Thursday, 04.24.08
Petraeus Wins
Alex Wong/Getty Images
Petraeus's appointment as combatant commander of Central Command was set in motion several weeks ago, with the firing of then-combatant commander Adm. William Fallon. The administration let him go not for opposing a possible strike against Iran, as was widely speculated, but for arguing too often with Petraeus over troop levels in Iraq. Petraeus, who may be the most well-read analytical mind in the military, wanted to maintain troop levels, rather than reduce them for use in Afghanistan and for other contingencies -- to say nothing of relieving strains on the army. But Fallon and Pentagon generals wanted troop levels in Iraq to come down. Petraeus won the debate.
He will be the new CentCom combatant commander, running developments in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a naval officer, Fallon had trouble gaining control of Central Command, since both Iraq and Afghanistan are Army-run wars. Petraeus will now have overall control of both conflicts. Replacing Petraeus as the top ground commander in Iraq will be Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, Petraeuss deputy until a few weeks ago. Odierno carried out the nuts-and-bolts work of Petraeuss surge. Together they made an effective team; the next-best thing to having Petraeus in Iraq is having Odierno there.
That they will again constitute a team overseeing the Iraq war, now at an even higher level of command, means the Bush administration is going for victory in Iraq over all other priorities. Indeed, the personnel changes indicate that the administration is desperate to show enough improvement in Iraq by the end of the year that an incoming Democratic president wouldn't dare reduce troop levels precipitously and risk being blamed for a dramatic security meltdown. To wit, these appointments demonstrate that, irrespective of who will be the next president, the presidential transition has already begun -- on this administration's terms.
Signals sentNoah Shachtman says the promotion means that soldiers face longer tours in Iraq, the U.S. will keep talking tough to Iran and the Army will focus on counter-insurgency. |
Unpopular promotionMark Thompson says Democrats will oppose the promotion to signal their displeasure with the war. |
Legacy buildingRobert Burns argues that the promotion will lock officers in place for Bush's successor. |
His own manSteve Coll writes that General Petraeus is not President Bush's lackey. |
(22)
The next President, if Democrat, should thank their lucky stars this President has a backbone and wants to complete the job, regardless of his poll numbers. Do you think the next President would prefer to inherit an ongoing successful campaign or one going nowhere? The next President will now be in a position to declare both victory and exit in due time, thanks to this one.
pacificaharry, I actually wish the current President had a brain rather than a backbone.
The next President will now be in a position to declare both victory and exit in due time, thanks to this one.
It will be thanks to this President, but don't expect to see them say that!
I would rather have a President (liberal or conservative) that does what is best for the long term benefit of the United States then one who sticks his/her finger out the window and see which way he/she should go.
pacificaharry, I actually wish the current President had a brain rather than a backbone.
Posted by chichi2
Where did you get your MBA? Under ANY serious measure of intelligence (brains?) President Bush is one of the brainer (more intelligent) Presidents. Upon entering the military, he (President Bush) took the same series of tests that Carter, Gore, Kerry, Johnson, and his dad took. AFAIK, the only Presidents to not take the GCT/ARI would have been Clinton and Reagan (maybe, I'm not sure if he was in the military or not). President Bush scored higher then any of the others that have released their DD214's. But those are facts, and as a Bush hating liberal, you are factaphobic. An unnatural fear and loathing of a facts is sort of a requirement for liberals, isn't it?
The post that Bush is somehow secretly intelligent was a funny one. If so, the man has hidden his brilliance extremely well, so well in fact that only 20 percent of the population can fathom the depth of his profundity. Bush may have scored phenomenally well on his AFAIKs or his GED for that matter, but on any measure based on what he has actually done for this country, he has proved a remarkable failure. No one but an idiot would have thought Iraqis would have welcomed us with flowers. And wasn't Bush a rocket scientist just a week or two ago when he dismissed with a wave of the hand suggestions that gas prices are headed towards 4 dollars? If he is truly brilliant, I hope our next president is an idiot. (By the way, brainer is not an adjective)
At least the photo of Petareus ins't named "Petraeus Loser.jpg" like the one of McCain the other day.
The majority of people want instant gratification but that does not make it right. This president has sacrificed his personal popularity for the security of his country.
Admiral Fallon was not "fired".
Imagine that, the President of the United States trying to win the war, or at least fight it effectively. The nerve of the man, try to force victory on the Democrats, stealing their well earned defeat!
"CentCom combatant commander" A combatant is a person who takes a direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict; do believe that Gen. Petraeus will engage in direct combat.
