Reports: Bush to replace top generals

[ProfJohn]

Not sure if this will really amount to anything. But at least we are trying something (for thr 50th time)

It is notable that companies do the same thing when they do not get good result. Shake up the people at the top, get new ideas and see if you can improve your situation.

Let's hope this works. Otherwise the next people put in charge will be in charge of bringing them home.
link

WASHINGTON - President Bush is shaking up the team responsible for carrying out his military and diplomatic strategies in Iraq as he prepares to outline a new direction for the war that has raged for nearly four years.

Bush will replace Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, and Gen. George Casey, the chief general in Iraq, in the coming weeks, according to media reports Thursday. A revamping of the administration's national security team was already under way.

Bush wants to replace Abizaid with Adm. William Fallon, the top U.S. commander in the Pacific, and Casey's replacement will be Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who headed the effort to train Iraqi security forces, the reports citing administration officials said.

Giving Fallon and Petraeus the top military posts in the Middle East would help Bush to assert that he is taking a fresh approach in the region and help pave the way for him to turn policy there in a new direction. Both Abizaid and Casey have expressed reservations about the potential effectiveness of boosting troop strength in Iraq.

Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (news, bio, voting record), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Defense appropriations subcommittee, told The Associated Press on Thursday that he understands Bush wants to appoint Fallon to head the U.S. Central Command, a position responsible for directing the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

"He's highly knowledgeable and well-educated and respected," Inouye said of Fallon. "I would think that his nomination, if the president is to submit it, would go flying through."

In a news conference Thursday, Bush said that he would go before the nation next week with his long-anticipated speech about the next steps in Iraq. The war was a major factor in the Republicans' loss of Congress and Bush's slide in the polls. More than 3,000 members of the U.S. military have lost their lives in the war.

"I'll be ready to outline a strategy that will help the Iraqis achieve the objective of a country that can govern, sustain and defend itself sometime next week," the president said. "I've still got consultations to go through." Some members of Congress have been invited to the White House on Friday for discussions about Iraq.

I think it is safe to say that this is Bush's last change to get it right. 2008 elections are coming down the track and Iraq has to be off the table for Republicans to have a chance.

 

[animalia]

yep...sounds like the last chance alright

 

[CellarDoor]

Forgive me, since I haven't been following things very closely as of late, but aren't those the generals that were against bringing in more troops? If so, wouldn't this allow Bush to increase troop levels without ignoring commanders?

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: CellarDoor
Forgive me, since I haven't been following things very closely as of late, but aren't those the generals that were against bringing in more troops? If so, wouldn't this allow Bush to increase troop levels without ignoring commanders?

No.

 

[theeedude]

Can't hurt to try, I suppose. But why not have two separate generals directing Iraq and Afghanistan instead of just one?

 

[Red Dawn]

He should be asking Darth Cheney to step resign also since he along with Rumsfield were one those mainly responsible for getting us involved in that quagmire.

 

[techs]

Petraeus did a good job during the occupation of Mosul as head of the 101 airborne. Whether the quick deterioration in Mosul after he left was due to his failure to properly plan for the pullout, or a sign of his good administrative skills in keeping order while he was there, is a question.
However, there is no question as to Petraeus failing spectactulary from June 2004 to September 2005 when he was in charge of training the new Iraqi army. You know, the one that is nothing more than a group of militias with loyalty to everyone but the Iraqi government. You know, the one that is going around killing its sectarian "enemies".
The one that has failed so miserably that it needs to be completely rebuilt.
SO BUSH IS PUTTING A GUY IN CHARGE WHO FAILED SPECTACULARY AT TRAINING THE NEW IRAQI ARMY.
I WILL SAY THIS FOR BUSH, WHEN HE SHOOTS FOR FAILURE HE CERTAINLY KNOWS HOW TO FAIL SPECTACULARY.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
[ ... ]
It is notable that companies do the same thing when they do not get good result. Shake up the people at the top, get new ideas and see if you can improve your situation. ...

But he's not making changes at the top, of course. These guys are basically upper management, and will be replaced by people who are still beholden to the same "CEO" and executive team. Even Rumsfeld was replaced with someone who appears to be an ideological clone. Unfortunately, We, the Board don't have the option of forcing a change at the top for two more years, and the "CEO" obviously lacks the integrity to step down on his own.

 

[Lemon law]

Sounds exactly like Vietnam---where we played musical chairs with generals and even Presidents.
But when your mission has no traction with the indiginous people--and you don't understand the culture either, rearranging top military leadership seldom is anything but putting lip stick on a pig.---and sending in the military to find a political solution seldom works.---a military is good for killing people and breaking things.


The top leadership that needs replaced is GWB&co anyway.

 

[Jhhnn]

For the Bushistas, everything is political. So they'll sack anybody who doesn't agree with them, ala Shinseki, the CIA, or any number of other federal agencies. One of those create your own reality deals- Versailles on the Potomac.

