Bush names Petraeus to CENTCOM CINC

[baldheadeddork]

Link.

This is the least-surprising announcement of 2008, but it's a pretty dumb move by Bush. Petraeus was a great to use as an advocate for Bush's polices in Iraq as long as he was the commander for Iraq. Putting him in charge of CENTCOM forces him to look at what's happening in Afghanistan, too, and that's going to make it a hell of a lot harder to continue being Bush's cheerleader.

Here's a taste of what he'll have on his plate.

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration's effort to get NATO allies to send new combat forces to Afghanistan has produced pledges from six countries for about 2,000 troops, far less than the 7,000 to 8,000 troops that NATO commanders say are needed.

The reinforcements — heralded by White House national security adviser Stephen Hadley at NATO's recent summit with the words "help is on the way" — include some that were promised long ago and others that require parliamentary approval. For example, it includes 400 pledged by Poland last year and 120 that need approval from the Czech Republic's Parliament.

The bulk — 700 from France and 500 from the former Soviet republic of Georgia, an aspiring NATO member — also was announced before the NATO summit this month in Bucharest, Romania.

By far the biggest commitment at Bucharest came from the United States, which is adding 3,500 Marines to its 31,000 troops now in Afghanistan.

Most of the new commitments were for equipment or training rather than combat troops.

"A lot of what ended up being promised at Bucharest is window dressing," said Seth Jones, an Afghanistan expert at RAND Corp., a non-partisan think tank. "In very stark terms, what the NATO summit showed is that the United States is not going to be able to count on its NATO allies to fill the gap in Afghanistan."

The Afghanistan war is NATO's primary mission, and the Bush administration had made bolstering foreign commitments — to beat back Taliban fighters in the south — its priority for the summit.

NATO is balking because we're not sending more troops. We can't send more troops because of the surge in Iraq...championed by the new CENTCOM CINC.

[SlowGoose]

Well color me surprised.

[Fourstring]

I am surprised, though I probably shouldn't be.

Many people more or less agreed that Petraeus was doing a good job in Iraq, and moving the occupation in the direction it needed to go. It seems reasonable to keep him there; since a lot of his appeal has been his hands-on approach.

Moving to CentCom takes that away. WTF?

[Wakey]

Originally Posted by baldheadeddork

NATO is balking because we're not sending more troops.

I'm not buying that for a minute..

NATO, like the UN has been "balking" since it's inception.

Lets face it, war is a tough sell when it's reasoning revolves around anything sounding like big picture.

[jim schmidt]

It's not NATO's fight. They're pledged to mutual defense, but not to mutual aggression. And they're not pledged to do anything on our terms as we've demanded.

That said, Patreus revealed what kind of politician he is during both trips to the Hill. Anybody who still doubts that wasn't paying attention. Anyone who can tell you precisely what will happen if he doesn't get his way, but can't offer any prediction about what will happen if he does get his way is lying. This is true in every circumstance where this sort of tell occurs.

[baldheadeddork]

Originally Posted by Wakey

I'm not buying that for a minute..

NATO, like the UN has been "balking" since it's inception.

Lets face it, war is a tough sell when it's reasoning revolves around anything sounding like big picture.

The big picture is this: Britain pulled troops out of Iraq and shifted them directly to Afghanistan because they believe the threat from the Taliban is the gravest danger we face in the world right now. Our command staff and intelligence agencies have come to the same conclusion, and we've used that to pressure the NATO allies to commit more troops. The commandant of the Marine Corps is especially concerned about what will happen in Afghanistan this year, and publicly asked last year that all of his forces in Iraq be sent to Afghanistan to shore up our forces.

But Bush and Petraeus said no. We're not sending more troops to Afghanistan and that is making our allies ask why they should take on a fight that we won't. If you've forgotten - we did start this war against al Qaeda and the Taliban. Why should we expect someone else to finish it?

Your claim about NATO and the UN is beyond idiotic. What did the UN do when the North Korean communists invaded the south? What did the UN do in Lebanon after we ran out with our tails between our legs? And war is a tough sell when there's a big picture? Bullshit. We're choosing to ask others to fight on the main front while we are tied down with this distraction we created. We're the one's who can't see what's going on.

[baldheadeddork]

The bigger story in this might be the promotion of Ray Odierno to Commander of Coalition Forces-Iraq. This is the guy whose command of the 4th ID in the beginning of the war is greatly responsible for the creation of the insurgency. He only saved his job with some major ass sucking with Rumsfeld's people after he was rotated home in 2004. If you haven't read Thomas Ricks book "Fiasco", you should.

