Pentagon, Petraeus to 'differ substantially' on Iraq
By Steve Benen Monday Sep 10, 2007 8:16pmWe’ve been hearing more and more lately about internal divisions among top U.S. military officials over Iraq policy. The Joint Chiefs of Staff want troop numbers cut in half over the next year, whereas Petraeus sees a massive force staying in Iraq indefinitely. Adm. William J. Fallon, chief of the U.S. Central Command and Petraeus’ superior, began developing plans to redefine the U.S. mission and radically draw down troops just over a week ago.
Indeed, McClatchy reported two weeks ago, “In a sign that top commanders are divided over what course to pursue in Iraq, the Pentagon said Wednesday that it won’t make a single, unified recommendation to President Bush during next month’s strategy assessment, but instead will allow top commanders to make individual presentations.”
Apparently, at least one major contingent at the Defense Department is planning to push back against Petraeus’ conclusions — and recommend a very different course.
NEWSWEEK has learned that a separate internal report being prepared by a Pentagon working group will “differ substantially” from Petraeus’s recommendations, according to an official who is privy to the ongoing discussions but would speak about them only on condition of anonymity. An early version of the report, which is currently being drafted and is expected to be completed by the beginning of next year, will “recommend a very rapid reduction in American forces: as much as two-thirds of the existing force very quickly, while keeping the remainder there.”
Kevin Drum takes a closer look.
Login or Register to post comments.
Wow!! Disagreements at the highest levels! Thank God we have "the Decider!" We all know he'll make the best decisions based on "his gut."
What a charade. Good argument for mental screening before running for President.
The difference is that the Pentagon makes its decisions on "novel concepts" like strategy and military history, whereas the White House and its ilk (ie: Petraeus) make decisions on ideology and "truthiness".
And the report was never seen again...
You cannot achieve a clear goal if there isn't a clear goal. Hence the "discussion."
Our strategy should be to withdraw to Iraq's borders, secure the country from outside instigators, and let the Iraqis sort it out. They are sorting it out now, only we are getting caught up in the crossfire.
Joe Lieberman is SUCH a dickhead...
http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Obama_Holding_Iraq_hearing_on_911_0911.html
The future GWB library must be stocked with something positive but after almost seven years of incompetence and disaster anything decent about his legacy could fit into a very small book mobile.
The decider who knows nothing of history (or cares to know) hopes to eke out even a shread of respectability from his time in office. Passing the buck on Iraq is not only his smartest option, it's his only option.
Not everyone at the Pentagon can walk away from this mess. The ones who'll be left behind to clean it up have to start damage control now. Good luck, fellas.
"...a very rapid reduction in American forces..." Hmmmm....That kind of report certainly wouldn't make George happy. Perhaps one of those nuclear "bunker buster" bombs we hear is under development would be capable of boring a sufficiently deep hole where BushCo can bury this report, never to see the light of day, let alone public scrutiny.
Tell them NOT to use the word "PRECIPITOUS!"
We all know that the Republicans have already marked that word with their DEATH RAY... and if a rapid draw-down of troop levels is in any way associated with the word PRECIPITOUS... well then... the daily talking points are JUST GOING TO HAVE TO CONDEMN THE WHOLE DEAL.
I, personally, would assign a more VIVID, visceral phraseology... something like... ohh...
SPLIT FROM IRAQ, JACK...
MAKE A NEW PLAN, STAN...
DON'T STOP TO BE COY, ROY...
JUST GIT YER-SELF GONE.
(borrowing lightly from Paul Simon... you get the idea)
So are we to believe that David Petraeus and George Bush didn't choreograph this little charade about the withdrawal of 30,000 troops. Petraeus even (reluctantly) admitted today that the troops were coming home anyway when questioned by Senator Jack Reed (via NBC Evening News).
Senator Jack Reed: unless tours are extended 30,000 troops were coming out of there April of next year regardless of the situation.
General Petraeus: Again, certainly the active brigade combat teams were going to come out of there.
So the deception is now a part of the Senate record. Does George Bush still have the chutzpah to claim that the troops are being withdrawn at Petraeus request? Will anyone in the mainstream media point out Bush's duplicity.
Bush is using our soldiers as POLITICAL PAWNS and they are dying for his unrational way of conducting this war. He wants to hold on withdrawing till it nears closer to the elections so his Repub's get a boost from their Commander and Chief because if it happens as Newsweek says, the Repub's will jump on the fact that their Repub leader is bringing home our troops and want this to liven up their base with news like this. God knows the Repub's need all the good news they can get their hand on after all the scandals that have hit them one after another.
EVERYONE involved in this should be impeached. How can Gen. Be-tray us allow this to happen? How can he stand by and let this administration use him? He cant be a total idiot and must see the signs as every General before him retired under questionable circumstances. Even in these hearings he acted like he didnt really belive what he was spouting. Its like he was programmed to say certain things and wne pressured on some things like Sen. Warner's question about being safe, he hedged around then when pressed, came up with the lamest excuse of all. All it gets for him is a BIG black mark as the General who obeyed and bowed to the wishes of a corrupt and disgusting administration!!
How do these families handle the fact that their loved one is nothing more than a political pawn in Bush's War? How can these families live with the fact that their loved one died because Bush/Cheney are using and breaking our Military for their own means? They dont care. They have one foot out the door and another on a banana peel. All Bush wants to do is pass this fiasco down to the next Prez because he cant fix anything he breaks.
Petraeus is a sock-puppet about to be thrown under the bus.
moniker @ 13:
And normally I would feel pretty bad about that. However, both he and Collin Powell put following orders ahead of taking care of their troops which, as a vet, I find deplorable.
I hope the bus isn't the one that neo-cons take to school. That one is too short and too light.
Also, what ever happened to Sec. of Defense Gates? Did he fall off the planet?
How come he has had no say publically in all of this? Did he already get decidered into obscurity or what?
fuck it!
say it!
betrayus is a fucking liar!
Biggus Diggus @ 5:
why stop at the border? bring their tired, overused asses home. there was never a reason to be in Iraq. don't tell me oil anymore. it's about the contracts from the government. about 14 trillion with all the contracting , the pentagon budget and the special appropriations bills.
if you had a choice between being killed(wellstone) and being bought(LIEberman, Hillary, Obama & the DLC) which would you choose?
fact is it was about cashing in on the us trough. look at what has been paid out! just as in watergate, FOLLOW THE MONEY!
why does the military hate the troops?
What the wingnuts are looking for is an OBL bump and they'll take either
another 911 or an OBL kill whichever comes first...maybe they'll go for
both to sustain their nominees momentum till 11/08.
I sure hope that missing nuke doesn't fall into the hands of one of those "contingents" in the Pentagon. That could get real serious.
David Betray Us is a perjurer. The daddy partyists don't care because he whispers sweet "we're winning" nothings in their ears
The Democrats are unable to push back against Petraeus but the Pentagon can. Perhaps we can get rid of the Democratic Party and replace it by the Pentagon. They provide better opposition.
Even if this is true, it means nothing. Bush has never listened to military experts who have told him that his Iraq Attack wouldn't work, still aren't working, never had a chance in the first place, and are just never going to work.
So, why would the GWB the Boy Wonder start listening now?
If Petraeus' commanding officer doesn't like what Petraeus is up to, he has a duty to relieve Petraeus of his command.
When will the Senators interview Adm. Fallon?
Betrayus reports to him.
Bush had this fanfare when he announced Fallon's appointment.
let's hear from him on the success of the Surge.
he disagrees with the party line.
Speak up for yourself, Billy.
GO CATS. Show these bumpkins what the truth sounds like.
Nobody can believe a word of the Generals complete bullshit about Iraq, when he wasn't even under oath and then wouldn't be able to lie his ass off.
well there you have it. now will MSM follow this aspect as closely as they do britney, no. will matthews still fawn over bush when bush's speech writers write him a speech that matthews thinks is spectacular, probably not. what needs to happen is people like mathews should carry the same passion forward, political leaders should have that passion or be shown that passion by the american people. no longer should republicans be able to cloud the debate with fudged numbers, or use terms like "rush to defeat" or "surrender and retreat". that answer by the general should be played on every station until it is seen by all. bush and his people are fond of repeating a lie until enough people believe it is real. this is real and should be driven home. time and time again. i know i will be quoting that answer to any and every person that says" support the troops" and "the cost of failure" etc etc. make people realize that failure has already occured and that the administration is "playing for time" so that the existant failure can be pinned on the next administration, damn it enough is enough. and we past enough years ago.
jackinthebox4 @ 24:
And something that I havent heard of recent..........what is this so-called War Czar doing to help....Gen Lute or something like that???? He was assigned that position but since we havent seen or heard from this new croney. Just what is his function in this whole mess????? :( :(
[...] We’ve been hearing more and more lately about internal divisions among top U.S. military officials over Iraq policy. The Joint Chiefs of Staff want troop numbers cut in half over the next year, whereas Petraeus sees a massive force staying in Iraq indefinitely. Adm. William J. Fallon, chief of the U.S. Central Command and Petraeus’ superior, began developing plans to redefine the U.S. mission and radically draw down troops just over a week ago. Indeed, McClatchy reported two weeks ago… [SRC] [...]
Paul @ 23:
And therein lies the problem with this line of thought: this applies all the way up the chain of command, and guess who happens to be the ultimate authorities? Petraeus is only a couple steps away from the civilian command elements, and we already know they support him. If Petraeus was relieved of his command, his commanders would likely be relieved of their commands and replaced with more pliable officers.
Login or Register to post comments.