General George Casey, according to John Podhoretz of the New York Post has been notified that he will be replaced as the top American military commander in Iraq.
YESTERDAY, the man directly responsible for conducting the war in Iraq received semi-official notice that he’ll soon be relieved of his post. It’s ironic that the semi-official notice came in a front-page New York Times story, considering how hostile the paper has been to the war effort and the Bush administration generally - and how profoundly angry senior Bush officials are at the Times.
Welcome to 2007. Democrats rule Capitol Hill, and the Bush White House is using The Times to deliver a message. Who says things never change in Washington?
The message: The president has lost confidence in the strategy and tactics designed and implemented by the generals running the war. They have, as the Times put it, “become more fixated on withdrawal than victory.”
The commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James T. Conway, told the Times that the president went to the Pentagon a few weeks ago and said flatly, “What I want to hear from you is how we’re going to win, not how we’re going to leave.”
And that’s basically why, according to the Times, “Bush seems all but certain not only to reverse the strategy that Gen. Casey championed, but also to accelerate the general’s departure from Iraq.”
Gen. George Casey is a true military intellectual. A graduate of Georgetown University and the possessor of an advanced degree in international relations, he undertook the mission in Iraq with the knowledge that it was an immensely complicated task.
Perhaps that intellectualism got in the way…..of winning.
I recall the kerfuffle Casey got in back in August, 2005.
The top American commander in Iraq has been privately rebuked by the Bush administration for openly discussing plans to reduce troop levels there next year, The Sunday Telegraph has learned.
President George W Bush personally intervened last week to play down as “speculation” all talk of troop pull-outs because he fears that even discussing options for an “exit strategy” implies weakening resolve
Not only did President Bush have to deal with the anti-war press, but the top general in Iraq was talking out of school. Jack Murtha and his ilk used Casey’s unhelpful remarks in order to undermine our efforts in Iraq.
My husband and I were thinking recently about Dave Patraeus, a classmate of his at West Point and wondering if he would be rising in rank. According to The New York Times he is President Bush’s pick for the replacement of General Casey. A very wise choice by the president.
An email from Iraq…..
We have only had one soldier we’ve had to send home out of 500 plus. That is pretty darn good. Oh. In addition, our unit has gotten pats on the back from a number of different infantry units for helping them out and probably saving a lot of lives. Part of the enemy’s goal is to psychologically defeat soldiers but it doesn’t work because of guys like the one who lost part of his foot. He re-enlisted after he came out of surgery.
I am pretty proud of what this unit has done so far. Remember that guy from the New York Times who said “soldiers are the most brutal now of any soldiers in the past”?
He couldn’t possibly be more wrong or more insane.
The troops’ hearts and minds are in this fight. They need leaders who don’t read the New York Times for guidance in military strategy and can equal the troops in the will to win this war.
Victor Davis Hanson lays out the bottom line……
Somewhere in the US military right now is a Grant, Sherman, Patton, Ridgeway, or Abrams, who has been shouting and we haven’t been listening. Now is the time to let them come forward—as they have always arisen from obscurity in past American wars when their nation’s hour of need has come.
Trackback URL for this post:
8 Comments »
No comments yet.
Leave a comment
Trackback URL for this post: