ARTICLE: Bush Making Changes in His Iraq Team: As He Reviews War Policy, Deep Divisions Remain, By Robin Wright and Michael Abramowitz, Washington Post, January 5, 2007; Page A01
Picking Dave Petraeus to replace Casey is a solid choice. Petraeus doesn't shy from the nation-building role and since building Iraq from the army outward is the most feasible pathway of success, putting him in charge makes a lot of sense; he's got the most experience and has done the most thinking and revamping of doctrine on the more general topic of counter-insurgency. Plus, Dave's just a really good guy.
I had the real honor of spending time with him in Leavenworth in December of 2005: addressing his students, interviewing him at length for the "Monks of War" piece, and holding an informal roundtable with him and the famed "Jedi knights" of his schoolhouse there in Kansas. It was a most memorable time, because it's rare enough to meet someone of that talent and drive.
Tough for him to pick up and leave again (he missed his son's entire high school experience, for example, with previous tours), so we thank his family for the intense sacrifice as well.
I worry a lot, as do many family members, that one or more of my nephews will be pulled back to Iraq before this ends, so knowing Petraeus will be there helps somewhat with those fears. Smart choice by Bush, but one likely set in motion by Rummy a while back, I suspect. Say what you like about Rumsfeld (and much should be said), he picked his flag officer slots well, and as I noted in my profile of him in Esquire, he put in an unusually large amount of effort in those choices.
Picking Fallon may seem a stretch, given the regional shift from Pac to Cent, plus he's an admiral (many thought another "monk of war" would be named, as in Mattis), but I like the choice a lot and here's why: Fallon's a bit of a maverick who's confident in his diplomatic skills, as witnessed by his hard and sustained push to improve mil-mil ties with China, despite opposition from many in the Pentagon, and especially the neocons. So I admire his capacity to take heat and persevere in a tricky effort such as that. I think it may serve him well in Centcom, where I think his biggest challenges will be dealing with Iran, Syria and others (Saudi Arabia, Israel) who all have their own agendas and can be counted upon to pursue them no matter what the cost to America. We need a serious diplomat in that job, and I believe Fallon was probably the best available guy for the billet right now.
| Permalink |
Comments (10)
After hearing this news this morning I felt hope for the Iraqi people for the first time in months. I thought Bush and Rummy were planning some moves and in Rummy's last Iraq visit he appeared to be very interested more in the scope of the war than just a good bye to the troops. We may just pull it off with this new team or at least it won't be because we didn't try.
Now lets keep most of the Congress' attention focused on domestic issues and keep them out of day to day activities involved in the GWT. I want the GWT dealt with by men and women who wear the stars, bars and chevrons who know war. Tom your endorsement of Petraeus and Fallon carries a lot of weight.
God Bless America
Posted by Steve Gallison | January 5, 2007 12:23 PM
I wonder how mil-mil cooperation between the US and China will be affected now that Admiral Fallon is leaving PACOM. Was that cooperation driven by policy or personality?
Posted by Tom S. | January 5, 2007 12:54 PM
Tom: What is your view on the surge-and-hold idea advocated by Gen. (ret) Keane and others, in which U.S. forces would secure and actually "hold" areas of Baghdad?
The debate reminds me of that telling passage in Woodward's latest book:
On Veterans Day 2005, the president traveled to a Pennsylvania Army depot to deliver a speech announcing the new military policy for Iraq, the policy of "clear, hold and build." Woodward says Rumsfeld, having read the speech, called Andy Card, the White House chief of staff, a half-hour before Bush was to deliver it, and said, "Take that out." Card replied that the three words were the centerpiece of the speech, not to mention the war strategy. Rumsfeld replied, "Clear, we're doing. It's up to the Iraqis to hold. And the State Department's got to work with somebody on the build."
Do you think Rumsfeld and Casey were right to force the Iraqis to do the "hold" phase, even if they weren't effective, or will the 2004 strategy Casey created be seen as a mistake?
