What do you think?
Rate this book
All In: The Education of General David Petraeus
General David Petraeus is the most transformative leader the American military has seen since the generation of Marshall. In the "New York Times" bestseller "All In," military expert Paula Broadwell examines Petraeus's career, his intellectual development as a military officer, and his impact on the U.S. military. Afforded extensive access by General Petraeus, his mentors, his subordinates, and his longtime friends, Broadwell reported on the front lines of fighting and at the strategic command in Afghanistan to chronicle the experiences of this American general as they were brought to bear in the terrible crucible of war. "All In "draws on hundreds of hours of exclusive interviews with Petraeus and his top officers and soldiers to tell the inside story of this commander's development and leadership in war.
When Petraeus assumed command in Afghanistan in July 2010, the conflict looked as bleak as at any moment in America's nine years on the ground there. Petraeus's defining idea--counterinsurgency--was immediate put to its most difficult the hard lessons learned during the surge in Iraq were to be applied in a radically different theater. "All In "examines the impact in Afghanistan of new counterinsurgency as well as counterterrorism strategies through the commands of several Petraeus proteges.
Broadwell examines his evolution as a solider from his education at West Point in the wake of Vietnam to his earlier service in Central America, Haiti, Kuwait, Bosnia, and Iraq. "All In "also documents the general's role in the war in Washington, going behind the scenes of negotiations during policy reviews of the war in Afghanistan in Congress, the Pentagon, and the White House.
Broadwell ultimately appraises Petraeus's impact on the entire U.S. Thanks to this man's influence, the military is better prepared to fight using a comprehensive blend of civil-military activities. As America surveys a decade of untraditional warfare, this much is The career of General David Petraeus profoundly shaped our military and left an indelible mark on its rising leaders.
When Petraeus assumed command in Afghanistan in July 2010, the conflict looked as bleak as at any moment in America's nine years on the ground there. Petraeus's defining idea--counterinsurgency--was immediate put to its most difficult the hard lessons learned during the surge in Iraq were to be applied in a radically different theater. "All In "examines the impact in Afghanistan of new counterinsurgency as well as counterterrorism strategies through the commands of several Petraeus proteges.
Broadwell examines his evolution as a solider from his education at West Point in the wake of Vietnam to his earlier service in Central America, Haiti, Kuwait, Bosnia, and Iraq. "All In "also documents the general's role in the war in Washington, going behind the scenes of negotiations during policy reviews of the war in Afghanistan in Congress, the Pentagon, and the White House.
Broadwell ultimately appraises Petraeus's impact on the entire U.S. Thanks to this man's influence, the military is better prepared to fight using a comprehensive blend of civil-military activities. As America surveys a decade of untraditional warfare, this much is The career of General David Petraeus profoundly shaped our military and left an indelible mark on its rising leaders.
436 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 24, 2012
51 people are currently reading
674 people want to read
About the author
Paula Broadwell
2 books6 followersPaula Dean Broadwell is an American writer, academic, and anti-terrorism professional. She is the co-author with Vernon Loeb of the The New York Times best seller All In: The Education of General David Petraeus, a biography of then International Security Assistance Force commander David Petraeus. On November 9, 2012, she was reported to have been involved in the extramarital affair with Petraeus that triggered his resignation as Director of the CIA when it was discovered by the FBI.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews
December 11, 2020
By now it is well known that the author of this book had an affair with her subject, leading to his resignation as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
But the true scandal of this book is that it is an unquestionably adoring look at both the general and the army by a West Point graduate and true-believer who writes and apparently thinks in the milit-speak of positive affirmations. The book is peppered with words like "great", "superb" and "progress". Petraeus was always making "progress". She writes how Petraeus arrives at a meeting at "7:29 AM". Would he be a different man if it was 7:30?
Broadwell describes a world in which war is fought with morning briefings, Powerpoint presentations and billion dollar technology against enemies wearing sandals. She describes one engagement in which a ground force of several hundred Americans required the assistance of an observation blimp, helicopters and a drone armed with Hellfire missiles, as well as F16s with 500 pound bombs in order to kill three insurgents. In the military mind that's a success, but never does Broadwell ask whether that's a war America can afford.
Nor does she spend much time evaluating whether any of this will turn the tide of Afghan history. Many have tried, none have succeeded.
The American military is extraordinary. They have breathtaking skill and competence. But in some of the big moments of history they have been given jobs that possibly just can't be done, and civilizing Iraq and Afghanistan may be among them. The Powerpoints look great and the future looks grim.
Broadwell was apparently given extraordinary access to Petraeus, but you don't see much evidence of it. She doesn't quote him in off the cuff moments and there doesn't seem to be much from personal interviews. Many of her quotes come from e-mails and transcripts of briefings. Petraeus comes off as a bureaucratic stiff.
This is a guy who will sign off an email with "RLTW" ... Rangers Lead the Way. There's a good deal of being in the army that's like high school.
We don't learn much about what moved the man to spend his life in the military, and much of it at war away from his wife and children. What's it like missing your children growing up and was it worth it? Broadwell doesn't ask. Why is he so driven ... driven for what, and why? The author writes that the general's father used to bark at him "Results, boy!" Is that it?
Overall this reads as what it is, an academic paper converted to a book.
What we learned from the revelation of Petraeus's romance with the author was something we never got in 357 pages of the book, that the general is human after all. That's where the book should have started.
But the true scandal of this book is that it is an unquestionably adoring look at both the general and the army by a West Point graduate and true-believer who writes and apparently thinks in the milit-speak of positive affirmations. The book is peppered with words like "great", "superb" and "progress". Petraeus was always making "progress". She writes how Petraeus arrives at a meeting at "7:29 AM". Would he be a different man if it was 7:30?
Broadwell describes a world in which war is fought with morning briefings, Powerpoint presentations and billion dollar technology against enemies wearing sandals. She describes one engagement in which a ground force of several hundred Americans required the assistance of an observation blimp, helicopters and a drone armed with Hellfire missiles, as well as F16s with 500 pound bombs in order to kill three insurgents. In the military mind that's a success, but never does Broadwell ask whether that's a war America can afford.
Nor does she spend much time evaluating whether any of this will turn the tide of Afghan history. Many have tried, none have succeeded.
The American military is extraordinary. They have breathtaking skill and competence. But in some of the big moments of history they have been given jobs that possibly just can't be done, and civilizing Iraq and Afghanistan may be among them. The Powerpoints look great and the future looks grim.
Broadwell was apparently given extraordinary access to Petraeus, but you don't see much evidence of it. She doesn't quote him in off the cuff moments and there doesn't seem to be much from personal interviews. Many of her quotes come from e-mails and transcripts of briefings. Petraeus comes off as a bureaucratic stiff.
This is a guy who will sign off an email with "RLTW" ... Rangers Lead the Way. There's a good deal of being in the army that's like high school.
We don't learn much about what moved the man to spend his life in the military, and much of it at war away from his wife and children. What's it like missing your children growing up and was it worth it? Broadwell doesn't ask. Why is he so driven ... driven for what, and why? The author writes that the general's father used to bark at him "Results, boy!" Is that it?
Overall this reads as what it is, an academic paper converted to a book.
What we learned from the revelation of Petraeus's romance with the author was something we never got in 357 pages of the book, that the general is human after all. That's where the book should have started.
May 11, 2012
While there are "sympathetic" biographies in a good sense, like Robert K. Massie's new bio of Catherine the Great, there are sympathetic bios that aren't so good. And this is one of them.
It's not quite craptacular, but it's nowhere near a "critical" study. Written by a West Point grad, and, as one other reviewer notes, some sort of "authorized" bio, it's got enough of a suck-up attitude that it doesn't question him at all. (The type of people who blurb it on the back, starting with Tom Brokaw, also indicate the quasi suck-up nature.)
For example, did the "surge" in Iraq, combined with the Anbar Awakening, really work, in part, because a fair amount of Sunni ethnic cleansing had already played out, and in part because some awakeners were content to take some cold U.S. cash and bide their time? Author Paula Broadwell never asks these questions, either rhetorically or of her subject.
Nor does she address the questions of whether or not Petraeus is a "political general." (Short answer: Every general is, at least within the Army; career bird colonels are the ones who aren't.)
Also, given the subject matter, it's "interesting" that Broadwell apparently made no attempt to see if anybody would talk off the record about Afghanistan, or Iraq, issues. That goes in hand with a quasi-"approved" bio. Surely a two-star or three-star not in the Petraeus mentorship pipeline would have talked anonymously if Broadwell had wanted to pursue that angle.
Beyond that, it's bland in that we don't learn much new from this book. Pass. Wait 10 years, until he retires (I hope) from the CIA, and see if a real bio is out.
It's not quite craptacular, but it's nowhere near a "critical" study. Written by a West Point grad, and, as one other reviewer notes, some sort of "authorized" bio, it's got enough of a suck-up attitude that it doesn't question him at all. (The type of people who blurb it on the back, starting with Tom Brokaw, also indicate the quasi suck-up nature.)
For example, did the "surge" in Iraq, combined with the Anbar Awakening, really work, in part, because a fair amount of Sunni ethnic cleansing had already played out, and in part because some awakeners were content to take some cold U.S. cash and bide their time? Author Paula Broadwell never asks these questions, either rhetorically or of her subject.
Nor does she address the questions of whether or not Petraeus is a "political general." (Short answer: Every general is, at least within the Army; career bird colonels are the ones who aren't.)
Also, given the subject matter, it's "interesting" that Broadwell apparently made no attempt to see if anybody would talk off the record about Afghanistan, or Iraq, issues. That goes in hand with a quasi-"approved" bio. Surely a two-star or three-star not in the Petraeus mentorship pipeline would have talked anonymously if Broadwell had wanted to pursue that angle.
Beyond that, it's bland in that we don't learn much new from this book. Pass. Wait 10 years, until he retires (I hope) from the CIA, and see if a real bio is out.
January 24, 2012
An insider’s gripping examination of General David Petraeus’s command of the Iraq surge and then Afghanistan. Broadwell and her coauthor Vernon Loeb deftly weave early battlefield experiences (Kuwait and Bosnia) and personal history (son of a sea captain, top West Point cadet, and competitive athlete) into the contemporary accounts as a means of explaining how his past informs his decision-making today.
This is a book for military history buffs and undoubtedly will be studied at West Point, Broadwell’s alma mater, alongside Petraeus’s own Counterinsurgency Field Manual. But it’s also an appropriate book for anyone who is interested in learning what makes a good leader tick. His “four tasks” that “strategic leaders” must perform are:
1. Get the big ideas right
2. Communicate the big ideas
3. Oversee the implementation of the big ideas
4. Collect best practices and lessons and cycle them “back through the system to help refine the big ideas.”
One could imagine Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, or even Mark Zuckerberg subscribing to these strategic principals.
Petraeus is portrayed as an advocate of surrounding oneself with brilliant advisors rather than Yes Men. This is not what I expected of a lifelong military man. What struck me again and again was his own ongoing pursuit of education (a PhD from Princeton) and his sincere encouragement to his mentees, like Broadwell, to pursue higher education. Additionally, he expected the best ideas from whomever could supply them, regardless of rank or chain of command.
The book concludes with the now-retired General’s confirmation as CIA Director. In his hearings he alluded to his belief in listening to all voices in the situation room. He is a man who has been criticized as having an outsize ego, but the book well portrays a thoughtful, wise, and philosophical intellectual and leader. It is too soon to know if his strategies for Afghanistan will win the war, but Petraeus surely will not be seen as this generation’s Westmoreland.
This is a book for military history buffs and undoubtedly will be studied at West Point, Broadwell’s alma mater, alongside Petraeus’s own Counterinsurgency Field Manual. But it’s also an appropriate book for anyone who is interested in learning what makes a good leader tick. His “four tasks” that “strategic leaders” must perform are:
1. Get the big ideas right
2. Communicate the big ideas
3. Oversee the implementation of the big ideas
4. Collect best practices and lessons and cycle them “back through the system to help refine the big ideas.”
One could imagine Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, or even Mark Zuckerberg subscribing to these strategic principals.
Petraeus is portrayed as an advocate of surrounding oneself with brilliant advisors rather than Yes Men. This is not what I expected of a lifelong military man. What struck me again and again was his own ongoing pursuit of education (a PhD from Princeton) and his sincere encouragement to his mentees, like Broadwell, to pursue higher education. Additionally, he expected the best ideas from whomever could supply them, regardless of rank or chain of command.
The book concludes with the now-retired General’s confirmation as CIA Director. In his hearings he alluded to his belief in listening to all voices in the situation room. He is a man who has been criticized as having an outsize ego, but the book well portrays a thoughtful, wise, and philosophical intellectual and leader. It is too soon to know if his strategies for Afghanistan will win the war, but Petraeus surely will not be seen as this generation’s Westmoreland.
February 27, 2014
Despite the dalliance between the author and Petraeus, this remains an instructive and well researched book on the theory and practice of Petraeus' counterinsurgency theory - also known as COIN - as applied in Afghanistan and Iraq. Broadwell took her PhD thesis and expanded it to give multiple accounts of the COIN operations at work, describing multiple bloody battles and the soldiers killed and maimed in the process.
The book does regularly veer into a hagiographic profile of Petraeus and is, on the whole, virtually non-critical of him and his efforts. But the book does offer a fascinating biography of the man who came from a modest upbringing to the most important US General arguably since Dwight Eisenhower. Flawed in many ways, it's still an important contribution to understanding how our military - and our senior military leadership - have been forced to change to meet the challenges of a new world where asymmetrical warfare and shadow enemies threaten our nation on a daily basis.
The book does regularly veer into a hagiographic profile of Petraeus and is, on the whole, virtually non-critical of him and his efforts. But the book does offer a fascinating biography of the man who came from a modest upbringing to the most important US General arguably since Dwight Eisenhower. Flawed in many ways, it's still an important contribution to understanding how our military - and our senior military leadership - have been forced to change to meet the challenges of a new world where asymmetrical warfare and shadow enemies threaten our nation on a daily basis.
January 16, 2014
Reading this book now, knowing how things all ended between Petraeus and his biographer felt a bit invasive at times. It was clear that he was sharing parts of himself with her (about burdens of command) that he wasn't sharing with anyone else. My problem with the book is that it makes Petraeus out to be a saint. It is impossible to believe that he never made any mistakes or faced any challenge that he couldn't tackle.
The book lends ammunition to the critics that slam him for shameless self-promotion. I am saying this as a "Petraeus guy." I served under his command in 2003 in Mosul and was in Iraq during the Surge when he was in command over the entire theater. I think that he was right about the way to conduct operations.
The book was interesting, but not challenging in any real way - either to critics or supporters.
The book lends ammunition to the critics that slam him for shameless self-promotion. I am saying this as a "Petraeus guy." I served under his command in 2003 in Mosul and was in Iraq during the Surge when he was in command over the entire theater. I think that he was right about the way to conduct operations.
The book was interesting, but not challenging in any real way - either to critics or supporters.
June 6, 2015
It would be interesting to know whether Petraeus' wife and other associates would have determined that this book was written by a mistress if it had not been leaked by an FBI inquiry. It's clear, especially toward the end, that the author either had too much information or was making things up, and is blatantly biased. How does she know, for example, what his expression was when he was the "only one in the room"? How does she know what he was wearing when he went out "jogging alone"? Broadwell writes in the foreword that she took "full advantage of Petraeus's open door policy" is thankful for her "luck." Knowing the full history of her level of access makes it particularly awkward. Things he confides to "another close friend" in the book are probably things he confided to her alone.