[jerome_oneil]

All politics aside, both of these promotions make sense. Petreaus was the natural successor to CENTCOM. He's a successful combat commander, knows what is happening there, and having responsibility for the entire region may in fact level his thinking out WRT Iraq.

WRT Odinero, I will never criticize an infantry division commander for promoting an aggressive fighting force. Petreaus may have a leveling effect on him, too.

On the other hand, it could be a complete disaster. I'll wait and see.

[flylooper]

Originally Posted by baldheadeddork

Link.

This is the least-surprising announcement of 2008, but it's a pretty dumb move by Bush. Petraeus was a great to use as an advocate for Bush's polices in Iraq as long as he was the commander for Iraq. Putting him in charge of CENTCOM forces him to look at what's happening in Afghanistan, too, and that's going to make it a hell of a lot harder to continue being Bush's cheerleader.

Here's a taste of what he'll have on his plate.



NATO is balking because we're not sending more troops. We can't send more troops because of the surge in Iraq...championed by the new CENTCOM CINC.

What's even more idiotic is that Odierno takes over for Petraeus. In his book Fiasco Rich crucifies him as inept. He's the guy that loaded up Abu Graib with any warm body that didn't speak English just to get them out of his sector. Odierno and Sanchez got hammered by Rich.

So the prez kicks Petaeus upstairs and brings the backup guy.

Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum! Same shit, different day.

[flylooper]

Originally Posted by jerome_oneil

All politics aside, both of these promotions make sense. Petreaus was the natural successor to CENTCOM. He's a successful combat commander, knows what is happening there, and having responsibility for the entire region may in fact level his thinking out WRT Iraq.

WRT Odinero, I will never criticize an infantry division commander for promoting an aggressive fighting force. Petreaus may have a leveling effect on him, too.

On the other hand, it could be a complete disaster. I'll wait and see.

"Successful commander?" Then why the fuck are we still there? How do you define success? Like everyone else stuck in that hole, he's surviving. Nothing more. And I don't blame him, either. The military has been monumentally misused from the beginning of this cluster fuck of a war.

[jerome_oneil]

Originally Posted by flylooper

"Successful commander?" Then why the fuck are we still there? How do you define success?

By the success or failure of military objectives. And by any measure, Petreus has been successful at that. You can no pin the political failures of the Bush adminstration on him. He has done the job they asked. "Quell violence in Bagdad." That got done, because it is a job the military can do. "Reconcile Iraqi political factions" is not one the military can do.

Like everyone else stuck in that hole, he's surviving. Nothing more. And I don't blame him, either. The military has been monumentally misused from the beginning of this cluster fuck of a war.

Absolutely no argument there. But misuse of the military is not Petreus' fault.

[flylooper]

Originally Posted by jerome_oneil

By the success or failure of military objectives. And by any measure, Petreus has been successful at that. You can no pin the political failures of the Bush adminstration on him. He has done the job they asked. "Quell violence in Bagdad." That got done, because it is a job the military can do. "Reconcile Iraqi political factions" is not one the military can do.



Absolutely no argument there. But misuse of the military is not Petreus' fault.

Well, aside from the impact Sadr has had in lowering the level of violence in Baghdad - and elsewhere there - for the last 6 months by declaring a cease fire, you might have a point- if you're into pyhrric victories.

Political and military victories are intertwined. You remember what Clauswitz said, don't you?

The thing is that there's been two wars in Iraq: The one where we brought Saddam down (a success) and the one where we are trying to establish a democracy in Iraq (an unmitigated disaster of a failure).

By your reasoning, Westmoreland was a success, too. He wasn't and he admitted to it before he died.

[Wakey]

Originally Posted by flylooper

"Successful commander?" Then why the fuck are we still there? How do you define success? Like everyone else stuck in that hole, he's surviving. Nothing more. And I don't blame him, either. The military has been monumentally misused from the beginning of this cluster fuck of a war.

You would have loved WWII

We wasted men like today's troops use suppression fire.

Can we carpet bomb Basra? How about we paint a mushroom cloud over that one?

That's the fast way to victory right there isn't it?

[Little Johnson]

Another total warfare junkie.

[flylooper]

Originally Posted by Wakey

You would have loved WWII

We wasted men like today's troops use suppression fire.

Can we carpet bomb Basra? How about we paint a mushroom cloud over that one?

That's the fast way to victory right there isn't it?

Absolutely. How many GIs bought the farm on D-Day alone? Or Marines on Tarawa and Iwo?

That's the way Genghis Khan worked it, too, when it came to any back-talk from the people he overran.

So..just make a parking lot out of the entire country (Sparing the oil rigs, of course) kill anyone who looks at us cross-eyed.

All of which goes to prove the absolute futility in being there.....unless!