TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Bush to Replace 2 Top Generals in Iraq

Bush to Replace 2 Top Generals in Iraq

Good? Bad? Thoughts?

quote:

Bush to Replace 2 Top Generals in Iraq President Bush Puts Finishing Touches on Iraq Plan, Plans to Replace 2 Top Generals in Iraq By ROBERT BURNS The Associated Press WASHINGTON - President Bush is putting the finishing touches on his new Iraq plan, reshuffling his national security team and military leadership in the wartorn country and scheduling private briefings at home with key lawmakers. The president plans to replace his two top generals in Iraq, a defense official, speaking on grounds of anonymity, told The Associated Press. Bush next week will unveil his strategy, which is expected to entail new political, military and economic steps to win the war. The military approach, which has attracted the most attention and skepticism from Congress, is expected to include an increase in U.S. forces, possibly 9,000 additional troops deployed to the Baghdad capital alone. "One thing is for certain: I will want to make sure the mission is clear and specific and can be accomplished," Bush said Thursday. Before the president provides more details, however, he is putting in place a new team to help oversee his Iraq policy. Ryan Crocker, a veteran Amer ican diplomat now U.S. envoy to Pakistan, was expected to replace Zalmay Khalilzad as the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Khalilzad will be nominated to become the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, according to a senior Bush administration official. Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, and Gen. George Casey, the chief general in Iraq, are both expected to leave their jobs in coming weeks. The defense official, who insisted on anonymity because formal announcements are still pending, said that Bush wants to replace Abizaid with Adm. William Fallon, the top U.S. commander in the Pacific and that Casey's replacement would be Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who headed the effort to train Iraqi security forces. Also, retired Vice Adm. Mike McConnell, a veteran of more than 25 years in intelligence, was to be named Friday by Bush to succeed John Negroponte as national intelligence director, said a senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision was not yet public. Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, D-Hawaii, a member of the Senate Defense appropriations subcommittee, said of Fallon: "He's highly knowledgeable and well-educated and respected. I would think that his nomination, if the president is to submit it, would go flying through." Each of the personnel changes comes on the heels of Defense Secretary Robert Gates replacing Donald H. Rumsfeld, the architect of the unpopular war. Besides ushering in new personnel, Bush on Friday was to discuss his plans for the Iraq war privately with more than a dozen senators, a list that includes some of his biggest critics, as well as his most ardent supporters. Briefings with lawmakers were expected to continue through next week, culminating in a meeting with bipartisan leadership on Wednesday, according to lawmakers and aides. Bush spoke with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in a secure video hookup for nearly two hours Thursday. The president said he sought assurances from al-Maliki that he would do what's necessary to protect Iraqis against rising sectarian violence. "I believe Prime Minister Maliki has the will necessary to make the tough decisions," the president said. Bush appeared Thursday with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and recounted some of his discussions with al-Maliki. The president said he talked with the prime minister about the final moments of Saddam Hussein's life, when the deposed Iraqi leader was taunted before being hanged Saturday and then filmed dangling from a rope. "My personal reaction is that Saddam Hussein was given a trial that he was unwilling to give the thousands of people he killed," Bush said. "I wish, obviously, that the proceedings had gone on in a more dignified way." One option being considered by Bush includes sending 8,000 to 9,000 more troops to Iraq, primarily to reinforce Baghdad. There are roughly 140,000 troops in Iraq. The option involves sending two additional Army brigades, or roughly 7,000 soldiers, to Baghdad, and two Marine battalions, totaling about 1,500 troops, to western Anbar Province, the center of the Sunni Arab insurgency. Lawmakers said Thursday they were skeptical of such a plan. "My conclusion was that it would be a mistake to send more troops to Baghdad," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. "I think the sectarian violence there requires a political not a military solution." This concern was echoed by Abizaid in testimony on Capitol Hill in November. He said 20,000 more troops could be deployed, but that the Army and Marine Corps are too taxed to sustain the increase for long. Giving Fallon and Petraeus the top military posts in the Middle East would help Bush assert that he is taking a fresh approach, and help pave the way for him to turn policy there in a new direction. As with Abizaid, Casey also has expressed reservations about the potential effectiveness of boosting troop strength in Iraq. He told reporters in Iraq last month that he is "not necessarily opposed to the idea" of sending in more troops, but said any increase would have to "help us progress to our strategic objectives." Besides military, Bush's new plan is expected to contain economic, political and diplomatic components. Given the need to reduce high unemployment and draw Iraqis away from Shiite militias and the Sunni insurgency, the president is considering loans to businesses. He is looking at getting Iraqis into short-term jobs by proposing a significant increase in the discretionary funds that military commanders can use for reconstruction projects.