 

[Phokus]

Can't wait for abizaid and friends to spill the beans on what an incompetent prick bush is in a couple weeks

 

[Lemon law]

The other thing this thread is ignoring is this whole goal vs. plan thing. Suppose I want to have a picnic
this coming July 4'th. And I really hope it does not rain. Can I say having it not rain is a goal? And what will be the means I use to attain my goal of making sure it does not rain.?

So what is our goal in Iraq---and I use "our" in a loose sense--maybe we should say GWB's goal.
Is it really get rid of Saddam and terrorism, and then to sow the seeds of democracy throughout the mid-east? Or is it to have a US military presence in a strategic area, secure contracts for his oil man buddies, and also attain the status of a visionary war time President. And do we really know which is really the case?---but we do know that if the latter is more true---citing the former as a rationale sounds more noble than citing the latter.---as both could be the real reasons.

Then we also have to examine the question of how it flies in Iraq where basically--the Iraqi people get a 800 pound gorilla that no one can stop---what sub set of the Iraqi people will somewhat pay lip service to and go along with the stated noble goal and use it to implement their own goals?---goals that have nothing to do with any dreams GWB&co. have.---and when those goals are to secure power for their faction and get murderous revenge against other groups---the net effect is to transform even the most noble goals into a tragic genocide.

But the other thing to note---GWB refuses to alter his goal---and is very belatedly is only slightly changing his tactics---when a change of tactics was needed at least three years ago--and now is far too little far too late. When what is now needed is some means to keeping Iraq from totally blowing up in his face---and igniting a broader mid-east war.

Its one thing to have a goal---its another thing to have a means to attain it---as for me and my picnic,
I hope still hope it won't rain---but I will have a plan B in place if it does.

 

[CellarDoor]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: CellarDoor
Forgive me, since I haven't been following things very closely as of late, but aren't those the generals that were against bringing in more troops? If so, wouldn't this allow Bush to increase troop levels without ignoring commanders?

No.

No what? I'm almost positive Abizaid was one of the generals against bringing in more troops. I also remember hearing that the general consensus was that Bush was leaning in the direction. This seems like an easy way to get rid of the generals who didn't agree with him. Was Casey also against bringing in more troops?

If I'm mistaken perhaps you could provide a more thoughtful answer than "no."

 

[Starbuck1975]

For the Bushistas, everything is political. So they'll sack anybody who doesn't agree with them, ala Shinseki, the CIA, or any number of other federal agencies. One of those create your own reality deals- Versailles on the Potomac.

Back in the mid to late 90s, a growing number of general officers in United States Army Europe (USAREUR) commands voiced concern over the missions in Bosnia and Kosovo...that essentially we had no exit strategy for those missions, and that they were hurting combat readiness and morale. MG Grange, a well respected commander amongst the troops, was the first divisional commander to openly report such concerns, and Clinton essentially silenced and later sacked him for it.

Similarly, when Shinseki was commander of HQ USAREUR and later became Chief of Staff, he envisioned an unparalleled transormation of the Army from a heavy armored fighting force to a light and lethal force capable of deploying quickly under numerous contingencies. This was circa 1999, and Shinseki's vision was all but ignored by Capital Hill and the President.

The deployment of Stryker is the only element remaining of Shinseki's vision and legacy. Given his understanding of how the world was changing, based largely on our missions in the Balkans and Somalia, I would say Shinseki was very much correct in his vision.

This isn't a Bush versus Clinton thing...I am simply demonstrating that you only have to go back one Administration to find a similar dynamic...Bush Sr. was guilty of it, as was Reagan, and probably Kennedy and Nixon as well given Bay of Pigs and Vietnam.

Presidents don't like it when their military brass questions their authority, and for a President to surround himself with "yes-men" is nothing new. Unfortunately, the Bush "yes-men" have no concept of military strategy or history.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Just George's SOP. If your lackeys disagree with you, put some in who do.


Let me make a prediction to a OPERATION SURGE in Iraq. A massive civilian reaction to the tactics used to carry out the operation and then full civil war supported by all factions to kick the invaders out.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

For the Bushistas, everything is political. So they'll sack anybody who doesn't agree with them, ala Shinseki, the CIA, or any number of other federal agencies. One of those create your own reality deals- Versailles on the Potomac.

Back in the mid to late 90s, a growing number of general officers in United States Army Europe (USAREUR) commands voiced concern over the missions in Bosnia and Kosovo...that essentially we had no exit strategy for those missions, and that they were hurting combat readiness and morale. MG Grange, a well respected commander amongst the troops, was the first divisional commander to openly report such concerns, and Clinton essentially silenced and later sacked him for it.

Similarly, when Shinseki was commander of HQ USAREUR and later became Chief of Staff, he envisioned an unparalleled transormation of the Army from a heavy armored fighting force to a light and lethal force capable of deploying quickly under numerous contingencies. This was circa 1999, and Shinseki's vision was all but ignored by Capital Hill and the President.

The deployment of Stryker is the only element remaining of Shinseki's vision and legacy. Given his understanding of how the world was changing, based largely on our missions in the Balkans and Somalia, I would say Shinseki was very much correct in his vision.