There is no criticism raised of Petraeus (or many others under his command) that Broadwell does not immediately and repeatedly rebut. A couple of Petraeus' speeches are quoted at length, making it much more of a puff piece than a true historical work. Which is a shame, because there is probably real value in the historical information; Petraeus is one of America's most decorate and most-experienced generals. Much of the detail in the book come from Afghanistan where Broadwell was embedded and posting reports from the front line on Thomas Ricks' blog. There is value in the historical overview of the Afghan war under Petraeus and McChrystal and the decisions which were made, but it will be left to future historians to determine how much was shaded by Broadwell's bias.
The structure of the book was not completely chronological. The book begins with McChrystal's firing as ISAF commander in 2010 and follows Petraeus' appointment to replace him up to Petraeus' appointment to CIA in 2011. Between these two points are roughly chronological flashbacks to earlier parts of Petraeus' career from West Point to the 101 Airborne to Haiti, Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan with a stops at Princeton and the Army War College. This makes the flow of the book somewhat hard to follow. The minute details of the time in Afghanistan make up most of the book as Broadwell was present.
Petraeus was the son of a Dutch immigrant and married the daughter of a 4-star General who became a mentor and inspiration to Petraeus. Gen. Knowlton had led the inquiry into the Mei Lai Massacre and developed a reputation for his hands-on approach on the ground visiting troops under his command in Vietnam. One gathers that Petraeus is ultra-competitive, especially in the athletic realm. He's a prostate cancer survivor and has experienced near-career-ending accidents both on the shooting range and while free skydiving. He pushes himself to train harder and do more push-ups than enlisted men half his age.
Broadwell refers to his "Team Petraeus" staff but deflects criticism by others (most notably in my mind Defense Secretary and CIA chief Leon Panetta in his memoir) that Petraeus was an egotistical primadonna. Broadwell writes that Petraeus got that reputation, in part, from his being aide to several top generals. She responds that the generals did not pick him for political reasons, they picked him because they saw he was able to get things done that others couldn't. Panetta remarks in his memoir that Petraeus' office was a "shrine to himself" with his challenge coins, metals, flags, etc. Broadwell never really details that, but it's clear Petraeus is the alpha dog eager to prove himself better than others and remind them of it. The title "All In" comes from Petraeus' demand of President George W. Bush during his decision on the Iraq "surge"-- if the decision was made, the government had to be "all in" giving Petraeus' soldiers everything they needed for as long as they needed it.
If anyone comes across badly in the book, it's Afghan President Hamid Karzai followed by US VP Joe Biden. Karzai is repeatedly caught in a web of lies and corruption, trying to play the media to his advantage and the U.S.' detriment. Biden, and unnamed entities in the White House, are portrayed as second-guessing and paranoid about Petraeus and other U.S. commanders trying to undermine Obama, something the Rolling Stone story on McChrystal exacerbated. The paranoia and awkwardness of the Obama Administration and the military are captured well in Robert Gates' memoir and, to a lesser extent, Panetta's book. The concern was that the generals were trying to "box Obama in." Petraeus was at least once quoted anonymously in an unflattering light by a source close to him. Broadwell defends the General at all points and writes that Petraeus repeatedly remarks that he is the most loyal general that Obama has and felt perplexed that he could be considered disloyal.
I was hoping the book would have more on Petraeus' leadership and management skills. When he first took command of ISAF he held 20 meetings a day. Whatever senior staff decided would be posted in key locations and sent out in bullet point memos to commands across Afghanistan. Petraeus' strategy focused on the following:
1. Get the ideas right.
2. Communicate the ideas effectively.
3. Aggressively oversee their implementation (Petraeus was criticized by some for micromanaging).
4. Get continuous feedback.
Petraeus considers himself a "relentless communicator," and Broadwell recounts those he contacted for advice in the early ISAF days. One friend who served with him in Iraq pointed out that the "dirty little secret" of COIN, the counterinsurgency strategy, in Iraq was that the police were never competent. The Americans just made the army good enough that the problem was overlooked, a point on which Petraeus disagreed. One key point that Petraus pushed in Afghanistan was the need for the State Department to provide more FSOs to work with both the central government and regional governments to build cohesion. There needed to be cooperation between local tribal leaders within a region and the central government in Kabul.
COIN involves managing expectations, "under-promise and over-provide." It evolved out of Petraeus' graduate work in the 1980s on low-intensity conflict and evolved as Petraeus oversaw some nation-building efforts in Haiti that prepared him for Afghanistan. COIN's implementation in Iraq is what earned Petraeus the phone call to take on ISAF. Thomas Ricks' points out in The Generals that Petraeus got many things wrong about the Iraqis that went unpublicized. Petraeus, according to Broadwell, took inspiration from T.E. Lawrence. In Iraq, he was dealing with the aftermath of de-Baathification, hubris in Washington, and trying to train up police forces without adequate resources. What Ricks and others have pointed out is that COIN is quite expensive-- you essentially pay the enemy not to fight while at the same time you spend a lot of money to build and repair infrastructure, on top of supplying your troop base. The Coalition spent roughly $10 billion/year for army and police in Afghanistan at one point.
Broadwell takes on Joshua Foust's account of the razing of villages in Kandahar in the book under Petraeus' orders. Foust has angrily responded, noting that Broadwell's own accounts of what happened are contradictory, and that she glosses over what other pro-American reporters have written. At the end of the book, Broadwell notes that villages that were razed were rebuilt with stronger infrastructure and that violence had fallen and reportedly trust regained. It's worth noting that Petraeus' son was deployed in Afghanistan so his orders directly affected him. Broadwell writes of the "mask of command" worn by Petraeus, not to betray emotions.
Petraeus reportedly wanted to become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs but Sec. Gates visited Kabul and told him it was "out of the question." Outside of that position, Petraeus only wanted to be in a position that would continue fighting the Taliban and suggested CIA himself, according to Broadwell. Panetta opines in his book that he was skeptical of having primadonna Petraeus over the CIA, but Gates was "excited" about the idea.
In the end, Petraeus makes an emotional decision to take of the uniform in order to head the CIA and move back to Washington. It's there that the details of the book become too intimate and glowing for obvious reasons.
In all, I give this book 2.5 stars out of 5. It contains valuable information and history about the war Afghanistan but not a great level of detail about Petraeus' work in Iraq and elsewhere. If you're looking for insights into leadership and management look elsewhere. It's written by a biased source who works hard to defend her subject/lover.
There is no criticism raised of Petraeus (or many others under his command) that Broadwell does not immediately and repeatedly rebut. A couple of Petraeus' speeches are quoted at length, making it much more of a puff piece than a true historical work. Which is a shame, because there is probably real value in the historical information; Petraeus is one of America's most decorate and most-experienced generals. Much of the detail in the book come from Afghanistan where Broadwell was embedded and posting reports from the front line on Thomas Ricks' blog. There is value in the historical overview of the Afghan war under Petraeus and McChrystal and the decisions which were made, but it will be left to future historians to determine how much was shaded by Broadwell's bias.
The structure of the book was not completely chronological. The book begins with McChrystal's firing as ISAF commander in 2010 and follows Petraeus' appointment to replace him up to Petraeus' appointment to CIA in 2011. Between these two points are roughly chronological flashbacks to earlier parts of Petraeus' career from West Point to the 101 Airborne to Haiti, Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan with a stops at Princeton and the Army War College. This makes the flow of the book somewhat hard to follow. The minute details of the time in Afghanistan make up most of the book as Broadwell was present.
Petraeus was the son of a Dutch immigrant and married the daughter of a 4-star General who became a mentor and inspiration to Petraeus. Gen. Knowlton had led the inquiry into the Mei Lai Massacre and developed a reputation for his hands-on approach on the ground visiting troops under his command in Vietnam. One gathers that Petraeus is ultra-competitive, especially in the athletic realm. He's a prostate cancer survivor and has experienced near-career-ending accidents both on the shooting range and while free skydiving. He pushes himself to train harder and do more push-ups than enlisted men half his age.
Broadwell refers to his "Team Petraeus" staff but deflects criticism by others (most notably in my mind Defense Secretary and CIA chief Leon Panetta in his memoir) that Petraeus was an egotistical primadonna. Broadwell writes that Petraeus got that reputation, in part, from his being aide to several top generals. She responds that the generals did not pick him for political reasons, they picked him because they saw he was able to get things done that others couldn't. Panetta remarks in his memoir that Petraeus' office was a "shrine to himself" with his challenge coins, metals, flags, etc. Broadwell never really details that, but it's clear Petraeus is the alpha dog eager to prove himself better than others and remind them of it. The title "All In" comes from Petraeus' demand of President George W. Bush during his decision on the Iraq "surge"-- if the decision was made, the government had to be "all in" giving Petraeus' soldiers everything they needed for as long as they needed it.
If anyone comes across badly in the book, it's Afghan President Hamid Karzai followed by US VP Joe Biden. Karzai is repeatedly caught in a web of lies and corruption, trying to play the media to his advantage and the U.S.' detriment. Biden, and unnamed entities in the White House, are portrayed as second-guessing and paranoid about Petraeus and other U.S. commanders trying to undermine Obama, something the Rolling Stone story on McChrystal exacerbated. The paranoia and awkwardness of the Obama Administration and the military are captured well in Robert Gates' memoir and, to a lesser extent, Panetta's book. The concern was that the generals were trying to "box Obama in." Petraeus was at least once quoted anonymously in an unflattering light by a source close to him. Broadwell defends the General at all points and writes that Petraeus repeatedly remarks that he is the most loyal general that Obama has and felt perplexed that he could be considered disloyal.
I was hoping the book would have more on Petraeus' leadership and management skills. When he first took command of ISAF he held 20 meetings a day. Whatever senior staff decided would be posted in key locations and sent out in bullet point memos to commands across Afghanistan. Petraeus' strategy focused on the following:
1. Get the ideas right.
2. Communicate the ideas effectively.
3. Aggressively oversee their implementation (Petraeus was criticized by some for micromanaging).
4. Get continuous feedback.
Petraeus considers himself a "relentless communicator," and Broadwell recounts those he contacted for advice in the early ISAF days. One friend who served with him in Iraq pointed out that the "dirty little secret" of COIN, the counterinsurgency strategy, in Iraq was that the police were never competent. The Americans just made the army good enough that the problem was overlooked, a point on which Petraeus disagreed. One key point that Petraus pushed in Afghanistan was the need for the State Department to provide more FSOs to work with both the central government and regional governments to build cohesion. There needed to be cooperation between local tribal leaders within a region and the central government in Kabul.
COIN involves managing expectations, "under-promise and over-provide." It evolved out of Petraeus' graduate work in the 1980s on low-intensity conflict and evolved as Petraeus oversaw some nation-building efforts in Haiti that prepared him for Afghanistan. COIN's implementation in Iraq is what earned Petraeus the phone call to take on ISAF. Thomas Ricks' points out in The Generals that Petraeus got many things wrong about the Iraqis that went unpublicized. Petraeus, according to Broadwell, took inspiration from T.E. Lawrence. In Iraq, he was dealing with the aftermath of de-Baathification, hubris in Washington, and trying to train up police forces without adequate resources. What Ricks and others have pointed out is that COIN is quite expensive-- you essentially pay the enemy not to fight while at the same time you spend a lot of money to build and repair infrastructure, on top of supplying your troop base. The Coalition spent roughly $10 billion/year for army and police in Afghanistan at one point.
Broadwell takes on Joshua Foust's account of the razing of villages in Kandahar in the book under Petraeus' orders. Foust has angrily responded, noting that Broadwell's own accounts of what happened are contradictory, and that she glosses over what other pro-American reporters have written. At the end of the book, Broadwell notes that villages that were razed were rebuilt with stronger infrastructure and that violence had fallen and reportedly trust regained. It's worth noting that Petraeus' son was deployed in Afghanistan so his orders directly affected him. Broadwell writes of the "mask of command" worn by Petraeus, not to betray emotions.
Petraeus reportedly wanted to become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs but Sec. Gates visited Kabul and told him it was "out of the question." Outside of that position, Petraeus only wanted to be in a position that would continue fighting the Taliban and suggested CIA himself, according to Broadwell. Panetta opines in his book that he was skeptical of having primadonna Petraeus over the CIA, but Gates was "excited" about the idea.
In the end, Petraeus makes an emotional decision to take of the uniform in order to head the CIA and move back to Washington. It's there that the details of the book become too intimate and glowing for obvious reasons.
In all, I give this book 2.5 stars out of 5. It contains valuable information and history about the war Afghanistan but not a great level of detail about Petraeus' work in Iraq and elsewhere. If you're looking for insights into leadership and management look elsewhere. It's written by a biased source who works hard to defend her subject/lover.
July 25, 2014
Being that the author is also the woman patraeus had an affair with I give 4 irony stars for the title alone. That aside I found it an interesting book. I wish I could say he was a brilliant general. I guess in the era of politically correct warfare he is brilliant. He navigates the waters of diplomacy very well. I find the modern military attitude very strange. There is much emphasis on the safety of the soldiers which is good I guess. There is also much emphasis on nation building and getting the different factions to get along and share power and all that. Again a good thing. But all of this is done at the expense of a clear victory. Afghanistan is the only war I have heard of where they take the winter off, like an extended tea time. I thought we were trained to fight in extreme cold, the Chinese army seemed fine with it in 1952. The book is well written and expresses his views and philosophies on war and it's goals well. I just see things from a different perspective.
March 29, 2012
Broadwell's well-written biography of the premier military officer of our time will certainly go down as one of, if not the, definitive work on David Petraeus - at least, for what he accomplished up until his retirement from the U.S. Army in 2011. (I have a feeling he's not done yet - obviously, today he continues to serve his country as CIA director, but there may be more beyond that, as well.) Read this book now!
Read
November 19, 2012"The Lady in Question" gets Her Guy. I have not
read this special prophylaxis of humor--.
read this special prophylaxis of humor--.
January 6, 2022
Knowing now that this book brought about the end of Petraeus' otherwise unblemished intelligence/military career feels anti-climatic. All it took was one enraged email from Paula to another woman who she felt was muscling in on her man and the man dropped from grace faster than a Hail Mary from the Taliban.
Why did I give this book four stars? Let me explain. After the Paula-Petraeus affair came to light, readers will naturally be left wondering as to how much of Paula's narrative is embellished and how much is real. This will be the onerous task of future historians; how much of Petraeus actually resides within the pages of All In and how much is only Paula projecting her love (for want of a better expression)? With four stars I feel I have left enough room for future maneuver.
On the flip side-and to Paula's credit-she avoids juxtaposing Petraeus against the mighty and the malicious of the War on Terror . And nor is her portrayal of Petraeus (minus the hero worship of which there is aplenty) that of some demi-God soldier-scholar General battling it out with the SOBs on Capitol Hill for Faith and Country. Rather, she renders him in the moment. Petraeus at work; Petraeus in the field and Petraeus in the Senate. Effectively, Petraeus as the archetypal soldier-warrior leader.
Irrespective of her own favouritism, Paula also records the more salient aphorisms and observances of Petraeus. From the onset she makes prescient the undercurrents of tension permeating the fraught relationship between then Vice President (and current President) Joe Biden and Petraeus. Biden, mistakenly, believed that the American strategy in Afghanistan would have been better served with American forces periodically targeting the Islamist leadership. Petraeus differed and reinforced Stanley McChrystal's analysis:
-The Islamist insurgency had to be annihilated at the grassroots with effective and transparent governance in the absence of which it bred itself subtly.
