You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Israel-Palestine-Jordan
IDF officials: Maj. Gen. Adam must quit post after war
2006-08-09
What began as a "technical procedure" of appointing Deputy IDF Chief of Staff Major-General Moshe Kaplinksy to the Northern Command, on Wednesday turned into a true shake-up in the upper rungs of the Israel Defense Forces. As things currently stand, it appears that Northern Command Chief Major-General Udi Adam will not be able to continue in his post for much longer. A senior IDF official told Ynet that "at the end of the war Udi Adam will no longer have a choice, and he will have to leave his post."

According to the official, IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant-General Dan Halutz "can't dismiss such a high-ranking officer during wartime. Therefore he adopted a procedure which moves him away from the frontlines, with a heavy hint towards the future."

Halutz issued a statement in which he expressed full faith in the Northern Command and in Major-General Adam, however, according to the official, "If the chief of staff really supported Major-General Adam, he would say so in front of the cameras, in his own voice. The fact that he didn't – says everything."

Major-General Adam was appointed to lead the Northern Command in the beginning of October 2005. His appointment surprised many in the ranks of the army. Adam, head of the Technology and Logistics department of the IDF, was not considered one of the leading candidates for the post. "Everyone thought that Udi Adam would enjoy operational quiet like during the period of (his predecessor) Benny Ganz, and he would have no problem fulfilling the role. People forgot that the north can ignite at any moment because there's an enemy sitting right there across the border, and then things would erupt in turmoil," a military official explained.

IDF sources noted problems arising from Adam's reserved character. "He is a closed person, rather stubborn, and not particularly well-liked," he said. Adam, who came from the armored tank corps, was described as "a direct man, hard-working, who keeps away from cameras and headlines, meticulous and impressive."

Those among both the lower and upper echelons of the IDF recognized the awkwardness of the situation. One officer said, "Chief of Staff Halutz appointed him to the position; he was the one who picked him so he's the one who should stand behind him and back him up fully. He can add all sorts of senior officers to the Command to help and coordinate, but to appoint the deputy chief of staff – that's a slap in the face. It creates a problematic situation. Who makes the decisions in the Northern Command now? Adam or Kaplinsky? Who bangs his fist on the table and decides?"

Officers in the Northern Command revealed that lately difficult conversations have taken place between Adam and Halutz, chiefly regarding the Northern Command's operations, or rather, their inactivity. On the other hand, the question must be asked why is it that Maj. Gen. Adam is being held accountable for the situation.
Posted by:Fred

#10  what Frank sed!
Posted by: Victor Conte   2006-08-09 21:38  

#9  And, most galling to his enemies, he will be the only SecDef to serve two full terms.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-08-09 21:28  

#8  I'm a Rummy fan - still - all the snarking comes from people who have no better ideas to offer: "More troops!" "withdraw troops!"

He took on a task with impossible goals, lack of tools, ankle-biting opportunistic 20/20 hindsight politicos and their useful tools (yes, you, LH), a no-notice attack, and responded. We have had no attacks on US soil, wrested the Taliban from a country thought "impossible to take", killed Saddam's sons, arrested him, and took Iraq, and the assholes continue to bray and whine. F*&K em
Posted by: Frank G   2006-08-09 21:26  

#7  SecDef is not a political (as in elected) office, The SecDef serves at the pleasure of the President.

If you want to snark, please do it right.
Posted by: Pappy   2006-08-09 21:12  

#6  SW,

Actually I was thinking less of GWB, directly, whose main job is the decision to go to war, and the picking of the right people, and who for good or ill (and ive seen serious arguements both ways) clearly did NOT micromanage Iraq or any other defense issues, as I was of the SecDef, who clearly has had an intimate involvement with a range of operational and strategic issues. And who, oddly, (or not so oddly) seems rather more above criticism around here than POTUS.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-08-09 15:20  

#5  Adams, a good man for wrong job.
Posted by: Captain America   2006-08-09 13:50  

#4  so you agree that politicians should take full responsibilty for mistakes in war?

That's why we have elections, and why the 22nd Amendment is a mistake.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-08-09 11:44  

#3  Of course, LH. They're the ones who make the ultimate decision to go to war.

Few people here at the Burg give GWB a complete, free pass on Iraq. We've been critical of a number of decisions and we've said so. Most of us also believe that it was the right thing to do, and there are (as you know) a number of people here whose beliefs are codified in the phrase, "faster, please."

We're also smart enough to assign responsibility to those politicans who pander to the anti-war crowd.
Posted by: Steve White   2006-08-09 10:54  

#2  so you agree that politicians should take full responsibilty for mistakes in war?
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-08-09 09:50  

#1  This is the lack of leadership of by Olmert's incompetents. Passing the blame down the line to the fighting men.
Posted by: SamAdamsky   2006-08-09 09:20  

00:00