Bush, Still President
Iraq, still his war. And Iran, apparently, still on the target list. We’ll start with VOA:
President Bush says he will carefully consider the recommendations of U.S. military and diplomatic chiefs in Baghdad when they deliver their status report on the war next month.
…
“Since the surge began, sectarian killings are down and al-Qaida has been driven from many strongholds it once held. I strongly believe the surge is working and so do the Iraqis,” he said.
…
Mr. Bush says troop withdrawals is a decision for commanders on the ground not politicians in Washington. “The politics of 2008 is not going to enter in my calculation. It is the peace of the years to come that will enter into my calculation,” he said.
Good thing. Because the people who are thinking of politics apparently aren’t giving much thought to anything else. Forget the pols, here’s some battling soldiers, duking it out re war.
Meanwhile, hasta la vista Adm. Fallon. Apparently not interested in bombing Iran. Bloomberg:
March 11 (Bloomberg) — Admiral William Fallon is stepping down as head of U.S. Central Command because of perceived differences on Iran policy with the Bush administration, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said today.
Fallon, 63, assumed command of all U.S. forces in the Middle East and Central Asia a year ago, with responsibility for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He informed Gates of his decision today in the wake of an Esquire magazine article that portrayed him as an ardent opponent within the administration of war with Iran to halt its possible building of a nuclear bomb.
US News and World report: 6 signs the US may be headed to war with Iran.
Apparently Fallon also disagreed with Petraeus on Iraq. Petraeus, meanwhile, is interested in having a chat with Iran. Doesn’t sound exactly like he wants to ask for their cooperation. Sounds a little more like he wants to tell them to knock it off. He told CNN he didn’t bother to meet with Ahmadinejad in Baghdad last week because it would have been a “relatively meaningless encounter.”
“What we would like to do with Iran of course is sit down across the table and let’s discuss. You know, the Iranians have pledged at the very highest levels to stop arming, training, funding and equipping and directing the special groups and these other militia extremist elements … and yet it appears very clear that Iran does continue.”
Here’s the Iranian take. ISNA:
TEHRAN, March. 11 (ISNA)-The Iranian ambassador to Iraq said Tehran would not care for contradictory remarks made by some U.S. officials on Iran’s function over Iraq.
Hassan Kazaemi Qomi said since Iran’s participation in talks with the U.S. is talking place following Iraqi government demand, Iran would not care for the U.S. official’s comments.
Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq charging Iran with funding and supporting militants in Iraq said Washington would not hold talks with Tehran on Iraq’s security as long as Iran backs insurgents in the country.
May want to taking care that hiring of fluent English-speaker is talking place. It’s not like there’s any shortage of Iranains educated in the United States.
Welcome Instapundit, etal. So good to see you. See the awkward truths of history revealed as we follow Geraldine through the Ages. It’s also fascinating to watch the master of stage dialog talk himself out of his life’s misconceptions.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:35 pm on Tuesday, March 11, 2008
6 Responses to “Bush, Still President”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
HA! I won a bet with my brother about Fallon. I told him that the good Admiral wouldn’t last. I never cared for the man myself.
Iran? Bomb the bitch.
March 12th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Hats off to Admiral Fallon. His resignation, in light of the fact that he felt he could not support the Commander in Chief on Iran, is honorable.
Contrast that with dirtbags like Batiste, Eaton and others, who commanded in a war they didn’t think was winnable, and wasted the lives of some of the very troops they commanded. Why didn’t they resign, if they believed that the CinC was so wrong? Because they were hoping for the next star, that’s why. And they were willing to be in command in a war they didn’t think was winnable, using the blood of their own dead soldiers to make the next promotion.
Once they realized they had gone as far in their career as they were going to go, and retired, then all the backstabbing and second-guessing came out. General officers can, and will (see news reports all over the place about Fallon) make the news if they resign. If Batiste, et al, believed the civilian leaders were taking their commands into unwinnable wars, then they should have resigned in protest, much like Fallon did. Had Batiste the honor (and the balls) to resign prior to the war, we would have gotten commanders like Petraeus, guys who understood the war and believed we could win it, that much sooner.
Admiral Fallon, I may disagree completely with your assessment on the need to take out Iran sooner rather than a nuclear-armed later, but I salute you for your honor in resigning now, rather than waiting to see if you can make Chairman JCS. Your very resignation makes the likelihood of a botched attack on Iran that much more unlikely.
March 12th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Good point, Diggs, and one well backed by history.
I don’t think we want war with Iran, and it could only complicate our efforts in Iraq. On the other hand, we can’t let them get the bomb. Period. Of all the countries in the world, it’s hard to imagine one more predisposed towards actually using it if they get it, rather than just having it as a deterrent.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
The “Impending War with Iran” talk originates in Russia. As the worlds second largest oil exporter and arms exporter it is good for business.
If one reads various counter insurgency papers current Army thinking is that a “ReDo” of the invasion of Iraq would require 47 Brigades…the Army only has 43 Brigades. Someone please do the math…if the “Lessons Learned” on Iraq shows that one needed 47 Brigades for a country of 25 million…how many brigades would one need for a country of 70 million. We would need to triple the size of the Army and have “For the Duration” deployments.
A ground invasion of Iran isn’t possible without mass conscription…GWB isn’t going to get mass conscription thru congress short of a nucear device detonating on US soil.
There are only three options vis-a-vis Iran…diplomacy, a naval blockade and bombing.
March 12th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Sorry SoldiersDad, the numbers crunch doesn’t work that way. According to the CIA, Afghanistan has a population of almost 32 million, and the Taliban were overthrown with a few hundred SF guys and air CAPs in a matter of weeks. Yes, there are still attacks on Coalition forces, but the Taliban are reduced to conducting little more than harassment attacks. They are not in control of the country, and they are not in control of the country’s offensive weaponry.
Now I’m not suggesting that we could overthrow the entire Iranian regime with a few hundred SF guys. But reducing the Iranian ability to build, store, arm, and use nuclear weapons doesn’t require the overthrow of the Iranian regime. To be honest, most American’s couldn’t care less who in the muslim world is in charge of subjugating their fellow muslims. If the Iranians want a theocratic fascist government, all power to them. The only thing most of us are interested in, and certainly the only thing us soldiers are interested in about Iran, is to keep them from getting a weapon they can use against CONUS and US forces, mainly nukes. And diplomacy and naval blockades will do nothing to stop the theocrats from building a nuke. Bombing will, and well placed SF units will (actually, well placed SF units are a prerequisite for accurate bombing). The idea of putting ground units into Iran is not necessary, as it was in Iraq. I can testify to the fact that Saddam had weaponized the entire country of Iraq. Whether he had actual WMDs or not, he had the ability to spread weapons of all types into every single nook and cranny of that dump of a country, and we needed a bunch of soldiers on the ground to make sure there weren’t any WMDs. The Iranians, much to their dismay, have not done so, and no longer have the ability to do so.
Staff members not trained in counter-insurgency, trying to play at counter-insurgency, would surely come up with a re-do of 47 brigades for an invasion of Iraq. Staff members trained in counter-insurgency would come up with far fewer; and in fact had done so prior to the invasion. Never put a tanker and a cannon-cocker on a COA study for counter-insurgency, as you will come up with a Best COA of defeating the insurgency with M270A1 Multiple Launch Rocket System followed by a clean-up operation with 120mm sabot rounds.
March 12th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
[...] Angeles Times, the gang at Abu Muqawama, Galrahn at Information Dissemination, Jules Crittenden at Forward Movement, Westhawk, Jason Sigger at Danger Room, Blackfive, and [...]