The AP is reporting just before midnight Thursday/Friday that Mr Bu$h has decided to release GEN John Abizaid from his post at CENTCOM and replace him with Admiral William Fallon, who is currently Commander, US Pacific Command. He is also sending GEN George Casey off to a well-deserved retirement, replacing him with LTG David Petraeus.
Giving Fallon and Petraeus the top military posts in the Middle East would help Bush to assert that he is taking a fresh approach in the region and help pave the way for him to turn policy there in a new direction. Both Abizaid and Casey have expressed reservations about the potential effectiveness of boosting troop strength in Iraq.
Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (news, bio, voting record), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Defense appropriations subcommittee, told The Associated Press on Thursday that he understands Bush wants to appoint Fallon to head the U.S. Central Command, a position responsible for directing the wars in both Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Generals Abizaid and Casey have been loyal to Bu$hCo, faithfully parroting the party line that they wanted no part of reinforcements, as they had been instructed to do by someone from the White House, GEN Abizaid even going so far as to face downSenator John McCain at a recent Senate Armed Forces Committee hearing.
We keep hearing that that the JCS and the field Generals (principally Abizaid, Casey and Chiarelli) are opposed to more troops at this time. GEN Abizaid famously testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee that he didn’t feel any need for more troops, apparently shooting some holes in Senator John McCain’s flagship, USS Presidential 2008. Both Casey and Chiarelli are on record that they have no use for an increase in the number of troops in Iraq, and strictly speaking that‘s true unless the mission changes.
(In the same article we note that the generals obediently did a rear-march when instructed to do so by Bu$hCo.)
But all that was before Fred Kagan, Generalissimo of the Likudnik wing of our PNAC/AEI foreign policy operators demandeda sustained escalation of forces in Iraq for some reason or other.
Mr Kagan is quoted as recently saying "It’s hard to imagine what we do after that," when referring to his grand plan to save his reputation and Mr Bu$h’s ego-war. But they are perfectly willingto risk a few thousand more American lives for that glorious goal.
WASHINGTON - President Bush plans to order extra U.S. troops to Iraq as part of a new push to secure Baghdad, but in smaller numbers than previously reported, U.S. officials said Wednesday.
The president, who is completing a lengthy review of Iraq policy, is considering dispatching three to four U.S. combat brigades to Iraq, or no more than 15,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops, the officials said. Bush is expected to announce his decision next week.
Typically, a combat brigade comprises about 3,500 combat troops and more than 1,000 support personnel.
William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard is considered the primary public face of the Likudnik wing of the US foreign policy establishment, and is on record as insisting this is not a "surge" but sustained permanent increase. (Video available here.)
Of all these four flag officers, LTG Petraeus is the most interesting because he will be the ground commander in Iraq and possibly Iran. He also has perhaps the best service record in Iraq. Commanding the 101st Airborne Division during the 2003 invasion, and then area commander in the Mosul region afterwards, he is remembered for effectively establishing close contact with the civilian leaders and working hard to rebuild the shattered infrastructure. There is a very interesting online interview with him published by Der Spiegel magazine.
It’s worth the time to go through it because he seems committed to civic action efforts to rebuild after combat is finished. He is also a co-author of the Army’s new counter-insurgency manual.
The 241-page document contains an outline of the history of all rebellions and a guide to the wars of the future. For the first time, it draws no distinction between civilian and classic military operations. In fact, it almost equates the importance of the two. Petraeus believes that the military can no longer win wars with military might alone. On the contrary, according to the new theory, it must do its utmost to avoid large-scale destruction and, by as early as the initial attack, not only protect the civilian population but also support it with all available means in order to secure its cooperation for regime change. As uncomplicated as it may seem, Petraeus's new doctrine represents a sea change when it comes to the US military's training and combat procedures. Some might also interpret it as a way of settling scores with the failed strategy in Iraq.
He’s not being sent there to rebuild Iraq.