-That ultimately, the Islamic world had to take responsibility for its own political failings in the 21st century.
As we now know, Biden ushered in a repeat of Vietnam.
This book is critical because ultimately it allows us an insight into Petraeus' own self-introspections. Otherwise, take with a pinch of salt. The Petraeus story is not wholly at its end yet. Only after the General expires will we be able to fully assess his impact on history and on the War On Terror .
Why did I give this book four stars? Let me explain. After the Paula-Petraeus affair came to light, readers will naturally be left wondering as to how much of Paula's narrative is embellished and how much is real. This will be the onerous task of future historians; how much of Petraeus actually resides within the pages of All In and how much is only Paula projecting her love (for want of a better expression)? With four stars I feel I have left enough room for future maneuver.
On the flip side-and to Paula's credit-she avoids juxtaposing Petraeus against the mighty and the malicious of the War on Terror . And nor is her portrayal of Petraeus (minus the hero worship of which there is aplenty) that of some demi-God soldier-scholar General battling it out with the SOBs on Capitol Hill for Faith and Country. Rather, she renders him in the moment. Petraeus at work; Petraeus in the field and Petraeus in the Senate. Effectively, Petraeus as the archetypal soldier-warrior leader.
Irrespective of her own favouritism, Paula also records the more salient aphorisms and observances of Petraeus. From the onset she makes prescient the undercurrents of tension permeating the fraught relationship between then Vice President (and current President) Joe Biden and Petraeus. Biden, mistakenly, believed that the American strategy in Afghanistan would have been better served with American forces periodically targeting the Islamist leadership. Petraeus differed and reinforced Stanley McChrystal's analysis:
-The Islamist insurgency had to be annihilated at the grassroots with effective and transparent governance in the absence of which it bred itself subtly.
-That ultimately, the Islamic world had to take responsibility for its own political failings in the 21st century.
As we now know, Biden ushered in a repeat of Vietnam.
This book is critical because ultimately it allows us an insight into Petraeus' own self-introspections. Otherwise, take with a pinch of salt. The Petraeus story is not wholly at its end yet. Only after the General expires will we be able to fully assess his impact on history and on the War On Terror .
February 27, 2024
هذا الكتاب هو أحد الكتب التي تقرأها وأنت تمقت وتبغض موضوع الكتاب، فبطل الكتاب هو ديفيد بتريوس، أحد الأسماء التي يتذكرها أبناء جيلي الذين عاصروا الاحتلال الأمريكي لأفغانستان والعراق، وقد عمل الرجل في البلدين، وشارك بشكل رئيسي في الإشراف على إعداد الدليل الميداني للجيش الأمريكي لمكافحة التمرد، ثم أشرف على تطبيق الدليل عملياً في البلدين، وكان له دوره في تكوين الصحوات في العراق، وترسيخ التعاون بين قوات الحكومة الأفغانية وبين قوات الاحتلال. وبالطبع كانت نتائج جهوده لا تشمل فقط قتل العديد من رجال المقاومة، ولكن أيضاً موت العديد من المدنيين في الغارات الجوية، مهما ادعى الأسف، ومهما شدد الدليل نفسه على أهمية المحافظة على أرواح المدنيين وحمايتهم حتى لا يكونوا عوناً لل(متمردين).
لكن بخلاف مشاعري تجاه موضوع الكتاب، فإنها ليست السبب في تقييمي المنخفض له، فليس هذا هو أول من أقرأ عنه وأنا أمقته وأبغضه أشد البغض، وقد قرأت من قبل مذكرات المجرم ديك تشيني، وأعجبت بها على الرغم من بغضي له، لكن هذا الكتاب متواضع المستوى بشكل كبير، وقارئه سيشعر أنه يتفرج على أحد الأفلام الأمريكية الحماسية مع مؤثرات هوليودية، مع قدر كبير من الفلاش باك ما بين أفغانستان والعراق، وقدر كبير من المبالغة والتعظيم والإفراط في استخدام ألفاظ: العزم - القوة - الشرف - الشجاعة ...إلخ، ولن يستغرب القاري حينما يعلم أن كاتبة هذا الكتاب كانت على علاقة زنا مع بتريوس، وكانت فضيحة اكتشاف هذه العلاقة هي التي كلفته منصبه كمدير للمخابرات المركزية الأمريكية، واضطرته إلى الاستقالة، بعد أن لطخت سجله العسكري (الحافل). ولا تخلو تعليقات القراء الأمريكيين من الإشارة لهذه الحقيقة في تقييمهم للكتاب.
ومع ذلك، فإن الكتاب لا يخلو من فوائد، حيث يحتاج القاريء العربي للاطلاع على أنماط العمل الداخلي في جيش العدو، وسيشعر بالحسرة وهو يرى مستوى الإعداد الفكري للضباط، والدراسات وتقدير المواقف التي يستطيعون إعدادها، كما سيرى في انصياع القيادة العسكرية للإدارة المدنية الممثلة في الرئيس -أوباما في هذا الوقت - نموذجاً من قوة النظام الداخلي للعدو الأمريكي، وقوة المؤسسات فيه. كما سيرى المحاولات الحثيثة لتطبيق سياسات مكافحة التمرد، سواء من خلال تدريب القوات المحلية، أو التباسط مع سكان القرى والتودد لهم، بل وتعلم العديد من الضباط اللغات المحلية مثل لغة الداري - بخلاف لغة الباشتو - للتواصل مع السكان، مع استخدام القوة الغاشمة مع (المتمردين).
والحقيقة أن هذه السياسات قد أتت بثمارها بشكلٍ كبير في حينها، لكن المحتل دائماً ما ينسى أنه حتى لو قتل الإنسان، فإن الأفكار باقية، وسرعان ما يتلقفها من يكمل مسيرة من سبقوه، وهكذا فقد شهدنا بعد بضعة سنوات من تطبيق هذه السياسة، هرولة العدو في الانسحاب من أفغانستان، وسيطرة طالبان مرة أخرى، وكأن عشرين عاماً من عمر هذا البلد، كأنها لم تكن!
لكن بخلاف مشاعري تجاه موضوع الكتاب، فإنها ليست السبب في تقييمي المنخفض له، فليس هذا هو أول من أقرأ عنه وأنا أمقته وأبغضه أشد البغض، وقد قرأت من قبل مذكرات المجرم ديك تشيني، وأعجبت بها على الرغم من بغضي له، لكن هذا الكتاب متواضع المستوى بشكل كبير، وقارئه سيشعر أنه يتفرج على أحد الأفلام الأمريكية الحماسية مع مؤثرات هوليودية، مع قدر كبير من الفلاش باك ما بين أفغانستان والعراق، وقدر كبير من المبالغة والتعظيم والإفراط في استخدام ألفاظ: العزم - القوة - الشرف - الشجاعة ...إلخ، ولن يستغرب القاري حينما يعلم أن كاتبة هذا الكتاب كانت على علاقة زنا مع بتريوس، وكانت فضيحة اكتشاف هذه العلاقة هي التي كلفته منصبه كمدير للمخابرات المركزية الأمريكية، واضطرته إلى الاستقالة، بعد أن لطخت سجله العسكري (الحافل). ولا تخلو تعليقات القراء الأمريكيين من الإشارة لهذه الحقيقة في تقييمهم للكتاب.
ومع ذلك، فإن الكتاب لا يخلو من فوائد، حيث يحتاج القاريء العربي للاطلاع على أنماط العمل الداخلي في جيش العدو، وسيشعر بالحسرة وهو يرى مستوى الإعداد الفكري للضباط، والدراسات وتقدير المواقف التي يستطيعون إعدادها، كما سيرى في انصياع القيادة العسكرية للإدارة المدنية الممثلة في الرئيس -أوباما في هذا الوقت - نموذجاً من قوة النظام الداخلي للعدو الأمريكي، وقوة المؤسسات فيه. كما سيرى المحاولات الحثيثة لتطبيق سياسات مكافحة التمرد، سواء من خلال تدريب القوات المحلية، أو التباسط مع سكان القرى والتودد لهم، بل وتعلم العديد من الضباط اللغات المحلية مثل لغة الداري - بخلاف لغة الباشتو - للتواصل مع السكان، مع استخدام القوة الغاشمة مع (المتمردين).
والحقيقة أن هذه السياسات قد أتت بثمارها بشكلٍ كبير في حينها، لكن المحتل دائماً ما ينسى أنه حتى لو قتل الإنسان، فإن الأفكار باقية، وسرعان ما يتلقفها من يكمل مسيرة من سبقوه، وهكذا فقد شهدنا بعد بضعة سنوات من تطبيق هذه السياسة، هرولة العدو في الانسحاب من أفغانستان، وسيطرة طالبان مرة أخرى، وكأن عشرين عاماً من عمر هذا البلد، كأنها لم تكن!
October 6, 2019
Paula was nothing but a mistress, who is self-serving, bitter and jealous. She is not an academic. She spread her legs and that was her big claim to fame. Without that, she is a nothing. She has done nothing for the USA. Absolutely nothing. Wow, big CIA ops house. Get over it. Anti-terrorism, I have never heard anything so preposterous in all my life. There are actual heroes and she is not one of them. Like flagging a little liberty accident where running was detrimental to the knees (pork.txt- Boston blowing), two military shooting sprees on base, a handful of natural disaster accidents, NYC blowing, and so on and so forth. She spread her legs and has been riding it ever since. Bitter, jealous Broadwell, with her little alerts when something is posted about her- what does that say. She should have been charged with harassment and locked away. Instead, she cried like a little baby that the mistress affair ended and wanted sympathy for it. She needs to get a life and apologize for her actions, not cry with a little baby suckle in her mouth. We needed David to act like a general, but he was too busy dealing with a little cry baby mistress and an affair. Sad. Pathetic.
October 28, 2019
Engaging account of the COIN mission and how GEN Petraeus guided these efforts. As a military Officer I found this particularly interesting having been deployed on three separate occasions to carry out COIN initiatives. Aside from that, I found insight into GEN Petraeus lacking depth and disappointing, especially given the supposed unabridged access we now know the author had to him. There are many unanswered questions as to where the Generals insatiable drive came from, how he dealt with family separation and losses, did he ever have failures, and if not how was he able to achieve and learn without such failures etc. The book tends to jump around a bit at times and overall I would say this is less of an autobiography and more of a recounting of the COIN efforts and how they were initiated and lead.
July 30, 2022
Of course this books is integrity is in question given events come to light after publication. However, is it best to judge a book based on that or on its own merits? Flowery portrayal aside, this is an interesting book providing valuable insight in at least two separate areas: how a person rises to this level of success and inside knowledge of the conduct of military campaigns in the modern era.
I made the mistake of reading this at the same time as Call Sign Chaos which is one of the better books I’ve read covering much of the same events and issues. As such, maybe this book is four stars independently.
I made the mistake of reading this at the same time as Call Sign Chaos which is one of the better books I’ve read covering much of the same events and issues. As such, maybe this book is four stars independently.
September 24, 2024
The author clearly admired Petraeus and represents him through a rosy lens (no surprise since we now know they had an affair). I would have preferred a better rounded view.
The book is full of detail, but is too long.
I generally appreciate the author’s attempt at pacing by shifting from present day to past and back, but in this case it doesn’t seem well executed. There’s not a clear reason for particular shifts, so it ends up being more confusing than helpful.
The content is mostly interesting, but the writing is merely adequate.
The book is full of detail, but is too long.
I generally appreciate the author’s attempt at pacing by shifting from present day to past and back, but in this case it doesn’t seem well executed. There’s not a clear reason for particular shifts, so it ends up being more confusing than helpful.
The content is mostly interesting, but the writing is merely adequate.
April 20, 2019
كتاب مهم جدااااا ، لمعرفه بعض احداث حرب العراق وافغانستان ، هذا الرجل استتطاع ان يغير مسار الحرب في العراق من خلال " مشروع الصحوات" وايضا له الفضل في ابتكار بعض وسائل مكافحه التمرد ،وقراءه هذا الكتاب ليست اعجابا بالرجل فهو قاتل مجرم تسبب بمقتل الكثير من الابرياء ، انما نقرئها لمعرفه كيف يفكر العقل الغربي وما هي التكتيكات اللتي استخدموها لكي يقضوا علي المقاومه
June 29, 2017
Good book on leadership in combat. The leadership principals presented can be applied to multiple industries. This book also provides a good perspective on the war in Afghanistan, with a lot of information that was previously unknown (to me).
June 2, 2017
Great story of an exceptional general. At times it has a self-serving and romanticized flavor to it... I don't think it was needed, the general's story is in and of itself an amazing story.
November 28, 2017
This was a pretty interesting book about David Petraeus, but it was a little too academic for me.
September 21, 2018
2.6 stars rounds up.
August 31, 2020
Absolutely a waste of time, effort and paper.
March 27, 2012
This is an approved biography of the career of General Petraeus, with a focus on his development of counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy and his tenure as the commander in Iraq and Afghanistan. The author is a doctoral student in political science who also happens to have been a West Point graduate and who received considerable access and support from Petraeus. She is also the person who challenged John Stewart to a push-up contest on "The Daily Show".
It is an amazing story and Broadwell's telling of it is well done and rings true. There are several layers to the story and most of them are intriguing. First, there is how someone manages his career to reach the very highest levels of the US Defense establishment - this is not just substantive training, but also the choice/good fortune to receive good assignment, the ability to receive guidance and support from key mentors, and the personal ability to handle the increasingly demanding political, technical, administrative, and military skills of higher and higher roles.
Another key story for Petraeus is his role as a "soldier/scholar" -- a soldier who is also a skilled academic with specialized knowledge to put the military trade in context. Petraeus not only received his Ph.D. from Princeton but also actively supported other soldier/scholars as a brain trust to help him develop and implement his strategies. This is part of a broader history of the US military following Vietnam in which training and doctrine were given a hallowed place in the fundamental organization of the armed services. What other organization do you know of that places training and manuals (such as Petraeus' famous counterinsurgency manual) in a position of such high visibility that the University of Chicago Press will issue a version?
A third critical portion of this story is the idea of counterinsurgency strategy - or the idea that the critical value of a war/combat situation is protecting the local population rather than defeating the enemy (although this is still important). This is a very complex multidisciplinary strategy is must come across as alien to traditional military logic. It was the key behind the "surge" in Iraq and the book gives a good description of how the strategy played out in Iraq in 2006-2008 -- although other books (also mentioned in this book) such as those by Tom Ricks are more informative. The COIN strategy in Iraq is arguably one of the chief claims to fame of General Petraeus and is worth reading about regardless of one's orientation to the conflict.
The core of the book concerns how this strategy was applied to Afghanistan - which differs considerably from Iraq. Here, Broadwell's book is informative by going beyond Petraeus and focusing on the situations of three (actually more) unit commanders facing a variety of different situations in the war. The descriptions are well done and bring out many of the conflicts of this complex strategy with the more traditional parts of the military establishment.
The book is very positive towards Petraeus -- although I must admit that I don't disagree with this focus very much -- he is a huge figure with much about him worthy of admiration. I would have preferred a bit more "deep" analysis of some of the lingering issues about Afghanistan and COIN strategies. For example, given the size, complexity, and population densities of Afghanistan, is it reasonable to expect that COIN could work? In some parts, you get the idea that it cannot, in others, it is presented as reasonable, in other parts of the book it just isn't clear. It is reasonable to address this head on and consider whether the strategy means the same in the Afghan setting as it did in Iraq. There are also other conflicts with COIN. For example, it is to some extent a holding action that is valuable by giving time and space for a political settlement -- which means that the strategy can be done perfectly and still fail for political reasons beyond the control of the soldieers -- not a very satisfying conclusion and one that looms large with Afghanistan under Karzai. How does one balance COIN with other strategies? The author addresses this a bit towards the end but it could have been raised earlier and in more depth. More generally, how does the need for context and continuity that seems critical for COIN square with the regular rotation of troops and commanders that seems inimical to that continuity?
I don't mind a good hagiography every now and then, but a bit more analytic edge would have been appreciated. For example, compare this with Bing West's book on the Afghan war, "The Wrong War". Maybe the author's doctoral advisers (including Petraeus?) will spur her to this as she finishes her studies. These are relatively minor points, however, and the book was hard to put down, even after reading lots of other books on these wars.
It is an amazing story and Broadwell's telling of it is well done and rings true. There are several layers to the story and most of them are intriguing. First, there is how someone manages his career to reach the very highest levels of the US Defense establishment - this is not just substantive training, but also the choice/good fortune to receive good assignment, the ability to receive guidance and support from key mentors, and the personal ability to handle the increasingly demanding political, technical, administrative, and military skills of higher and higher roles.
Another key story for Petraeus is his role as a "soldier/scholar" -- a soldier who is also a skilled academic with specialized knowledge to put the military trade in context. Petraeus not only received his Ph.D. from Princeton but also actively supported other soldier/scholars as a brain trust to help him develop and implement his strategies. This is part of a broader history of the US military following Vietnam in which training and doctrine were given a hallowed place in the fundamental organization of the armed services. What other organization do you know of that places training and manuals (such as Petraeus' famous counterinsurgency manual) in a position of such high visibility that the University of Chicago Press will issue a version?
A third critical portion of this story is the idea of counterinsurgency strategy - or the idea that the critical value of a war/combat situation is protecting the local population rather than defeating the enemy (although this is still important). This is a very complex multidisciplinary strategy is must come across as alien to traditional military logic. It was the key behind the "surge" in Iraq and the book gives a good description of how the strategy played out in Iraq in 2006-2008 -- although other books (also mentioned in this book) such as those by Tom Ricks are more informative. The COIN strategy in Iraq is arguably one of the chief claims to fame of General Petraeus and is worth reading about regardless of one's orientation to the conflict.
The core of the book concerns how this strategy was applied to Afghanistan - which differs considerably from Iraq. Here, Broadwell's book is informative by going beyond Petraeus and focusing on the situations of three (actually more) unit commanders facing a variety of different situations in the war. The descriptions are well done and bring out many of the conflicts of this complex strategy with the more traditional parts of the military establishment.
The book is very positive towards Petraeus -- although I must admit that I don't disagree with this focus very much -- he is a huge figure with much about him worthy of admiration. I would have preferred a bit more "deep" analysis of some of the lingering issues about Afghanistan and COIN strategies. For example, given the size, complexity, and population densities of Afghanistan, is it reasonable to expect that COIN could work? In some parts, you get the idea that it cannot, in others, it is presented as reasonable, in other parts of the book it just isn't clear. It is reasonable to address this head on and consider whether the strategy means the same in the Afghan setting as it did in Iraq. There are also other conflicts with COIN. For example, it is to some extent a holding action that is valuable by giving time and space for a political settlement -- which means that the strategy can be done perfectly and still fail for political reasons beyond the control of the soldieers -- not a very satisfying conclusion and one that looms large with Afghanistan under Karzai. How does one balance COIN with other strategies? The author addresses this a bit towards the end but it could have been raised earlier and in more depth. More generally, how does the need for context and continuity that seems critical for COIN square with the regular rotation of troops and commanders that seems inimical to that continuity?
I don't mind a good hagiography every now and then, but a bit more analytic edge would have been appreciated. For example, compare this with Bing West's book on the Afghan war, "The Wrong War". Maybe the author's doctoral advisers (including Petraeus?) will spur her to this as she finishes her studies. These are relatively minor points, however, and the book was hard to put down, even after reading lots of other books on these wars.
August 13, 2019
An incredibly thought provoking book. It's not a fast read, but worth the investment of time. It seemed in some ways to be a Shakespearean tragedy. It also made me wonder: Why hasn't DT faced any consequences for bad choices?📚
March 19, 2017
glad to finally have this off my list. Shame he threw away his career
January 31, 2022
I read memoirs for Grant, Mattis, Powell, and Petraeus. I suggest Powell, Mattis and Grant over Petraeus. I was curious to understand the Afghanistan situation that peaked back in August 2021 and resulted in a disruptive evacuation. I wanted to understand the lessons and leadership of one of the most senior military officials. I hoped to gain new lessons or weighting of past lessons. I hoped to gain a bit from his education at the taxpayers expense.
The book covers in minute details meetings, professional rise, exercise, news, political loyalties, and interactions of Afghanistan government. With a bit extra cognitive work there are lessons within these pages, but not as clearly shaped as other books by equal titled military high ranking. I do not suggest this unless one seeks a raw unshaped compendium of details of Petraeus and Afghanistan.
The book covers in minute details meetings, professional rise, exercise, news, political loyalties, and interactions of Afghanistan government. With a bit extra cognitive work there are lessons within these pages, but not as clearly shaped as other books by equal titled military high ranking. I do not suggest this unless one seeks a raw unshaped compendium of details of Petraeus and Afghanistan.
December 15, 2012
In the wake of the affair scandal that cost General Patraeus his job as CIA Director and besmirched his distinguished military career I wanted to find out what his paramour had to say in this lengthy book she wrote on his career. General Patraeus should not be seen as less than a most honorable man who dedicated his life to this country through his distinguished military service. Yet it seems puzzling that he could risk it all for an affair that tarnished it so and put so many on a national spectacle that no one would care to be. For all his intelligence and savvy to climb his way through a military career to the very pinnacle he did not seem to take heed in what a woman’s unpredictability could do to jeopardize and indeed bring it all down.
The book itself was the result of an extending embedding of Paula Broadwell with the general as he served commanding troops in Afghanistan after a more or less successful command in Iraq halting a deterioration of the political landscape there. The book was extensive in its very detailed account of strategic and tactical operations in Afghanistan as the US military plodded from village to village in pursuit of infiltrated Taliban insurgents. I would estimate 80% of the content covers these day to day decisions and undertakings in the field that at times for me became tedious. She would then skip back in time to give snippets of General Patraeus’ career path to this top position in the Army. Limited personal information on the Patreaus family, his wife Holly and two children would enter into this narrative also. We learn of the Generals’ drive and determination as he takes on each significant challenge through his career as a military officer and completes these assignments for the most part successfully.
There will likely be a number of books to come on the scandal that brought his career in public service to an unfortunate conclusion. This book adds considerable background leading up to the tragic event and of course is unique that the key player, Paula Broadwell, is the messenger in the tale. There will be much dissecting and speculation as to why he would risk it all as he did. As he stated himself on the matter, he screwed up royally.
The real story of the wars we have been in for over ten years now is there also to see first hand. As we prepare to leave the scene in the next several years we will have to consider what we really accomplished in this considerable toll of lives and resources. The Taliban who will certainly still be in the picture after we are gone, the Afghan government which has its element of corruption, the Pakistan equation, and the cultural ramifications are all matters that will continue to play out and we will witness just what impact we had in it all.
