Dick Cheney said this on August 2, 2000:

For eight years, Clinton and Gore have extended our military commitments while depleting our military power.  Rarely has so much been demanded of our armed forces, and so little given to them in return. George W. Bush and I are going to change that, too.  I have seen our military at its finest, with the best equipment, the best training, and the best leadership.  I'm proud of them. I have had the responsibility for their well-being.  And I can promise them now, help is on the way.  Soon, our men and women in uniform will once again have a commander in chief they can respect, one who understands their mission and restores their morale.

In the list of the "100 Most Ironic Comments Ever Made in Human History," Cheney’s remarks in 2000 are undoubtedly in the top half.  

The conserative blogs went apoplectic over Obama's 'military shortage' reponse during the debate in Texas. According to Army chief of staff Gen. George Casey, he was dead on.

(From the diaries -- kos)

for•ti•tude, n.: Strength of mind that allows one to endure pain or adversity with courage.

The Washington Post reported yesterday that the Army is now saying 15-month deployments without a proper recovery time are “not sustainable.”  Again, this is exactly what the Webb-Hagel Amendment was all about—that is, until it was torpedoed by Republican al Qaeda supporters in the Senate last week.  

This story was previously diaried by dday and Lightning Pride in two excellent pieces, but I want to expound on it a little—as well as to keep this story front and center.

So, there’s good news and bad news.  I’ll start off with the good news first:

The Army has now essentially come out and said that the Republicans who voted against the Webb-Hagel Amendment don’t support the troops.  This is what Ann Scott Tyson of the Post reported yesterday:

Army Chief of Staff George W. Casey Jr., who is scheduled to testify today before the House Armed Services Committee, intends to move as quickly as possible to grant soldiers more relief from the war zone, having argued that the troop rotations of 15 months in combat and 12 months at home -- required by the buildup of U.S. forces in Iraq and the conflict in Afghanistan -- are "not sustainable" for the Army.

Obviously, General Casey, an Army officer, thinks the troops need more time at home than chickenhawk Republican legislators want to allow.  Because Casey, like most other soldiers, knows that Republican Senators like John Cornyn support al Qaeda when they vote to weaken our military.

So to me, it’s all there, clear as crystal: Despite what Republicans want America to think, they do not support the troops.  And now—finally—the Army officer corps is backing up this assertion.

Which brings me to the bad news:

Where in the hell was George Casey last week when his soldiers needed him to stand up for them?  Was he having a lunch with Colin Powell where they discussed the merits of being in a position of leadership without really having the stomach—or, fortitude—to exhibit real, actual leadership?  Because, like Powell—who failed to protect his soldiers in 2003 by standing up to the Bush administration—Casey failed the men and women under his command last week.  Instead of rocking the boat by challenging the Bush administration and its Republican lackeys in the Senate, Casey chose to remain silent.  Instead of speaking up, he waited for over a week to say something on the record.  He waited until it was politically safe—and until it was too late to do any good.  And for that, he is a coward.  

This is not something I say lightly, either.  Because I am an Army officer, too.  And I have commanded troops in combat in both Afghanistan and Iraq.  But it is the truth.  The first thing a platoon leader learns in the Army is this: You are responsible for everything your unit does or fails to do.  And George Casey knows this.  In this case, he failed to step in during the heat of the debate, when his voice could have drowned out the nonsense over the Petraeus ad.  Instead, he chose to leave his soldiers’ fates in the hands of ignorant and careless Senate Republicans who took their cues from a stupid and arrogant Commander-in-Chief.

So when Casey finally decided to express concern yesterday afternoon about Army readiness in the face of any new threats, it was too late.

What Casey has done is not what being an Army officer is all about.  He has dishonored himself and the Army.  He did not have the intestinal fortitude to say something more forcefully when he could have.  And the troops know it.

So in sum, I am heartened that the Army is further separating itself from the Republican Party in concrete ways.  But I am continually disappointed with the highest levels of “leadership” in the Pentagon.  The troops are watching.  And they expect more.

The biggest story of the story IMO happened in the House Armed Services Committee.  While the Senate was off passing pipe dream partition plans that nobody in Iraq actually wants, and the rest of the House was passing two more months of a blank check for Iraq, Robert Gates asked for $190 billion more in spending for Iraq and Afghanistan.  But Army Chief of Staff George Casey was there as well.  And his plea sounded extremely familiar.

General George W Casey told the Congressional Armed Forces Committee that it was imperative soldiers had longer breaks from battlefield duty to reduce the psychological and physical toll on manpower and family life.

