Bush Changes Generals

Diamond Cross · 01-05-2007, 02:34 AM

Bush never listens. Most people want the war to end and to bring troops home, but instead he's increasing more troops and now he's reassigning his generals:

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush is shaking up the team responsible for carrying out his military and diplomatic strategies in Iraq as he prepares to outline a new direction for the war that has raged for nearly four years.
Bush will replace Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, and Gen. George Casey, the chief general in Iraq, in the coming weeks, according to media reports Thursday. A revamping of the administration's national security team was already under way.

Bush wants to replace Abizaid with Adm. William Fallon, the top U.S. commander in the Pacific, and Casey's replacement will be Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who headed the effort to train Iraqi security forces, the reports citing administration officials said.

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, 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.

"He's highly knowledgeable and well-educated and respected," Inouye said of Fallon. "I would think that his nomination, if the president is to submit it, would go flying through."

In a news conference Thursday, Bush said that he would go before the nation next week with his long-anticipated speech about the next steps in Iraq. The war was a major factor in the Republicans' loss of Congress and Bush's slide in the polls. More than 3,000 members of the U.S. military have lost their lives in the war.

"I'll be ready to outline a strategy that will help the Iraqis achieve the objective of a country that can govern, sustain and defend itself sometime next week," the president said. "I've still got consultations to go through." Some members of Congress have been invited to the White House on Friday for discussions about Iraq.

Considering more troops to deal with the rising violence in Baghdad, Bush said, "One thing is for certain: I will want to make sure the mission is clear and specific and can be accomplished." Senior generals have cautioned against sending additional troops unless their role is defined.

Abizaid and Casey have at times sounded skeptical about increasing the size of the U.S. force in Iraq.

In November, Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee that boosting the roughly 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq by 20,000 would have a temporary impact, but he warned that the military's ability to maintain in increase of that size "is simply not something that we have right now."

Casey told reporters in Iraq last month that he is "not necessarily opposed to the idea" of sending in more troops, but said any increase would have to "help us progress to our strategic objectives."

Along with changes in policy in Iraq, Bush is rearranging his national security team. Retired Vice Adm. Mike McConnell, a veteran of more than 25 years in the intelligence field, will be named Friday to succeed John Negroponte as national intelligence director, officials said.

In addition, Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, will be nominated to become the U.S. envoy to the United Nations, according to a senior Bush administration official. He is likely to be replaced in Baghdad by Ryan Crocker, a veteran American diplomat now U.S. envoy to Pakistan.

Bush's new plan for Iraq is expected to contain economic, political and diplomatic components.

Given the need to reduce high unemployment and draw Iraqis away from Shiite militias and the Sunni insurgency, the president is considering loans to businesses. He is looking at getting Iraqis into short-term jobs by proposing a significant increase in the discretionary funds that military commanders can use for reconstruction projects.

Questions about what the president's plan will mean for the U.S. military presence in Iraq have gotten the most attention.

One option presented to Bush calls for an initial infusion of 8,000 to 9,000 troops, mainly to reinforce Baghdad. The option involves sending two additional Army brigades, or roughly 7,000 soldiers, to Baghdad, and two Marine battalions, totaling about 1,500 troops, to western Anbar Province, the center of the Sunni Arab insurgency.

Sen. Ben Nelson, a member of the Armed Services Committee, was one of those asked to Friday's meeting at the White House. Nelson, D-Neb., said he planned to urge the president to resist sending more troops without setting firm conditions.

Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki spoke on a secure video hookup for nearly two hours Thursday. He appeared later in the day with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and recounted some of his discussions with al-Maliki.

The president said he talked with the prime minister about the final moments of Saddam's life, when he was taunted before being hanged. An unauthorized video showed images of Saddam's dangling body. The White House has been reluctant to criticize the proceedings, which have been condemned by some world leaders as deplorable.

"My personal reaction is that Saddam Hussein was given a trial that he was unwilling to give the thousands of people he killed," Bush said. "I wish, obviously, that the proceedings had gone on in a more dignified way." ---

Link:

My Way News - Reports: Bush to Replace Top Generals

I realise that sometimes doing the right thing opften goes against popular belief/opinion on any subject, but there is also such a thing as doing what the American people want regardless of high powered interests as well (in this case, the Big Business that's controlling President bush imho). As with that Amnesty for illegal immigrants, he's thumbing his nose at Americans again and again. When will it end?

It's things like this that makes me feel my vote is worth shit, and that its useless to vote. Why vote if you're going to get a president that just does not give a damned about what the American people wants and only caters to the wealthy special interests?

Scrum · 01-05-2007, 03:05 AM

These guys quit telling him what he wanted to hear so now he needs to bring in some new faces with fresh ways of telling him the same things.

thatguyoverthere · 01-05-2007, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

These guys quit telling him what he wanted to hear so now he needs to bring in some new faces with fresh ways of telling him the same things.

As for Bush picking the new generals: Fish rots from the head down, Mr. President.

SoFlaJDM · 01-05-2007, 09:58 AM

i listen to whatever the generals tell me....

.....only when they agree with me

thatguyoverthere · 01-05-2007, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

I realise that sometimes doing the right thing opften goes against popular belief/opinion on any subject, but there is also such a thing as doing what the American people want regardless of high powered interests as well (in this case, the Big Business that's controlling President bush imho). As with that Amnesty for illegal immigrants, he's thumbing his nose at Americans again and again. When will it end?

It's things like this that makes me feel my vote is worth shit, and that its useless to vote. Why vote if you're going to get a president that just does not give a damned about what the American people wants and only caters to the wealthy special interests?

Well said.

I'm in a weird position on this. I support the escalation only so that the remaining "conservatives" that still support the war don't get another thirty plus years blaming others for the loss, just like in Vietnam. If Bush plans to escalate, he better damn well have a plan for victory this time.

That said, I can't argue too much with the "end the war and bring the troops home" crowd. They are now in the majority, and growing. I agree that some decisions should not be made according to polls, but when do we stop letting "don't rule by polls" be used as an excuse to ignore the expressed will of the American people?

It's painfully obvious to the public that the administration screwed up in Iraq almost every step of the way post-invasion, and that almost no pre-invasion predictions were accurate. How are we supposed to believe that they'll get it right this time?

When does "cut and run" turn to "cut our losses?" We're stuck in a hole, doesn't logic tells us the first step is to stop digging?

RMNIXON · 01-05-2007, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

These guys quit telling him what he wanted to hear so now he needs to bring in some new faces with fresh ways of telling him the same things.

Liberal Dem Inouye does not seem to agree?

"Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, 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.

"He's highly knowledgeable and well-educated and respected," Inouye said of Fallon. "I would think that his nomination, if the president is to submit it, would go flying through."

RMNIXON · 01-05-2007, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

Well said.

I'm in a weird position on this. I support the escalation only so that the remaining "conservatives" that still support the war don't get another thirty plus years blaming others for the loss, just like in Vietnam. If Bush plans to escalate, he better damn well have a plan for victory this time.

Plan for Victory and victory are not the same thing. But you make a good point. If we commit to escalation it should not be just to save face. It should have clear objectives, not just to say we change things when pressured to do so by politics!