The book itself was the result of an extending embedding of Paula Broadwell with the general as he served commanding troops in Afghanistan after a more or less successful command in Iraq halting a deterioration of the political landscape there. The book was extensive in its very detailed account of strategic and tactical operations in Afghanistan as the US military plodded from village to village in pursuit of infiltrated Taliban insurgents. I would estimate 80% of the content covers these day to day decisions and undertakings in the field that at times for me became tedious. She would then skip back in time to give snippets of General Patraeus’ career path to this top position in the Army. Limited personal information on the Patreaus family, his wife Holly and two children would enter into this narrative also. We learn of the Generals’ drive and determination as he takes on each significant challenge through his career as a military officer and completes these assignments for the most part successfully.
There will likely be a number of books to come on the scandal that brought his career in public service to an unfortunate conclusion. This book adds considerable background leading up to the tragic event and of course is unique that the key player, Paula Broadwell, is the messenger in the tale. There will be much dissecting and speculation as to why he would risk it all as he did. As he stated himself on the matter, he screwed up royally.
The real story of the wars we have been in for over ten years now is there also to see first hand. As we prepare to leave the scene in the next several years we will have to consider what we really accomplished in this considerable toll of lives and resources. The Taliban who will certainly still be in the picture after we are gone, the Afghan government which has its element of corruption, the Pakistan equation, and the cultural ramifications are all matters that will continue to play out and we will witness just what impact we had in it all.
March 1, 2012
A glowing biography of General David Petraeus. He's just an amazing leader, and his accomplishments and perseverance in the face of the conflicts he's been charged to lead are nothing short of incredible.
Broadwell is clearly a fan of Petraeus, and while she does acknowledge some of his shortcomings, I would have preferred a bit more skepticism and critique. But I can see why that would be difficult. Petraeus is utterly likeable: A workaholic, who values education amongst his officers, and requires information (and more information, and then more information) to make the hard decisions. He comes across as doing things for the right reasons, and never losing sight of his humanity or the cost of human lives in battle.
The actual layout of the biography was sometimes frustrating - Broadwell would switch between Petraeus's previous service in Bosnia and Iraq, to the current Afghanistan conflict. Just when you were getting going on a thread, she would sometimes switch gears, which was distracting. Some of the battle scenes were also more technically, rather than emotionally, written (Sebastian Junger does it best, so it's probably an unfair comparison). But all in all, it was a tribute to the amazing mechanics of leading military campaigns. I have trouble leading my kids to the car for school. This book was immensely humbling.
Recommended. Great biography of a great American leader.
Broadwell is clearly a fan of Petraeus, and while she does acknowledge some of his shortcomings, I would have preferred a bit more skepticism and critique. But I can see why that would be difficult. Petraeus is utterly likeable: A workaholic, who values education amongst his officers, and requires information (and more information, and then more information) to make the hard decisions. He comes across as doing things for the right reasons, and never losing sight of his humanity or the cost of human lives in battle.
The actual layout of the biography was sometimes frustrating - Broadwell would switch between Petraeus's previous service in Bosnia and Iraq, to the current Afghanistan conflict. Just when you were getting going on a thread, she would sometimes switch gears, which was distracting. Some of the battle scenes were also more technically, rather than emotionally, written (Sebastian Junger does it best, so it's probably an unfair comparison). But all in all, it was a tribute to the amazing mechanics of leading military campaigns. I have trouble leading my kids to the car for school. This book was immensely humbling.
Recommended. Great biography of a great American leader.
November 9, 2014
First time book author Paula Broadwell and her associate, Vernon Loeb, used five pages of mostly military acronyms and seventy-one characters spread over 357 pages to document General David Petraeus’ leadership of America’s war in Afghanistan. All those acronyms and all those characters make this a very tough, complicated and slow-going read. It was an outgrowth of Broadwell’s PhD dissertation research and that may explain why it reads like a term paper.
As she points out in this volume, Petraeus’ legacy includes instituting counterinsurgency as a division commander in northern Iraq, authoring a new field manual, commander of the Iraqi surge in 2007 and 2008, and he “helped craft the campaign strategy for Afghanistan and then . . . executed it.”
Petraeus’ life and military education and career are chronicled here, but, Broadwell focuses primarily on the general’s conduct of the war in Afghanistan. What should impress you the most is Petraeus’ intellect, his servant attitude, his love and devotion to his troops and most of all his unshakeable loyalty to his commander-in-chief even when POTUS fails to heed his advice. In my book, those qualities alone put America’s newest director of the CIA on a pedestal along side of Grant, Lee, Pershing, Macarthur, Patton, Eisenhower and all the other great military leaders in our history. Broadwell and Loeb paint a picture of a solder’s soldier.
As she points out in this volume, Petraeus’ legacy includes instituting counterinsurgency as a division commander in northern Iraq, authoring a new field manual, commander of the Iraqi surge in 2007 and 2008, and he “helped craft the campaign strategy for Afghanistan and then . . . executed it.”
Petraeus’ life and military education and career are chronicled here, but, Broadwell focuses primarily on the general’s conduct of the war in Afghanistan. What should impress you the most is Petraeus’ intellect, his servant attitude, his love and devotion to his troops and most of all his unshakeable loyalty to his commander-in-chief even when POTUS fails to heed his advice. In my book, those qualities alone put America’s newest director of the CIA on a pedestal along side of Grant, Lee, Pershing, Macarthur, Patton, Eisenhower and all the other great military leaders in our history. Broadwell and Loeb paint a picture of a solder’s soldier.
June 23, 2012
A well written and enjoyable narrative that intertwines the defining moments of GEN Petraeus's early military career (assignments, mentors, Princeton studies, operations in Haiti and Bosnia) with his final decade as a senior leader and theater commander of first operations in Iraq, then Afghanistan. His early career study, then extensive practice and doctrinal development of counter-insurgency is a theme worthy of review of the modern military leader. The book offers a number of very recent personal and collective refinements of COIN doctrine that will surely be part of the ongoing revision and rewriting of FM 3-24. Finally, the personal stories of various 101st Airborne Division units in Afghanistan and of Aghan advisors are well chosen to highlight the nature of the fight in Afghanistan and the outstanding efforts of the Screaming Eagle troopers and by extension all who have served at the cutting edge of our Nation's main effort. It is very interesting that the people GEN Petraeus repeatedly singled out for mentorship or inclusion is his inner circle are those that best embody the characteristics of audacity, creativity, and initiative. I would recommend to all, but to junior company grade and field grade leaders in particular.
December 13, 2012
Forget the scandal around Paula Broadwell and General Patraeus. None of that is in this biography. What is here is a decent look into Patraeus's life and military career.
Yes, he was a great general by most accounts. Again by most accounts he modernized the army from a traditional ground force supported by air. Given the two major wars where he led troops were not standard ground wars, he was asked to develop and execute a counterinsurgency program. Think "winning hearts and minds" of the locals. Readers all know how well that's worked in Afghanistan.
While the book is well-researched and well-written, two questions remain. What was the real Patraeus like, meaning how did what he did affect him? He never drops the mask of general and leader. The other question that is asked several times but never answered: why was he passed over for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs? By his own accounting, that was his goal, yet more than one time he was told to forget it. Readers never learn why.
If you are looking for a decent book about a personality that is larger than life, this is a good one to read. I suggest, however, you read it with Thomas Ricks's The Generals for a different view of our military leaders.
Yes, he was a great general by most accounts. Again by most accounts he modernized the army from a traditional ground force supported by air. Given the two major wars where he led troops were not standard ground wars, he was asked to develop and execute a counterinsurgency program. Think "winning hearts and minds" of the locals. Readers all know how well that's worked in Afghanistan.
While the book is well-researched and well-written, two questions remain. What was the real Patraeus like, meaning how did what he did affect him? He never drops the mask of general and leader. The other question that is asked several times but never answered: why was he passed over for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs? By his own accounting, that was his goal, yet more than one time he was told to forget it. Readers never learn why.
If you are looking for a decent book about a personality that is larger than life, this is a good one to read. I suggest, however, you read it with Thomas Ricks's The Generals for a different view of our military leaders.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews