this rank because of dishonestly of the highest degree. Dishonesty to God and his wife and family.

Reply

bomb it May 15, 2013 at 12:42 pm

Dude are you serious. Your about stupid and i guess no one else will say it. You have nothing to back up your statement. I have personally talked to him and trust me on this. It would be a tremendous honor to him. He deserves it if not more than the rest. He hasnt quit the rest have gave up or relinquished command, he hasn't. He just keeps driving on. It's what he does.

Reply

ppac May 15, 2014 at 1:12 pm

It is with respect for the Armed Forces that I make this comment. To put Gen. Petraeus in the same catagorey as the other 5 star Generals is an insult to the great men who fought in WWII. He doesn't come close. Too many people have died who witnessed their bravery and courage. Gen. Petraeus is not one of these heroes.

Reply

jonluky January 13, 2011 at 2:19 pm

Although he may have never worn more than 4-stars, Pershing was indeed the first “General of the Armies" while he was still alive. This was well before Congress posthumously made Washington a "General of the Armies" as well.

As a member of the Pershing Rifles (an honorary military fraternity), we were required to learn JJP’s history and were told that this rank was a 6-star position. However, after further research, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_of_the_Armie… , I have discovered that a 6-star rank has never officially been recognized by the Army.

Reply

General Disarray January 13, 2011 at 2:20 pm

Pershing was General of the Armies, but chose to display 4 gold stars – as their was no official insignia at that point. He was considered senior to all the 5-star generals of the WWII era, and even referred to as a 6-star general.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: