You knew this was coming. There was going to be some sort of payoff to the general, the only real question was would it come now or in the next administration. Now we have the answer-it comes now and in doing so the administration flips a big bird to the forces trying to halt the hemorrhaging of the military’s future to meet the demand now.
All the usual suspects will come out and hail this appointment as the greatest thing short of the second coming. Before we do-I’d like to know why there was “overriding opposition from within the Pentagon.” That phrase alone smacks of Rumsfeldian “I know more than military professionals do.” It would be useful to remember where that type of thinking got us before. It would also be useful to remember that David Petraus is not the author of the administration policy on Iraq. Fred Kagan is.
The only question to be answered now, I guess, is will they keep Fox Fallon muzzled? I suspect so. A shame, since I would love to know if Fallon really said Petreaus was “an ass-kissing little chickenshit.” (Fallon has denied the reports.) I respect Fallon’s judgement, so if he did, I’ll bet there was a damn good reason. Let’s hope that comes up at the confirmation hearing………..
But it won’t.
I’d also like to know if, under this new arrangement, the “strange command relationship” of Iraq will remain-and thus Odierno will have the same direct line to the White House as Petraeus did.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen. Petraeus will still be the only spokesman on Iraq.
What is clear, is that by this promotion, is that US participation in Iraq, the war that never ends- but has become a self sustaining chain reaction of violence-will continue. And even if a Democrat wins the White House ( something I think the Pennsylvania primary made impossible), thanks to the beatification of this particular general-any move to go against his recommendations as the theater commander will generate a firestorm of bad reaction. It will make the gays in the miltary issue that Hillary’s husband faced seem tame.
It also signals that the battle is over-and the neocon view has won. Fallon’s key strength, and the issue that was discounted by this administration, was highlighted well by Fred Kaplan last month when Fallon’s resignation was announced: Fallon had a better big picture view of the Middle East and regarded Iraq as the dead end that it is.
It is well-known that Fallon has long been at odds with Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq (and technically Fallon’s subordinate). I do not know whether it’s true that Fallon once called Petraeus “an ass-kissing little chickenshit.” (Fallon has denied the reports.) I have heard from several sources that the two men dislike each other and that their disagreements have been tense, sometimes fierce. Petraeus is in charge of securing Iraq. Fallon’s purview spans the entire Middle East and South Asia; he considers Iraq a dead end and thinks more resources should be devoted to other crises in the region. Fallon’s departure does signal that Petraeus has won that contest. Some think it’s likely that when Petraeus leaves Iraq at the end of the year, he will take Fallon’s old job. (If so, he may also change his views on some matters; as the old adage about bureaucratic politics has it, you stand where you sit.)
Petreaus confirmation hearings will be a breeze-he should probably send a donation to Move On.Org and thank them for that. Because it gave the General annointed status-and allowed the adminstration to play its favorite card, namely allowing criticism of the message to be interpreted as criticism of the messenger. That, in turn, allowed the key implmenter of the adminstration’s policy on Iraq to stick to the Catch-22 script that he was given:
1) Further pullouts might trigger defeat; the costs of defeat are too horrible to ponder; therefore, we shouldn’t ponder further pullouts.
2)As Petraeus himself has said many times, and as many senators repeated over eight hours of hearings, the surge—along with the shift to a counterinsurgency strategy—is a means, not an end. Its point is not to win a military victory (there is no such thing here, Petraeus has emphasized) but rather to create enough security in Baghdad—a “breathing space”—to let the political factions reconcile their disputes.
3)When asked what level of stability in Iraq would let us reduce our presence there to, say, 30,000 troops? What does a stable-enough Iraq look like? The answer is always: ” I do not know.”
A proper confirmation process would zero in on these and other questions and it should serve to highlight what is the truth about administration Iraq policy: The United States does not know when we get to an end point? And it never will.
There are a lot of other questions that could be asked, and answers demanded. But they won’t happen this year-and by appointing Petreaus to CENTCOM, the President’s desire to punt the war to his successor is now complete. Which has been his goal since mid 2007. So no one should really be suprised.