President Bush said:

"It's one thing to attack me. It's another thing to attack somebody like Gen. Petraeus."

Fine. I’ll take the bait, Mr. President. You are the problem. General Petraeus is an honorable soldier doing what he believes is best for the country. In this particular case, he’s running a surge.

Let’s forget, for a moment, that his line of thinking about surges is outside the top-brass mainstream, and concentrate on how you picked him to run this surge.

Flip it

This diary will be brief.  In light of the passage of the MoveOn.org condemnation amendment amendment, I'm making a public call for any Democratic Senator to sponsor:

an amendment, in keeping with Senator Cornyn's recent amendment calling for support of the United States Armed Forces, condemning the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and any other organization who may have questioned the service or patriotism of Senator Kerry, including those delegates on the floor of the Republican National Convention who mocked Kerry's well-earned medals by wearing "purple-heart" band-aids;

further, calling for full support of the Senate for Generals Casey and Abizaid, who have also been subjected to critique for their views on the Administration's current policy.

If you like it, you can email your Senator (tool from Chris Dodd's website) and send them the text--or revise it to create your own.

Yeah, I know we have important business to get done.  But exposing Republican hypocrisy is important too.

Poor Peter Pace. It seems he and the Joint Chiefs want to do the right thing, but our Commander-in-Chief, Dick Cheney, won't let them:

Gen. Pace denies will urge troop cut in Iraq

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff on Friday denied a newspaper report that he will urge President George W. Bush to cut U.S. troop levels in Iraq next year.

"The story is wrong," Marine Gen. Peter Pace said through a spokesman. "It is speculative. I have not made nor decided on any recommendations yet."

The Los Angeles Times, citing military and administration officials, said on Friday that Pace was expected to contend that keeping significantly more than 100,000 troops in Iraq through next year would severely strain the military and compromise its ability to respond to other threats.

But, no, that's not it, said Pete.

In fact, as late as July, ol' Pete was saying he might recommend more troops!

(more)

Less than five months ago, George W. Bush unveiled his "new way forward," the latest administration plan for victory in Iraq.  And since the the plan was implemented, 303 more U.S. troops and thousands more Iraqis have been killed, all while we're told to wait until September before judging how the plan is working.

But today's Washington Post is reporting that:

Top U.S. commanders and diplomats in Iraq are completing a far-reaching campaign plan for a new U.S. strategy, laying out military and political goals and endorsing the selective removal of hardened sectarian actors from Iraq's security forces and government.

The classified plan, scheduled to be finished by May 31, is a joint effort between Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior American general in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

We're going to have a new strategy four months before we're scheduled to find out how the current one is working out?  The plan that we're being told is showing real progress?  And is this the Plan B that we were told didn't exist?  This latest strategy is described as having:

...three pillars to be carried out simultaneously -- in contrast to the prior sequential strategy of "clear, hold and build." One shifts the immediate emphasis of military operations away from transitioning to Iraqi security forces -- the primary focus under the former top U.S. commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr. -- toward protecting Iraq's population in trouble areas, a central objective of the troop increase that President Bush announced in January.

Just a reminder, when Bush made that announcement in January, he said:

We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped army, and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq.

Apparently standing up that Iraqi army isn't essential to the security mission in this new plan.  The other two "pillars" are:

Next, the plan emphasizes building the government's capacity to function, admitting severe weaknesses in government ministries and often nonexistent institutional links between the central government and provincial and local governments.

Finally, the campaign plan aims to purge Iraq's leadership of a small but influential number of officials and commanders whose sectarian and criminal agendas are thwarting U.S. efforts. [...]

Efforts at negotiated settlements brokered by U.S. and Iraqi officials will extend to a broad spectrum of Iraqi groups, including some that have killed U.S. troops -- a source of consternation for some U.S. officers. But they will exclude groups such as al-Qaeda that are considered "irreconcilable," officials said.

This all sounds kind of familiar, doesn't it?  It was just last October that the then top commander in Iraq and U.S. Ambassador, Gen. George Casey and Zalmay Khalilzad:

...sought to reassure an increasingly restive American public that the war was still winnable.

Mr. Khalilzad laid out a timetable for political measures he said the Iraqi government had agreed to take that the Americans see as crucial to tamping down sectarian violence...General Casey and Mr. Khalilzad said that Iraqi leaders must set aside sectarian differences to unite behind ''a national compact'' within the next 12 months that will help overcome sectarian divisions driving the war.  [...]

The timeline provided by the Americans sets a December deadline for Parliament to pass laws setting terms for an amnesty for those willing to renounce bloodshed, and for other measures governing the demobilization of militias and means of reintegrating their members into civilian life.

There doesn't seem to be much of a difference, does there?   Except of course the shift of focus from training Iraqis to putting U.S. troops at increased risk in a civil war.  And the lack of timelines.  

Is this Plan B?  

Saying the Army is stretched, chief of staff General George Casey wants to accelerate by two years a plan to add 65,000 more soldiers. The original target date for the increase was 2012. AP:

"I said that's too long. Go back and tell me what it would take to get it done faster," he said in an interview with The Associated Press during a stop in Hawaii.

How are they going to do it? Where are they going to get these volunteers? Already, they are increasing the moral waivers, using the National Guard, sending current troops on their third or fourth tours and extending the length of tours.

The saddest part of the story is this:

A woman in the group asked Casey if her husband's deployments would stop getting longer. She said they used to last for six months in the 1990s but then started lasting 9 months and 12 months. Two weeks ago, she heard the Army's announcement that deployments would be extended as long as 15 months.

She asked if this "spiral" would ever stop. Casey said "I cannot look at you in the eye and guarantee that it would not go beyond" 15 months. How much further can they go?

For 3 years George W Shrub has been saying"As they stand up, we stand down"
in referenceto all questions regarding an exit strategy.

Every line was answered by X battalions of Iraqi's are standing up, and
victory is around the corner.

Have you noticed something?  Shrub hasn't said that in a long time
, whylast time it was mentioned was 2005.

McClatchey newspapers found out why

Today, March 19, 2007, marks the 4th anniversary of the U.S. Invasion of Iraq.

Two months from now four years ago I was driving across the Southern border of Iraq on my way to assume the position as the CPA Airport Director of Basrah International Airport. It was an electric time. From my perspective, America and several other countries had just liberated a people form a tyrannical dictator who had spent the past three decades repressing and killing them.

In Basrah, Iraq the people welcomed the presence of the Coalition soldiers and came into the streets waving and cheering the newly arrived liberation army. That willingness to embrace their liberators did not last long.

General George Casey is presently being questioned by the Senate before they approve him as the Army chief of staff.

According to CNN "Despite frustrations over the war, senators are likely to confirm Casey."

WHY?

Why do the Republicans hate the troops.....

It's a charge that was often thrown at us hoping it would stick (I guess the election proves that it didn't). As the GOP wreckage area expands, it has engulfed the troops. The republicans refuse to divorce themselves from the idea the The Iraq War was wrong from the beginning. They love to say that the war was right to wage, but that the wrong people were in charge.

We heard a twinge of this when Condasleezy Rice was called before Congress and made the statement that the problems in Iraq were tactical, not strategic. Lindsey Graham made statement to that effect on MTP, and Kristol, Barnes, and Hume on FOX Noise Channel. As everyone knows strategy is executed by civilians and tatics are executed by the military.

They plan to blame the troops ya'll....and I hope the democrats aren't getting sucked in.

General Casey is in front of the SASC to be confirmed as Chief of Staff of the Army.

Levin has already made him give a pledge to...well, be honest and stuff.

In ancient times, a human or animal sacrifice was deemed necessary to wash away the sins of the people, to atone for any grievance that may have offended  the gods (ooops, GOD).  Catastrophes of any kind, including a defeat in battle, was always seen as a sign of the gods' (ooops, GOD's) wrath, which required a solemn ritual in which the blood  of an innocent (and one deemed sufficiently pure) must be spilled.

We know longer sacrifice animals to propitiate the gods.  We are a Christian (oops, Judeo-Christian) nation, as any Republican worth his or her salt will tell you.  We slaughter animals for food, not to appease the gods (ooops, THE LORD).  The preferred sacrifice  these days (at least when a Republican President is in power) when "mistakes have been made" in war time is a General:

General Casey looked into his crystal ball again today and made the following prediction:

Gen. George Casey, the top American commander in Iraq, said today that the additional troops being sent to Iraq could begin to be withdrawn by late summer if security conditions improve in Baghdad.

"I believe the projections are late summer," General Casey said, adding, "I think it's probably going to be late summer before you get to the point where people in Baghdad feel safe in their neighborhoods."

So how accurate have Casey's predictions been in the past?

Let's have a look, shall we?

    In the last week or so when it was announced that there would be musical chairs with several of the generals and Admirals in the context of the war I had posted comments on this site regarding having the senate deny them promotions.

According to Bob Woodward, during a conversation about Iraq, George Bush once told Republican leaders, "I will not withdraw even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me."

Well, it now looks like that's what we've got. The President is down to Laura and Barney.