Posted by Amit M | January 5, 2007 1:08 PM
I also wonder how history will treat Abizaid if this passage is true:
Abizaid held to the position that the war was now about the Iraqis. They had to win it now. The U.S. military had done all it could. It was critical, he argued, that they lower the American troop presence. It was still the face of an occupation, with American forces patrolling, kicking down doors and looking at the Iraqi women, which infuriated the Iraqi men.
"We've got to get the [expletive] out," he said.
Abizaid's old friends were worried sick that another Vietnam or anything that looked like Vietnam would be the end of the volunteer army. What's the strategy for winning? they pressed him.
"That's not my job," Abizaid said.
No, it is part of your job, they insisted.
No, Abizaid said. Articulating strategy belonged to others.
Who?
"The president and Condi Rice, because Rumsfeld doesn't have any credibility anymore," he said. [emphasis added]
- Woodward book
Posted by Amit M | January 5, 2007 1:13 PM
The one thing I have always given Bush credit. It's short list even amongst hi supporters. He never gave into the anti-war crowd. The Anti-war crowd always said this was Vietnam from the begining mostly becuase they wouldn't have it any other way. I've been pretty doubtful myself these last few months. however with this peice of news good things may be salvagable from here.
Posted by frankwoltown | January 5, 2007 2:59 PM
Tom, I agree -- truly great picks. One more strength on ADM Fallon's C.V. is his stint as Deputy J3 for JTF-SWA in Riyadh. He knows the terrain, and was a key player in the evolution of the Gulf Cooperation Council. He's a great successor to fill GEN Abizaid's big jump boots. sf/ shane
Posted by Shane Deichman | January 5, 2007 4:09 PM
Your support of Fallon gives me great pause. He was weak in the Pacific (carrier tracking), and is mushy on communist China. The mil-to-mil stuff is new age naive and we don't need a diplomat running centcom. Adds greatly to the perception that America, at bottom, is soft - just as the jihadists claim. More slippery slope with Fallon.
Posted by Lottl | January 5, 2007 6:17 PM
I'm not sure about Fallon, but I'm sure as Hell about Gen. Petraeus!
I've had many conversations with a young man who fought for Gen. Petraeus with the 101st in the initial 2003 incursion and he - a tough young non-com who isn't shy about criticizing field and flag officers alike - stands by Petraeus as the "best damn officer in the US Army".
It seems that Bush has given General Petraeus a U.S. Grant-size mission: Win the damn war!! Settle all the Sunni-Shi'ite BS; get Sadr to cooperate (for real) or face death (for real) as well as send a clear message to Ahmadinejad and his lapdog Assad.
If anyone can fix the Iraq mess, General David Petraeus can. I hope that Bush is no longer willing to run this mission "on a budget" and further, I certainly hope that Petraeus can fashion at least a portion of any troop "surge" as a SysAd (system administration) force, in an effort to re-direct the overall mission.
What's really sad is to see "also-ran" former general Barry McCaffrey whore himself out with his well-paid criticism for Gen. Petraeus.
Posted by Joel Kiekbusch | January 8, 2007 7:49 PM
I believe LTG Petraeus is an excellent choice for ground commander in Iraq. He brings exceptional military leadership, interpersonal skills, and a liberal education to the table. He is engaging. I can see him reaching out to the stake holders in Iraq. I wish him the best in this effort.
Posted by Dave Hanko | January 12, 2007 10:44 AM
I am uncomfortable with the notion that our soldiers have to do police work for the Iraqis, who are unwilling to do this police work for themselves. This will make our soldiers target practice for snipers in Baghdad hiding places. Our soldiers are warriors, not amusement for Arab target shooters. If the Iraqi government cannot police their own citizens, what makes you think that the average American soldier can do so?
Posted by Phillip Stephenson | January 31, 2007 2:41 PM