>>Source<<

Considering Casey was all for a reduction of troops not too long ago, and that he opposes a troop surge (along with a number of top military officials, Chief of Staff, the vast majority of American public (polls are consistently from 8-16% show support of the asinine idea, a healthy number of Republicans, most of the Democrats, and anyone with half a fucking brain), I guess the writing for this guy was on the wall. Time to install a better "yes"-man.

Troop 'surge' which is keeping troops already there
alittle longer, if because Iraq has finally lost patience
with the Mehdi Army reponsible for most of the death squads
involved in sectarian violence.

This week Iraqi troops have stepped up raids and pressure
on Sadr and his militia. A full blown war against his militia
will begin once the new American troops arrive.
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/art...P-C12-Editors-3

The Iraqi government isn't happy about his politicians
boycotting the governement over the refusal of a timeline
on US troop withdrawal. Been months and now the government
is going to restructure and leave them out of the process.

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC Troop 'surge' which is keeping troops already there alittle longer, if because Iraq has finally lost patience with the Mehdi Army reponsible for most of the death squads involved in sectarian violence. This week Iraqi troops have stepped up raids and pressure on Sadr and his militia. A full blown war against his militia will begin once the new American troops arrive. http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/art...P-C12-Editors-3 The Iraqi government isn't happy about his politicians boycotting the governement over the refusal of a timeline on US troop withdrawal. Been months and now the government is going to restructure and leave them out of the process.

That appears to be the case. I can't blame them - it was risky to have Sadr and his people in top governmental positions, though I can understand their rationale for his appointment considering the power he has garnered.

To me this move by Bush is beyond risky - it's suicide on every level. There's a number of top brass opposed to this idea, let alone politicians on both sides of the aisle along with the vast majority of American public:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6123100931.html

We can dismiss public opinion perhaps when it comes to military tactics. But the top general and even politicians on the same side of the aisle as Bush is a bit more difficult to do. It wasn't too long ago that Bush said this about Casey:

quote:

General Casey will make the decisions as to how many troops we have there. And that's important for the families to know. It's really important. General Casey is a wise and smart man who has spent a lot of time in Baghdad recently, obviously. And it's his judgment that I rely upon. He'll decide how best to achieve victory and the troop levels necessary to do so. I spent a lot of time talking to him about troop levels, and I told him this,; I said, you decide, General. I want your judgment, your advice. I don't want these decisions being made by the political noise, by the political moment. It's just unfair to our troops and it's unfair to their families. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20060707-1.html

Last July, in fact. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Bush was going to listen to the folks on the ground? It would appear that's not quite the case now - unless, of course, he hires someone on the ground that will agree with the strange voices in his head?

I think this is one of, if not THE most disturbing thing about Bush's decision:

quote:

MIKLASZEWSKI: Administration officials told us late today that President Bush has now all but decided to surge those additional combat troops into Baghdad to try to get control over the violence there, and only then could they accelerate the turnover of territory to Iraqi security forces. Fact is, they're just not up to the task yet. The plan would also throw more U.S. money at Iraq for reconstruction and a jobs program. Now, interestingly enough, one administration official admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one because the American people have simply run out of patience and President Bush is running out of time to achieve some kind of success in Iraq. And while this plan will clearly draw some stiff opposition up on Capitol Hill, the president is expected to announce it a week from today. -From NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams, Jan. 2, 07

Let me quote that interesting part again:

quote:

Now, interestingly enough, one administration official admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one

Terrific. Nothing like a political decision trumping a military one.