The expression should have been simply “CinC (Commander-in-Chief) CENTCOM"
War Criminals. Patraeus. Bush. Cheney. It is pathetic, is noone going to stand up and be heard for the American People.
The right-wingers posting hereabouts, in the spirit of true chickenhawks everywhere, have probably never done anything more hazardous than getting a paper cut opening their trust fund checks. Having served several tours in Iraq, I can only echo the opening words of the latest Iraq assesment from the National Defense University: "Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle." This is not in the United States best security interests. This is simple insanity.
Ah classic. When you can't shoot the message, shoot the messanger, eh WarDog?
Addendum: The logical extention of the "chickenhawk" argument is that the people who have fought most in the war in question are the ones who should have the strongest say, which means that Petraeus really the person we should be asking this question to, and, well, he says we should keep up troop levels. Thus, your own argument invalidates your position.
Wonderful, isn't it?
Let's begin with some simple clarifications:
This is not and has not been a war. No war was declared, no Iraqi army (they had and have neither a navy nor an air force) engaged. This was an invasion and is an occupation. Thus there is no "war" to "win."
The claim that "we are safer" has to be proven, not merely asserted. If by "safer" you mean that no terrorist attacks have occurred in the last six and a half years, you may want to look at the historical record. You may be surprised by what you find.
Bush has backbone. Yes, he does, as do all vertebrates. However, I am guessing this means he is somehow "courageous." So, if I lie and state that my poor neighbors across the street have weapons, use this pretext to invade their house and occupy it and then run up my credit cards so my children's children will be in debt, will I be courageous, too?
Cheney didn't like Fallon so he's replaced (read forced out...) with a like-minded sycophant. If you didn't see this coming you weren't looking. Iran prepare for war.
If elected, I believe Obama will take us out of Iraq at a precipitous rate. I believe Clinton will be more moderate, but will still take us out faster than is wise. They will be under too much pressure from their party to do otherwise.
Before then, the surge counterinsurgency may take Iraq and it's army far enough that, even with a precipitous pullout that results in several yrs of worse violence, they may be able to pull it out eventually.
In which case, "short term history" (i.e., what this generation of Americans would come to falsely believe) would be that the Democrats were correct, when in fact it would be that Petraeus was correct and did a good enuff job to cover their mistake.
I can't imagine that would be good.
Stop the madness.
"That they will again constitute a team overseeing the Iraq war, now at an even higher level of command, means the Bush administration is going for victory in Iraq over all other priorities."
Please define victory. Incurious George is too dumb to provide a meaningful answer as to what constitutes victory in Iraq.
"Indeed, the personnel changes indicate that the administration is desperate to show enough improvement in Iraq by the end of the year that an incoming Democratic president wouldn't dare reduce troop levels precipitously and risk being blamed for a dramatic security meltdown. To wit, these appointments demonstrate that, irrespective of who will be the next president, the presidential transition has already begun -- on this administration's terms."
The forthcoming democratic president compelled to continue the policies of, and retain the services of surrogates to, the worst president ever? And I suppose there is some bridge in Brooklyn for me to buy as well.
If we break the Army in the process, I'm not sure how any result in Iraq can be considered a "win". The quality of recruits has taken a sharp drop since the war began. The retention level of mid-grade officers is the lowest it's ever been. It would take many years to replenish the equipment already worn out through use in the Iraq theatre.
On the flip side, the surge (and even more importantly, the counter insurgency operations in conjunction with the Anbar awakening) has significantly improved security in Iraq. But what has the security gained? Sunnis are still marginalized by Maliki's government. We have fought on the side of one Shiite political faction versus another, and the one we opposed was almost certain to increase its power in the next elections, and still may. The Iranians are now backing Maliki's government, and are far more likely to exert greater control over it than we do in the long run (they're local, and we're not). These are not unsolvable problems, but they are not quickly solvable.
To maintain the gains already achieved will likely require another decade of US military presence. Fallon (and the Joint Chiefs) have made it quite clear that the Army cannot sustain that.
"CentCom combatant commander" A combatant is a person who takes a direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict; do believe that Gen. Petraeus will engage in direct combat.
The expression should have been simply “CinC (Commander-in-Chief) CENTCOM"
Posted by CID1957 | April 24, 2008 7:16 PM
Uhh, we haven't had CinCs in a long time buddy. Recommend either learning what is going on or staying retired.
Like Ralph Peters said in the New York Post this morning, "The grownups are in charge."
Vance Wade Garland, TX
Posted by Vance Wade | April 24, 2008 3:34 PM