SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
From: LindyBill1/11/2007 4:43:31 PM
  Read Replies (1) of 793931
 
Casey v. Petraeus [Rich Lowry]
From the New York Times:

The new strategy required more American forces, and the generals initially had different views as to how large the American troop reinforcement should be.

Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top American commander in Iraq, and Gen. John P. Abizaid, the leader of the United States Central Command, who have long argued that sending too many troops would put off the day when the Iraqis would take responsibility for their own security, initially had a more modest approach. According to a senior administration official, they thought two additional American combat brigades would be sufficient for Baghdad. A third would be held in reserve in Kuwait and two more would be on call in the United States.

But Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, whom Mr. Bush has selected to replace General Casey, wanted to ensure that he had enough troops to carry out what by all accounts will be an extremely challenging mission. He sought a commitment that all five combat brigades would be sent.

Mr. Bush opted for the larger commitment. Five brigades are to be sent to improve security in the greater Baghdad area — an increase of about 17,500 troops that will double the American force involved in security operations there.

Bush deserves credit for not simply splitting the difference, but we really need to get Casey out of there as soon as we can.

Subject: Casey vs. Petraeus [Rich Lowry]
E-mail:

Rich,

Regarding your last sentence:

Bush deserves credit for not simply splitting the difference, but we really need to get Casey out of there as soon as we can.

Hmmm....So the best job for Casey is Army Chief of Staff? Did anybody in the WH think about his confirmation hearings and the questions Casey might get from a Carl Levin-led Armed Services Committee?

I generally avoid Vietnam comparisons but didn't Westmoreland get the CSA job after making a mess of Vietnam? After GEN Schoomaker's genuinely impressive tenure, the Army gets saddled with the guy who's been in charge in Iraq for 2+ years as things went down the drain?

corner.nationalreview.com
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext