Casey disagrees with escalation, loses his job

I guess the first big hint that Gen. George W. Casey, Jr., the top American commander in Iraq, did not enjoy reliable job security came earlier this week, when the New York Times explained that Bush believes Casey “had become more fixated on withdrawal than victory.”

The second hint came yesterday, at the White House press briefing, when Tony Snow wouldn’t comment on whether the president is pleased with Casey’s job performance.

This morning, the WaPo reported that Casey is out.

President Bush is overhauling his top diplomatic and military team in Iraq, as the White House scrambles to complete its new war policy package in time for the president to unveil it in a speech to the nation next week, officials said. […]

With significant policy details left to be worked out this weekend, the administration is nonetheless moving ahead on several personnel changes. It is set to announce that Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, who gained fame for his early success in training Iraqi troops and securing a volatile city in northern Iraq, will replace Gen. George W. Casey Jr. as commander of the multinational forces in Iraq, officials say.

Bush’s line used to be, “I’ll listen to my military leaders on the ground.” Bush’s new line is, “When my military leaders on the ground tell me what I don’t want to hear, I’ll get new military leaders.”

Make no mistake, Casey has taken a fairly hard line against the president’s escalation plan. As BarbinMD noted this morning, “Casey opposed a major change in the Iraq strategy and as recently as last week, he was warning ‘against a lengthy expansion in the American military role.’

I fully expect Casey to become Bush’s fall guy in the short term. The White House has already started referring to recent failures in Iraq as part of “Casey’s strategy,” and now we’re likely to hear appeals for patience so that Bush’s “new team” has a chance to make a difference.

But before we see Casey’s name tarnished too thoroughly, and before we hear White House aides explain how they never really liked the general anyway, let’s not forget the gushing praise George Casey received before he told the president the truth about the escalation plan.

[W]e thought it would be interesting to go back and see what sort of things Bush and company were saying about Casey during that same period. And wouldn’t you know it, but we found repeated examples of Bush and Dick Cheney praising Casey to the skies! Of course, it’s not terribly surprising to find these guys lying again, but this contradiction’s so egregious — so easily exposed — that you almost have to marvel at the audacity of it. Either they were lying then, or they’re lying now — and our vote is for “now.”

He can change the players, and throw dissenters under the bus, but ultimately, Bush’s Iraq strategy isn’t changing at all.

Dissent is disloyalty. ‘Nuff said.

  • Why doesn’t Bush get up and declare victory? He can announce to the world that he kicked the terrorishts asses up and down the planet, and has in fact killed every last one of them. At first blush, this might appear batshit crazy delusional, but compared with everything else he’s said, does it?

  • Nothing wrong with a change in leadership, and Gen. Petraeus is certainly more than qualified to take the reins in Iraq, but why does BushCo. insist on trashing the current generals? After all, their only sin has been to follow the orders given to them by Rumsfuck. No accountability, yet again. “The buck stops with those beneath me!”

    January 20th, 2009 (Say it enough times, and it really works as a mantra…)

  • Why doesn’t Bush get up and declare victory?

    Comment by JoeW

    ‘Cause then there wouldn’t be any more reason for being there and he and his neo-con, OilCo, private mercenary mafioso might have to leave. He doesn’t want to leave Iraq. He wants to create an environment for a permanent U.S. corporate/military presence there. Iraqi freedom is irrelevant. Hell, American freedom is irrelevant to him. American based corporate influence is of primary importance and leaving now or anytime would negate that influence. Shruby doesn’t want to leave Iraq. Victory, as it continues to be discussed, isn’t what Shruby is concerned with.

  • Either they were lying then, or they’re lying now — and our vote is for “now.”

    My vote is for “both”.

    Bush’s bus has so many bodies under it that the wheels don’t touch the ground anymore.

  • Democrats are already falling into the trap… From the BBC: ‘Leading Democrat Senator Daniel Inouye said Adm Fallon was “well educated and respected” and that his nomination would “go flying through” Congress.’

    Sen. Inouye, you moron, stop staring at the pendulum – snap out of it and talk about how Bush is NOT listening to his commanders unless they follow his failed policy.

  • Sorry, we’re getting so tangled up in our (quite justified) Bush hatred here that we’re missing a fundamental point: civilian control is a Good Thing. It’s a Bad Thing that the civilians and the military have got so far apart on this issue, not least because it encourages the military to start free-lancing in politics–which is a Terrible Thing. But when management adopts plan X, it makes perfect sense to put execs in place who believe in Plan X.

    And recall: Petraeus has been the press’s favorite Iraqi general since the get-go. This might even be a Good Thing in itself.

  • Gen. Petraeus was one of the few commanders who “got it” in the early days of our Iraq involvement. He’s a smart man. But I fear that it’s much too late for him to do any good. The only top commander who was really acting beyond his capabilities was Gen. Sanchez. As Castor Troy notes, the generals have been hamstrung by DoD and WH intrusion — a combination of incompetent military direction and, from the WH, the usual political crap.

    I think we’re seeing the beginning of “Operation Scapegoat.” Hanoi George may be realizing that pouting, shouting and stamping his feet aren’t getting him what he wants. So, Phase II (blaming everyone else) is here. Instead of a “stab in the back,” the troops will get the Bush “pie in the face.”

  • He wants to create an environment for a permanent U.S. corporate/military presence there. Iraqi freedom is irrelevant. Hell, American freedom is irrelevant to him. American based corporate influence is of primary importance and leaving now or anytime would negate that influence.

    This is exactly correct. Michael Moore said as much in “Farenheit 9/11” and produced abundant evidence to support just this assertion.

    To the malignant narcissist in the White House, freedom and dead bodies are essentially the same: both are nothing more than propaganda tools. Bush talks about “freedom” as thought it were a commodity. He loves freedom, he’s spreading freedom around the globe, our enemies hate us because we have freedom. Instead of being an inalienable right, freedom can be given or taken away and always at the behest of Bush.

    Once all the freedom-hating dissenters in the military are purged and marginalized, Bush will be free to impose freedom on Iraq and anywhere else he chooses.

  • I agree with Bruce on this one. At least we’re finally seeing some accountability. The old plan was not working, bring in new personnel. This was what Bush resisted for so long in hanging on with Rumsfeld. So I can’t quarrel with the changing personnel.

    The mistakes were/are:

    1. Sticking with Rumsfeld and a plan that wasn’t working for way too long.
    2. Thinking that Petraeus’ can work magic with an additional 20-30,000 overextended troops.

  • If I was someone that professional disagree with a political decision that I felt was bad I would be glad to be out.

  • Well, of course Bush is justified in firing Casey.

    When you are on a Mission From God, you must purge those that impede your Holy Crusade.

  • I posted a few comments about Petraeus last night and this morning on yesterday’s open thread. Rather than repeating myself anyone who may be interested can read them here, here, and here
    .

    I would only add that while Petraeus and Crocker may be the best men available for the Iraq job, this is likely a case of too little to late. Their objective should not be winning, which is a pipe dream, but rather minimizing the costs associated with withdrawal. This is more or less Juan Cole’s position.

  • Via Kevin Drum, Juan Cole really likes the new crew.

    The professionals take charge….These are competent professionals who know what they are doing. Gates is clear-sighted enough to tell Congress that the US is not winning in Iraq, unlike his smooth-talking, arrogant and flighty predecessor. Petraeus is among the real experts on counter-insurgency, and did a fine job of making friends and mending fences when he was in charge of Mosul. Crocker has been ambassador to Kuwait, Syria, Lebanon and Pakistan, and knows the region intimately (as does Khalilzad).

    Sure would be ironic if Bush finally does something halfway intelligent, and it gets crushed before getting to see the light of day. Of course, I’m not in favor of the escalation, and neither is Cole I suspect. But better to have good people in charge, other things being equal…

  • Can’t have a top general concerned with cost-minimizing (in lives and dollars) the extrication of his troops from a cause which was predictably doomed from the outset. It used to be that we looked for someone to tell the Emperor (Regal Moron) he had no clothes. Now we just need someone to tell him to quit digging that hole he’s taken us into.

  • I have read on another blog-I am running behind schedule and don’t have time to find the link-that the appointment of a Navy man,Adm. William Fallon, to replace Abbizad was an indicator that BushCo was starting to ramp up against Iraq. The argument was that there is no real role for the Navy in the Iraqi ground war, but it would play a large role in any military action against Iran.

    I think there is another valid interpretation of this appointment. It may signal that preparations are being made for withdrawal. The Navy aircraft would have a large role any withdrawal. Fighters would be needed to provide cover for troops as they “redeploy” and helicopters would be needed to help in the evacuation. Further it is likely that at least some of the troops might leave via the beaches for which landing craft would be required.

    Think Progress-again time constraint preclude a link-has a post up today which says that the military can only scrounge up 9000 troops which is insufficient for any “surge”. Reality may finally have cornered Junior and withdrawal may be on its way.

  • rege- please don’t sound like retreat is some kind of victory (I hope you don’t mean it like that, but it kinda reads like that). If we do have to pull out, it would be very bad for us on a lot of levels- look how Vietnam hampered us from making credible threats of force for quite a while.

    I was against going into Iraq from August ’02, when they first announced it, even knowing, at the time, that it was inevitable that we were going in. But, now that we are there, I don’t see any good options in wholly pulling out. The best that we can do, as I have mentioned in previous posts, is to lock our troops down to Baghdad, and give over the regions to the various ethnicities. That’s not a pretty option, and it would be violent, but it is the best chance we have of being able to save face. And, if we lose face here, then there will only be another despot willing to challenge us, knowing we lack the will to prevail.

  • Castor Troy, please don’t sound like retreat is some kind of victory

    Look at the moment we appear to be faced with three alternatives with regard to Iraq escalation, withdrawal, or the status quo. Clearly we are well beyond the point at which we may win. Of these withdrawal is the one I favor. It is within the context of the competition between these three alternative then that one may consider withdrawal a victory. I do not think that that a defeat for America is a victory in any other sense.

  • Castor Troy is more right than wrong. My attitude towards “get out now” has long been–oh, I wish. One way or another, we will be immured in a lot of nasty stuff in the Mideast for a long time. That’s one of the main things that is so awful about the original decision.

  • Petraeus may be proof that someone in the upper reaches of the American military does in fact have electrochemical activity above the eyebrows (a “military intellectual”) but he’s about to prove my father’s old statement that “the truly smart person is the one who knows where they’re stupid.”

    Let’s see how good he is at extracting a completely broken military whose lines of supply and retreat have been cut. Hopefully he’s read the Anabasis.

  • Senator Biden, yesterday:

    “I have reached the tentative conclusion that a significant portion of this administration, maybe even including the vice president, believes Iraq is lost. They have no answer to deal with how badly they have screwed it up. I am not being facetious now. Therefore, the best thing to do is keep it from totally collapsing on your watch and hand it off to the next guy — literally, not figuratively.”

  • I know that General Casey is a wonderful man, does what is right for the country. My ex-husband proudly served under him when he was a Colonel stationed at Fort Carson, Colorado. General Casey is a man of high integrity, and we are all very proud of him!

    I voted for George W. Bush, but now I am so dissapointed in the President and Dick Cheney, and I will never vote for John McCain after have read his comments on the appointing General Casey for Army Chief of Staff. We need to get out of Iraq as soon as possible, and I concur with the idea of letting the Iraqi’s handle their own problems and responsibilities without further delay.

  • Comments are closed.