Military Brass Distance Themselves From Iraq Choices

[RTFirefly]

It's all yours, Dubya.

WASHINGTON — In a sign that top commanders are divided over what course to pursue in Iraq, the Pentagon said Wednesday that it won't make a single, unified recommendation to President Bush during next month's strategy assessment, but instead will allow top commanders to make individual presentations.

"Consensus is not the goal of the process," Geoff Morrell, a Pentagon spokesman, told reporters. "If there are differences, the president will hear them."

Military analysts called the move unusual for an institution that ordinarily does not air its differences in public, especially while its troops are deployed in combat.

"The professional military guys are going to the non-professional military guys and saying 'Resolve this,'" said Jeffrey White, a military analyst for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "That's what it sounds like."

White said it suggests that the military commanders want to be able to distance themselves from Iraq strategy by making it clear that whatever course is followed is the president's decision, not what commanders agreed on.

<snip>

Morrell said that those making presentations to the president would include Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. William Fallon, the commander of U.S. Central Command, which has responsibility for U.S. military actions in the Middle East, Army Gen. George Casey, the chief of staff of the Army, and Petraeus. In addition, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates will share his opinion with the president.

Pentagon commanders are known to be divided over how to proceed in Iraq.

<snip>

Morrell said that making individual presentations about Iraq policy rather than trying to reach a consensus before talking to the president will lead to a more honest discussion.

Gates is "looking for a way to sort of make sure that the normal bureaucratic massaging that sometimes eliminates the rough edges or the sharp differences between individuals does not victimize this process so that the president can get distinct — if that's the way it turns out to be — points of view on where we are and where we need to go," Morrell said.

At the same time, Morrell made it clear that the decision rests with the president, not the military.

"I think once [the president] receives the advice from Gen. Petraeus — and as I have outlined — and others, my understanding is that he has a decision to make," Morrell said.

Have fun, Shrub. The military has just called your bluff on the whole "I'll listen to the generals" bullshit. Now they can't come to a decision, and they're dumping it in your lap.

As Truman said, the buck stops here. You won't be able to hide behind the generals anymore.

[elucidator]

"..and, as you know, I have always encouraged an atmospheric of candor amongst my commanders and advisors, so it is not surprising that thier viewpoints are mixed. Opinions vary amongst them as to the degrees of progress being achieved. General Szuchash and General Kischup have, in particular, noted that progress in the crucial area of traffic control can be described as "passable". Accordingly, I have asked Gen's Szuchash and Kischup to prepare a comprehensive and thorough report on progress in Iraq and have it delivered to me and to the Congress no later than Jan. 8, 2009...

Gen. Petreaus has indicated a desire to spend more time with such persons who may very well be, so far as he can recall, members of his family. Accordingly, I am promoting him to the vitally important post of USO Tour Coordinator for Southeast Asia...."

[Mr. Moto]

Gee, the military follows civilian leadership and their decisions. Whoda thunk it.

[elucidator]

I'm sure there is an excellent point within your crisply concise post. I regret that, thus far, it eludes me.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

Gee, the military follows civilian leadership and their decisions. Whoda thunk it.

Oddly enough, this President is quite publicly telling us to follow Gen. Petraeus, not himself.

How would you list the actual chain of command in effect here?

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Oddly enough, this President is quite publicly telling us to follow Gen. Petraeus, not himself.

And from the link:

Petraeus, however, is expected to argue that the number of U.S. troops should be kept at their current levels, saying that the increase in U.S. forces this year is beginning to reduce sectarian violence.

So, what's the big deal here? Petraeus is going to ask for the surge to continue, and Bush is going to follow that recommendation.

[ElvisL1ves]

The "big deal" is that the Commander In Chief has already decided to let a general, and not even the highest ranking one, make his decision for him, whatever that may be. He isn't even asking for a sneak preview of his report to Congress; The Commander Guy is waiting to be told what to do just like the rest of us civilians. Got it now?

See what I asked about the real chain of command here?

[Mr. Moto]

Well gee, I would think that FDR would have given Ike and Nimitz and Omar Bradley a listen anytime they wanted to have a talk. And the thoughts they had would have been given a lot of consideration, hmm?

Not to say that any of the people here are Ike or FDR, but you all should ask yourselves who was making ultimate decisions in that war. The chain of command means that decisions get made at all levels of it, and everyone in that chain is responsible for the decisions made all the way up and down that chain.

[ElvisL1ves]

"Give me your recommendation" /= "You decide and I'll go along, whatever it is."

Perhaps your definitions of command, authority, decisionmaking, and The Buck are not the conventional ones?

