Wednesday, February 04, 2009

They are who we thought they were, PART DEUX..there will be more sequels

From the left....

US Generals In Revolt On Iraq?

An implausible story headlined "US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision" by Gareth Porter is catching a bit of buzz. The Memeorandum link is not catching everyone; here are Powerline and Excitable Andy with disclaimers suggesting the careful reader come equipped with a grain or two of salt; here is John Cole with a similar reaction, and now my two personal faves. First, the American Street:

Will Petreas Stage A Mutiny? [ed - thereby joining SpellCheck...]

Some might call this treason:

...

Just a reminder to the jingoistic war bloggers who think St. Petraeus is infallible, the people of this great land are sovereign, and they have spoken. Their elected representative is General Petreaus's Commander, and he has spoken. This stuff is a damn sight closer to actually betraying our nation than anything the New York Times ever dreamed of doing.

NY TIMES:

WASHINGTON -- President Obama gave his national security team on Wednesday a new mission to end the war in Iraq, nearly six years after United States-led forces invaded, but he held off ordering a troop withdrawal right away to hear concerns and options from his military commanders.

On his first full day in office, Mr. Obama summoned senior civilian and uniformed officials to the White House to begin fulfilling his campaign promise to pull combat forces out of Iraq in 16 months. Among those meeting with Mr. Obama was Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander of American forces in the Middle East, who had not seen him since the Nov. 4 election.

"I asked the military leadership to engage in additional planning necessary to execute a responsible military drawdown from Iraq," Mr. Obama said in a written statement after the meeting. He added that he planned to "undertake a full review of the situation in Afghanistan in order to develop a comprehensive policy for the entire region."

...

The meeting on Wednesday served mainly to brief Mr. Obama on the state of affairs in Iraq. He heard from Gen. Ray Odierno, the commander of forces in Iraq, who participated by secure videoconference from Baghdad, and the departing United States ambassador, Ryan C. Crocker. The session did not focus on specific withdrawal proposals but instead featured a broad discussion of the political climate and security situation, according to senior officials.

...

Military planners have prepared a series of possible withdrawal plans that, in the words of one official, "range from conservative to aggressive." One of them matches the president's 16-month timetable, although Mr. Obama always envisioned a substantial "residual force" remaining beyond that to train Iraqi forces and hunt terrorist cells.

...

General Odierno initially favored withdrawing just 2 of the remaining 14 combat brigades by summer or fall, and military planners drew up a faster option only in recent weeks, on the assumption Mr. Obama would ask for it. But a number of senior officers have warned about the risks of a rapid withdrawal, military officials said.

Since the election, Mr. Obama has reaffirmed his intention to end the war, while leaving room to rethink the details by saying he would listen to his commanders before issuing any orders. In his Inaugural Address on Tuesday, Mr. Obama said, "We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people."

World Trib:
CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates,
tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn't convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama's decision to override Petraeus's recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama's decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, "Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama."
In foreign policy, Mr. Obama is busy proving to the world how harmless we are, reinforcing Bernard Lewis' warning that we are harmless to our enemies and fatal to our friends... and that Hassan Nasrallah is right

Mr. Obama is going to find a very rough road ahead, and is going to make himself a master of poor judgment. It is one thing to have the aptitude to win an election. It is quite another to BE president successfully.

From In From the Cold:
You can almost hear the White House source chuckling as they relayed their version of events. It sounds vaguely reminiscent of Mr. Obama's "I won" comment, during a meeting with Congressional Republicans last week. As the new decider-in-chief, President Obama gets to chart our policy in Iraq (and other global hotspots).

But dismissing the advice of senior generals is usually a bad idea, as Mr. Obama will eventually discover. While some dispute his version of events, if Gareth Porter is correct, then President Obama is facing a posssible revolt among his senior military advisers. Mobilizing public support through the media is not something that flag officers particularly enjoy, given their inherent distrust of the press.

More disturbingly, Mr. Obama's preferred withdrawal plan flies in the face of current realities in the Middle East. As Bret Stephens notes in today's WSJ, Iraq is becoming a U.S. bulwark in the Middle East. The gains achieved by the troop surge are holding, and Iraqi forces are assuming a lead role in securing the country. Last weekend's election was a stunning success, and a model for the Arab word.

4 comments:

annie said...

It is one thing to have the aptitude to win an election. It is quite another to BE president successfully.

and georgie porgie could do neither.

But dismissing the advice of senior generals is usually a bad idea

much better to just dismiss the senior generals, like bush did!

no wonder your blog is devoid of comments. you are a bleating fool.

obama won, get over it.

Epaminondas said...

I do not allow comments on my blog due to DEATH THREATS. Comments are here where there are plenty.

As far as bleating, imagine if I told you to shut up in 2002 or 2005.

And did you ever PRAY FOR W?
Or criticize Soros for saying the USA is the bar to justice in the world?

As a VERY active ex dem, who campaigned and had volunteers stay in our home many NH primary seasons .. I have to tell you, that you like many who self identify as 'progressives' are intolerant.

And historically ignorant

Anonymous said...

Hitler was at least a low-grade soldier, yet when he overrode the Generals conducting the war he created nothing but disasters. For this idiot to make military decisions
is the first step in ensuring the victory of Islam over the west.

christian soldier said...

Thank you for this one...My friends will read it too...
C-CS