Abizaid, Casey out, Khalilzad promoted out of Iraq
A total turnover in the top officials in Iraq.
ABCNews just reported that Gen. Abizaid will be replaced as Centcom commander(to be announced Monday.) He will be replaced by Admiral Fallon, a former Navy aviator who will now be put in charge of two nasty ground war/insurgencies.
(Both Navy and a former flyboy on top of that. Two traits every Army officer hopes for in a commander during a ground war. I guess they couldn't find anyone in the Army who would support the coming policy (or they wanted a Navy aviator for Iran.)
Gen. Casey was also reported to be replaced by Lt. Gen. Petreaus who gained much applause for training the Iraqi forces in 2005 (although I never figured out why.)
Also: ABC reported earlier that Khalilzad will be put up for John Bolton's UN job to be replaced by US ambassador to Pakistan Ryan Crocker. (Not too surprising after all the burned bridges with Maliki.)
The bottom line though, is that the problem has never been the personnel. The problem is the situation and the plan. So long as we're not operating in the realities of this war, but attempting "victory," we will only see more blood loss and disappointment, no matter who the commanders are.
And, Don't forget to add in Odierno replacing Chiarelli. Gates has played a part in the changes. I wonder if it's Gates putting in the people he wants or if it's Gates not protecting his officers from White House politics?
(Just quick first impressions. I reserve the right to change my opinions and this post.)
Later: NYTimes article on the replacements.
ABCNews just reported that Gen. Abizaid will be replaced as Centcom commander(to be announced Monday.) He will be replaced by Admiral Fallon, a former Navy aviator who will now be put in charge of two nasty ground war/insurgencies.
(Both Navy and a former flyboy on top of that. Two traits every Army officer hopes for in a commander during a ground war. I guess they couldn't find anyone in the Army who would support the coming policy (or they wanted a Navy aviator for Iran.)
Gen. Casey was also reported to be replaced by Lt. Gen. Petreaus who gained much applause for training the Iraqi forces in 2005 (although I never figured out why.)
Also: ABC reported earlier that Khalilzad will be put up for John Bolton's UN job to be replaced by US ambassador to Pakistan Ryan Crocker. (Not too surprising after all the burned bridges with Maliki.)
The bottom line though, is that the problem has never been the personnel. The problem is the situation and the plan. So long as we're not operating in the realities of this war, but attempting "victory," we will only see more blood loss and disappointment, no matter who the commanders are.
And, Don't forget to add in Odierno replacing Chiarelli. Gates has played a part in the changes. I wonder if it's Gates putting in the people he wants or if it's Gates not protecting his officers from White House politics?
(Just quick first impressions. I reserve the right to change my opinions and this post.)
Later: NYTimes article on the replacements.
posted by mikevotes at
5:48 PM
6 Comments:
Unless the personnel who got the bump are people who wouldn't support the new plan. The double super-secret surge plan. Got to get your yes-men in a row before you go public.
By
QuakerDave, at 6:42 PM
I think that's a large part of what this is. Add in the already announced, scheduled replacement of Chiarelli with the overly aggressive Odierno and you have a team that will do what Bush wants.
And, again, even with personnel who support it, kicking in doors is not going to resolve Iraq.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 6:45 PM
LTG Odierno is the right man to clean up Baghdad. If you will recall- Sadam was found in his area of operations hiding in a hole. LTG Patreaus owned the area where Uday and Qusay were found- above ground in a nice house hiding in plain sight. Here is the deal- General Odierno is a no-nonsense leader, he cleaned up North Central Iraq and he'll clean up Baghdad. Its a war and these are Arabs, if you have any knowledge of Arab culture and history you would know that they respect strength. Its a WAR. That means there will be killing. The American public should keep that in mind.
By
Anonymous, at 7:53 PM
Oh, I have no doubt that Odierno would be the right man for a straight up war. He was one of those who drove so successfully during the invasiion.
I just wonder in this delicate political environment whether he has the subtlety to navigate effectively.
Also, let me say that the press coverage may be misrepresentative of the man.
I could well be wrong, I am by no means an expert, but I don't think you're going to break this situation towards the positive with alot of force.
If the short term goal is to try to break the Mahdi, he might well be a good choice, but I see that as a strategy littered with potential failure, the most likely of which is the Mahdi starting an insurgency similar to the Sunnis in Anbar except with substantial foreign funding and training and arising from a far larger population base in a denser, larger urban environment.
Frankly, I don't have a problem with a large use of force if I thought it would make a positive difference, but I think that if the idea is to turn Odeirno loose on the Mahdi, we're going to create a far more direct problem than we're currently facing.
If that's the plan, adding him to the mix may only make the blowback worse.
My opinion, no more.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 9:31 PM
We invaded and dismantled an entire country, resurrecting long repressed sectarian/tribal hatred. We cocked up administration of the provisional gvt when were overtly in charge, then handed over sovereignty -- in a secret, secure location -- to a non-functioning "government."
You want escalation? You want to fix Iraq? Fine. Reinvade. Take the reigns. Have the UN set up a functioning bureaucracy to get the electricity flowing and people working. Then, when you've created a world worth living in -- that's more attractive than joining a militia -- then you can think about a staged transition... but plan on being there for a generation. It'll probably work.
You want to piss in the wind with some BS 20K surge, and go all commando on the neighborhoods? All you'll do is reinforce -- and spread -- anti-American hatred and cut what's left of America's moral authority off at the knees. Pissing in the wind. But it'll feel a lot more macho than wussy old jobs programs, routing out corruption, and creating a functioning judiciary. That's some BS the Eurotrash would do.
You can't kill hated with a bullet. It has to die from irrelevance. We need to make those who spew anti-American hatred sound like fools, not prophets. The sooner we stop living up to our enemy's propaganda the better.
By
-epm, at 10:00 PM
That's the key to me is that this small increase accomplishes nothing significantly positive and draws alot of negative.
I think the idea of "going after Sadr" is a bad idea, and if we're gonna try to do it with only 7-10K more in Baghdad, that's a deadly mistake.
I can't think of how many times I've read the 2 million strong population of Sadr city.
And, 7,000 +/- troops is going to take on the fighting (and armed) males in that population?
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 11:03 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home