| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| The Pentagon vs. Petraeus |
| 2008-03-12 |
| Yesterday's resignation of Admiral William Fallon as Centcom Commander is being portrayed as a dispute over Iran. Our own sense is that the admiral has made more than enough dissenting statements about Iraq, Iran and other things to warrant his dismissal as much as early retirement. But his departure will be especially good news if it means that President Bush is beginning to pay attention to the internal Pentagon dispute over Iraq. A fateful debate is now taking place at the Pentagon that will determine the pace of U.S. military withdrawals for what remains of President Bush's term. Senior Pentagon officials -- including, we hear, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen, Army Chief of Staff George Casey and Admiral Fallon -- have been urging deeper troop cuts in Iraq beyond the five "surge" combat brigades already scheduled for redeployment this summer. A spate of recent attacks -- including a suicide bombing Monday that left five GIs dead in Baghdad and a roadside bombing yesterday that killed 16 Iraqis -- is a reminder that the insurgency remains capable of doing great damage. An overly hasty withdrawal of U.S. forces would give it more opportunities to do so. It could also demoralize Iraq forces just when they are gaining confidence and need our help to "hold" the areas gained by the "clear, hold and build" strategy of the surge. This ought to be apparent to Pentagon generals. Yet their rationale for troop withdrawals seems to have less to do with conditions in Iraq and more with fear that the war is putting a strain on the military as an institution. These are valid concerns. Lengthy and repeated combat deployments have imposed extraordinary burdens on service members and their families. The war in Iraq has also diverted scarce funds to combat operations rather than investment -- much of it long overdue -- in military modernization. But these concerns are best dealt with by enlarging the size of the Army and Marine Corps and increasing spending on defense to between 5% and 6% of gross domestic product from the current 4.5% -- about where it was at the end of the Cold War. By contrast, we can think of few things that would "break" the military more completely -- in readiness, morale and deterrent power -- than to leave Iraq in defeat, or in conditions that would soon lead to a replay of what happened in Vietnam. This Pentagon pressure also does little to help General Petraeus. The general is supposed to be fighting a frontal war against Islamist militants, not a rearguard action with Pentagon officials. That's why as Commander in Chief, Mr. Bush has a particular obligation to engage in this Pentagon debate so that General Petraeus can make his troop recommendations based on the facts in Iraq, not on pressure from Washington. |
| Posted by:Nimble Spemble |
| #15 TW, this particular guy was a surface warfare type. Sub guys would be less effective methinks. They take everything with them afaik and don't push logistics to anyone. An Army or Marine logistician that's done time w/frontline grunts is best bet imho. |
| Posted by: Phort Barnsmell7838 aka Broadhead6 2008-03-12 22:10 |
| #14 Be that as it may, Petraeus knows that the clock is ticking. Whatever we hope the Iraqis can do to sustain themselves in our absence, they had better be ready to do, and quickly. This includes an air force, a lot of Stinger SAMs, batteries of anti-missile missiles and anti-tank weapons. And probably a LOT of field artillery. The major US combat units in Iraq need to be ready for withdrawl in as orderly a fashion as possible, and in such a way that they will not be easily attacked during that withdrawl. The assumption *must* be that the next President will be utterly spineless, cowardly, and willing to commit forces to operations that will place them in reckless jeopardy. This means that the further back our forces are from danger, the more opportunity they will have to plan and execute. When the time comes, President G.W. Bush will have *exactly* from November 15th to January 20th to order them to leave Iraq. And possibly Afghanistan. And possibly Europe, South Korea, and heaven knows where all else. I know it sounds ridiculous, but when the next President orders them to lay down their arms and surrender to whatever enemy is nearby, hopefully they will say that there isn't one. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-03-12 19:19 |
| #13 for whatever reason I've seen more navy officers taking ground posts, Djibouti was Army or Marine and I know a navy captain that took that over for a year. Would a Navy officer know more about maintaining operational effectiveness for a long time at a distance from the base? I'm thinking submarine logistics, although really I don't know what I'm talking about. Just that they have to think of everything beforehand, because they're going to be underwater for months without resupply. If someone who knows what I really mean to ask -- and what the answer is -- would be so good as to help me out? Thanks! As for Admiral Fallon's resignation, NPR takes credit for having broken the story and made those opinions a resignation issue. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-03-12 18:03 |