And finally, I think this post on Susan Collins, Republican Senator from Maine versus Joe "Bush-lite" Lieberman is interesting. They essentially went to the same meetings in Iraq, but what Lieberman got out of those meetings was marketly different than what this Republican Senator heard:

quote:

Collins has written a column for the local Maine newspapers describing the discussions with commanders in some detail. The column hasn't appeared in the newspapers yet, but her office has released an advance copy of what's going to appear and sent one to me. Here's what Collins wrote: quote: In Basra, we met with British commanders who talked about the declining �consent line� -- that is, when the British first arrived, their presence was welcomed by the population, but as time has gone on, their presence is less and less tolerated. Needless to say, there was much discussion in all of our meetings -- whether with Iraqi leaders, American or British commanders, or rank-and-file troops -- about whether or not more American troops are needed. My conclusion is that it would be a mistake to send more troops to Baghdad. Prime Minister Maliki did not welcome the prospect of more American troops and indeed seemed frustrated that he did not have more control over his own troops. One American general told me that a jobs program in Baghdad would do more good than additional troops.... The one region where an American commander, General Kilmer, did specifically express the need for more troops was in Anbar province. General Kilmer told us that he could use another brigade (about 3,000 troops) or even two to build on the positive developments in the region. I agree with his assessment, but think that a reallocation of troops, rather than an overall increase, could meet his need. Okay, so the British commanders told Collins that their presence was "less and less tolerated." One American commander said outright that a "surge" wouldn't do any good. And only one American commander said an increase might help -- a small increase that could be solved by a reallocation. According to Collins' account, then, not a single commander came anywhere near saying anything that could be construed as desiring -- or even supporting -- any kind of large scale increase. Yet Lieberman has repeatedly claimed that he emerged from these same discussions "strongly" convinced that an escalation is the right course of action. He even asserted that the commanders were "asking" for more troops. Either Collins or Lieberman is not leveling with us here. http://www.prospect.org/horsesmouth...477.html#014972

Lieberman, who supports the troop surge, is seemingly lying through his fucking teeth, or Collins is lying. But let's see what the top military commanders are saying:

John Abizaid:

quote:

As the new secretary of defense, Robert M. Gates, takes stock of the war in Iraq this week, he will find Gen. John P. Abizaid, the senior commander in the Middle East, resistant to increasing the American fighting force there. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/20/w.../20abizaid.html

Again, George Casey:

quote:

His assessment, which includes plans to increase the number of American trainers embedded with Iraqi units, is supported by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the senior American commander in Iraq, as well as by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who must provide the forces and have resisted an increase without first clearly defining the goals it would try to achieve on the ground. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/20/w.../20abizaid.html

Peter Chiarelli:

quote:

Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the second-highest-ranking American officer in Iraq, has been the allied forces� operational commander for the past year, and he has resisted a troop increase, the officials say, believing an American-financed job creation program could do as much to weaken the insurgents and political militias. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/15/w...ml?pagewanted=2

Lieberman = lying pile of horse dung.

This plan is a last ditch effort to save Bush's POLITICAL legacy. How many more troops must die to save such a failed legacy?

How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Iraq?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 To me this move by Bush is beyond risky - it's suicide on every level. There's a number of top brass opposed to this idea, let alone politicians on both sides of the aisle along with the vast majority of American public:

Think its more a case of shuffling people around so he can appear to be doing 'something' about a problem rather and after in damage control than address it directly, he did a fairly good job of it with the whole Hurricane Katrina debacle and Rumsfeld so he's certainly not afraid of burning members of the 'team' so to speak.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Think its more a case of shuffling people around so he can appear to be doing 'something' about a problem rather and after in damage control than address it directly, he did a fairly good job of it with the whole Hurricane Katrina debacle and Rumsfeld so he's certainly not afraid of burning members of the 'team' so to speak.

I'm curious if others on the 'team' feel like sacrificial meat for the political Gods...

It's a curious move for sure; just have to wait a little for some more commentary to come out, although the initial reactions aren't that much of a surprise.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 This plan is a last ditch effort to save Bush's POLITICAL legacy. How many more troops must die to save such a failed legacy?

you're waaaay over analyzing this through your hate-Bush-at-all-costs prism.

you don't even know how many or where the troops are going or what kind of troops doing whatever particular tasks that those same Generals want done. the one thing you should know is that Bush will do it and won't care who second guesses him.