This isn't a Bush versus Clinton thing...I am simply demonstrating that you only have to go back one Administration to find a similar dynamic...Bush Sr. was guilty of it, as was Reagan, and probably Kennedy and Nixon as well given Bay of Pigs and Vietnam.

Presidents don't like it when their military brass questions their authority, and for a President to surround himself with "yes-men" is nothing new. Unfortunately, the Bush "yes-men" have no concept of military strategy or history.

Have you read the book Transformation Under Fire: Revolutionizing How America Fights
by Douglas A. Macgregor?

 

[tomywishbone]

I see an "Ardennes offensive" aka "Battle of the Buldge" type dymanic here. Even the names are strangely similar "Buldge" v. "Surge".

The Germans, knowing they had lost, tried one final offensive to change the tide of the war. It succeeded for a few weeks, but in the end, it just resulted in more dead Germans.

Iraq is lost. Leave.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Until someone is willing to lay down actual conditions for the end of this current war on "whatever", then we are perfectly justified in treating it as never-ending.

The United States will never win the ?war on terror,? in part, because BushCo. keeps applying elastic definitions to the enemy, most recently expanding the conflict into a war against Muslim ?radicals and extremists.?

BushCo. has inserted this new standard for judging who?s an enemy as he lays the groundwork for a wider conflict in the Middle East and a potentially endless war.

Indeed, it could be argued that the ?war on terror? has now morphed into the ?war on radicals,? allowing BushCo to add the likes of Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and the leaders of Syria and Iran to his lengthening international enemies list.

Bush?s twists and turns in defining the enemy in the ?war on terror? started more than five years ago, in the days immediately after the 9/11 attacks. Amid the nation?s anguish, Bush spoke in grandiloquent and quasi-religious terms, vowing to ?rid the world of evil,? a patently absurd task that never received the ridicule it deserved.

In other words, the war against ?terrorist groups of global reach,? which became the ?global war on terrorism,? now has morphed into what might be called the ?global war on radicals and extremists,? a dramatic escalation of the war?s ambitions with nary a comment from the U.S. news media.

So, under BushCo?s new war framework, the enemy doesn?t necessarily have to commit or plot acts of international terrorism or even local acts of terrorism. It only matters that BushCo. judges the person to be a ?radical? or an ?extremist.?

While the word ?terrorism? is open to abuse ? under the old adage ?one man?s terrorist is another man?s freedom fighter? ? the definition of ?radical? or ?extremist? is even looser. It all depends on your point of view.

BushCo. defines, and re-defines, their war on a whim, holding our nation hostage to their arbitrary interpretation of our "enemy," a term that continues to morph with BushCo's recurring delusions.

 

[Lemon law]

To Tommywishbone---who writes wishfully---Iraq is lost. Leave.

Unfortunately---not so easy---and huge negative consequences likely if we do--Bush unwittingly is into something he can't get out of---in the past his daddy bailed him
out---this time it will be the USA taxpayer doing the bailing out---350 billion direct costs so far---up to 2 trillion in indirect costs estimated--3000 US dead---probably around 650,000
Iraqi dead---and we ain't seen nothing yet.

All so GWB could have that photo-op on a carrier in full flight suit plus piss bottle regalia.---and now Bush rearranges the deck chairs on the Titanic--while the underlying deck is
is leaking like a sieve and about to sink.

Its going to take a much better plan--a change of goals--from winning--to stabilizing Iraq---and get the international community in and GWB out of the decision making loop.

Then--if we can implement that plan--and kick in a few more hundred billion in aid---then we might be able to get out safely.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: CellarDoor

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: CellarDoor
Forgive me, since I haven't been following things very closely as of late, but aren't those the generals that were against bringing in more troops? If so, wouldn't this allow Bush to increase troop levels without ignoring commanders?

No.

No what? I'm almost positive Abizaid was one of the generals against bringing in more troops. I also remember hearing that the general consensus was that Bush was leaning in the direction. This seems like an easy way to get rid of the generals who didn't agree with him. Was Casey also against bringing in more troops?

If I'm mistaken perhaps you could provide a more thoughtful answer than "no."

They were saying what Bush was telling them to say...that they didn't need more troops. The general consensus throughout the entire war has been that we need more troops.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Have you read the book Transformation Under Fire: Revolutionizing How America Fights by Douglas A. Macgregor?

No I haven't, but I was stationed overseas at the time, and served under both Grange and Shinseki.

 

[Rainsford]

I'm not quite sure what problem this is supposed to be solving. As far as I've heard, the problem isn't that there is a need for "fresh ideas" at the top, it's that the person at the VERY top (otherwise known as President Bush) needs to LISTEN to those ideas. I'm not sure what shuffling around the commanders is going to do if Bush isn't listening to what they have to say.

 

[libs0n]

The new head of CENTCOM is a Navy Admiral. Scuttlebutt is that this indicates that an Iran strike is in the works, considering CENTCOM oversees the two ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not sure whether I beleive that or not.

 

[Lemon law]

That is the great joker in the GWB lame duck swan song---will he script in an Iranian bombing campaign---I sure hope not---but given his track record,
he is irrational enough to.---and how can anyone stop him?