| #12 Zinni, Abizaid, Fallon. No wonder we're having problems there. Lincoln nods. Let's hope Petraeus gets to spend a good long time there. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-03-12 16:49 |
| #11 He was the first admiral to have the command... GEN Robert C. Kingston; Army; January 1, 1983- November 27, 1985 Gen George B. Crist; Marine Corps; November 27, 1985- November 23, 1988 GEN H. Norman Schwarzkopf; Army; November 23, 1988- August 9, 1991 Gen Joseph P. Hoar; Marine Corps; August 9, 1991- August 5, 1994 GEN J. H. Binford Peay III; Army; August 5, 1994- August 13, 1997 Gen Anthony C. Zinni; Marine Corps; August 13, 1997- July 6, 2000 GEN Tommy R. Franks; Army; July 6, 2000- July 7, 2003 GEN John P. Abizaid; Army; July 7, 2003- March 16, 2007 ADM William J. Fallon; Navy; March 16, 2007- March 31, 2008 LTG Martin Dempsey (acting); Army; March 31, 2008 |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-03-12 16:35 |
| #10 what was the logic of having an Admiral in charge of a theater that has two ground wars and the Navy is in a supporting role? When he was nominated there were speculations that the US would go to war against Iran and that means that the primary task would be to keep the Gulf open. |
| Posted by: JFM 2008-03-12 16:22 |
| #9 touche SteveS |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2008-03-12 14:19 |
| #8 what was the logic of having an Admiral in charge of a theater that has two ground wars and the Navy is in a supporting role? Just think of the ground forces as the land arm of the Navy! |
| Posted by: SteveS 2008-03-12 13:38 |
| #7 Gents, for whatever reason I've seen more navy officers taking ground posts, Djibouti was Army or Marine and I know a navy captain that took that over for a year. I work in a joint command now and though I admire the professionalism of the navy officers I work for and with, as a Marine officer there are some cultural differences I'm still adapting to. The issues I have is when folks from the surface warfare or nuke community try to tell me about the ROE on the ground in Iraq, I can't help but scoff at them after being there twice. Bluntly put: I don't tell them how to drive a sub or run counter piracy ops in the indian ocean, don't tell me about dealing w/the local sunnis if you've never been boots dry on deck in al anbar. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2008-03-12 13:25 |
| #6 If the Pentagon pencil pushers had any guts they'd got public and tell the populace and Congress that we need to increase spending in order to maintain our forces in this truly world-wide war. The American peopel need to wake the hell up. Bush needs to put us on more of a war footing. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-03-12 13:13 |
| #5 RJ I was wondering the same thing. Admiral, Iraq...? |
| Posted by: Icerigger 2008-03-12 12:47 |
| #4 Maybe I'm clueless but what was the logic of having an Admiral in charge of a theater that has two ground wars and the Navy is in a supporting role? He was in charge of the Pacific and that at least makes sense to me. I agree with Darth Vader. We should have expanded the military after Sept 11. We also should have pushed for more local troops earlier. Perhaps the INC couldn't take out Saddam but we could have prepared them to take over after the invasion so we could move on to bases along the Iranian border and into Syria. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-03-12 12:32 |
| #3 The Goldwater-Nichols Act was specifically designed to put the theater commander in charge and those sitting home in the Pentagon in the support mode. If the President doesn't like what the combatant commander is doing, he fires/retires/reassigns them. Otherwise, that commander is the man in charge on the ground. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-03-12 12:03 |
| #2 From Michael Ledeen Fallon Without getting into all the unpleasant details, I think it's fair to say that Admiral Fallon was an object of scorn and sometimes contempt by a significant number of his immediate subordinates. It had nothing to do with Iran, or for that matter even Iraq. Military officers have seen strategic disagreements throughout their careers. Rather it had to do with the man himself, with his perceived competence, with the way he dealt with his underlings, and with his own quest for personal legacy rather than national victory. I am sure that Gates was aware of at least some of that. Whether the president was, I cannot say. Since Armitage left the State Department it's hard to get inside information... |
| Posted by: Sherry 2008-03-12 11:12 |
| #1 Not only enlarge the military front line units, but withdraw the others from areas they are not needed. Korea, Germany, Macedonia, Italy, etc. That right there is another 20,000-30,000 front line and front line support (MPs and the like) units that can be used to relieve the others. Keep the air units in place in areas like Korea, but the ROKs are more than capable of driving the North Koreans back all the way to the Yalu with just our air support. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-03-12 11:11 |