CENTCOM being replaced by an Admiral screams one thing to me. IRAN!!!if thats the case then all bets are off.

you'll need a Navy man for strategic action in the Persian Gulf.

i hope i'm wrong.

quote:

How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Iraq?

you don't.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo you're waaaay over analyzing this through your hate-Bush-at-all-costs prism.

Please keep in mind that at one point in time I was a Bush supporter. It took me years to get to the point where I am now, and it is not a hate-filled philosophy (to which the same cannot be stated for you). Disagreeing with nearly most of the things our President and his neocon-led Administration performs does not entail hate. It does entail pointing out the weakness of his arguments with evidence, as well as his contradictions and sincere misunderstanding of the reality-based community, but it's certainly not hate.

In fact, I do the exact same thing with you and the last thing I feel is hate towards you. Like Shakka and many others here whom I disagree with, at the end of the day we're all on the same side and tend to want similar things - we just have different philosophies on how to get there. I said it many times and I'll say it again, the folks whom I disagree with the most are the ones I'm happy to share a beer with at the end of the day and when it's all said and done. Of course I guess Dubya will have to drink a Seltzer water with lime, but I'll still have that drink with him.

quote:

you don't even know how many or where the troops are going or what kind of troops doing whatever particular tasks that those same Generals want done. the one thing you should know is that Bush will do it and won't care who second guesses him.

Indeed - ignorance does seem to be his strong point. It speaks volumes about how and why we're so incredibly bogged down right now. Thank you for pointing that out.

quote:

CENTCOM being replaced by an Admiral screams one thing to me. IRAN!!!if thats the case then all bets are off. you'll need a Navy man for strategic action in the Persian Gulf. i hope i'm wrong.

As do I, but I tend to agree with your analysis nonetheless.

quote:

you don't.

As we're most certainly observing, no doubt.

And now, another game of "who the fuck said that?!?"

quote:

Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don�t you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave. As we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters: the sober judgment of our military leaders.

Answer: Dubya, June 28, 2005.

My how things change for the little guy. Keep in mind this:

quote:

MCCAIN: Did you note that General Zinny who opposed of the invasion now thinks that we should have more troops? Did you notice that General Batise, who was opposed to the conduct of this conflict also says that we may need tens and thousands of additional troops. I don�t understand General. When you have a part of Iraq that is not under our control and yet we still � as Al Anbar province is � I don�t know how many American lives have been sacrificed in Al Anbar province � but we still have enough and we will rely on the ability to train the Iraqi military when the Iraqi army hasn�t send the requested number of battalions into Baghdad. ABIZAID: Senator McCain, I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the core commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.

This was General Abizaid talking to Senator McCain on November 15, 2006 about a possible surge of troops. It's great to see how much faith our dear leader has in hearing, understanding, and supporting the generals on the ground who know what we need and don't need:

quote:

Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, and Gen. George Casey, the chief general in Iraq, are both expected to leave their jobs in coming weeks. http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=2772939

What was that again, Jr.?:

quote:

If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job.

What did Abizaid say again?:

quote:

I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the core commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no.

Jr:

quote:

If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them.

Meet general:

quote:

if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no.

Meet Q, your most staunchest friend and unrelenting "yes"-man soldier:

quote:

the one thing you should know is that Bush will do it and won't care who second guesses him.

Apparently, he doesn't even care for those generals on the ground anymore, does he?

Instead, this aptly demonstrates that Bush has a preconceived notion and will do whatever he needs to do to find someone, ANYONE to agree with him on the ground. He will not listen to those who are on the ground - instead he fucking replaces them.

This defies logic and coherency in every way, but your unabashed support for your "fearless" leader continues to overlook these most simplistic contradictions. You tell me, champ - if Bush is unwilling to listen to the men on the ground, who the fuck is really AGAINST the fucking military now?

Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Many would categorize this as a 180 turnaround from the previous strategy. Well why the fuck is he making a 180 turnaround if he was so confident in his previous strategy mere months ago??? This lack of definitiveness reeks of ineptitude. And this replacement of generals only seems to fuel the seemingly pavlovian response to what's been happening lately. Enough about our thoughts ... what are your thoughts?

Perhaps they weren't dropping enough bombs to please the iron triangle.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.