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

Not to say that any of the people here are Ike or FDR, but you all should ask yourselves who was making ultimate decisions in that war. The chain of command means that decisions get made at all levels of it, and everyone in that chain is responsible for the decisions made all the way up and down that chain.

You're not getting it.

Military analysts called the move unusual for an institution that ordinarily does not air its differences in public, especially while its troops are deployed in combat.

Though I hope options would be given in private, in my experience in big companies you get consensus before presenting a plan to the big cheese. You always give two options, but you hammer out differences between parties before presenting the options. Yeah, he makes the final call. However, the usual way of proceeding would be to have them agree on a course of action, which he would approve or reject. (If they decided to leave now, he'd shoot it down, as would be his right.) The message seems to be that they can't come to a consensus on how to extract themselves from this mess, so they're dumping it on the person who got them there. It's a kind of defiant consent. "I'll do whatever you say, but I won't own the situation." It's fascinating that it has come to this.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

The "big deal" is that the Commander In Chief has already decided to let a general, and not even the highest ranking one, make his decision for him, whatever that may be. He isn't even asking for a sneak preview of his report to Congress; The Commander Guy is waiting to be told what to do just like the rest of us civilians. Got it now?

Wait a minute. Are you disagreeing with the OP? He states: "The military has just called your bluff on the whole 'I'll listen to the generals' bullshit. Now they can't come to a decision, and they're dumping it in your lap." So, who is making the decision here, Petraeus or Bush?

[Mr. Moto]

Originally Posted by Voyager

Though I hope options would be given in private, in my experience in big companies you get consensus before presenting a plan to the big cheese. You always give two options, but you hammer out differences between parties before presenting the options.

Options are going to be presented and differences are going to be hammered out. It is a strategy assessment, and if only one strategy was to be assessed it would be kind of a waste of time.

Even within the broad framework of continuing our mission there, there are broad points of policy that need to be continually reassessed.

I'm getting it fine. I'm just not getting upset about it. A general's job is to follow orders as much as issue them.

[John Mace]

Here's the thing. "The decision" is whether or not we stay in Iraq, and that's "the decision" that The Decider has made. What we do while we're there is going to be decided by Petreaus. Until and unless he tells Bush something Bush doesn't want to hear. Then Bush will replace him with someone else. But Bush has been telling us for years that he would listen to the generals regarding tactics and strategy in order to win in Iraq-- whatever it even means to "win" there. So, now he's telling us the same thing. Imagine that!

[Sam Stone]

Oh, I'm sure Bush MUST be doing something wrong here. You guys get your story straight first, then continue the bashing.

Of course, had the generals 'hashed it out amongst themselves' and had only Petraeus give a presentation, you guys would be carping that the generals' views are being suppressed. In another thread you're bitching that the real report is being written by the White House, and the generals won't be heard.

Now we find that each general is being given a chance to air his own opinions in public, which seems to me to be a very open thing you guys should be celebrating, but somehow you STILL managed to turn it into some kind of anti-Bush rant. A vague and incoherent one, granted. But still an anti-Bush rant.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

... you guys would be carping that the generals' views are being suppressed...

Sam, stop doing that, OK? You posit a hypothetical situation and with the certainty ungranted to mortals, assure us how we would respond. That stinks, don't do it anymore, OK?

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Here's the thing. "The decision" is whether or not we stay in Iraq, and that's "the decision" that The Decider has made. What we do while we're there is going to be decided by Petreaus. Until and unless he tells Bush something Bush doesn't want to hear. Then Bush will replace him with someone else. But Bush has been telling us for years that he would listen to the generals regarding tactics and strategy in order to win in Iraq-- whatever it even means to "win" there. So, now he's telling us the same thing. Imagine that!

I've been in more days of meetings figuring out what to present to senior exec VPs and CEOs than I care to remember. You're right that no general is going to present a plan that includes us leaving. Some things are just out of play.

Here's a non-war example. Say a decision has to be made about the tradeoff between cost, quality and performance of a product. The CEO makes the final decision, and he has no doubt said already that the cost must be below a certain point. Usually the execs will put together a couple of alternatives and present them, and he decides on the best. If he's a good CEO, he'll detect when they present the one they want and a total loser. The execs may have lots of fights in private about this, but usually they'll "disagree and commit" in Intel language, and present a united front.

But say the CEO wants something impossible, and has already rejected all the good choices. In that case I can imagine them presenting the opposing points of view, and basically throwing the raw data on the table and tell the CEO to decide.
I can imagine CEOs who would make a better choice than the execs. Bush ain't one of them.

Moto, like I said several options are usually presented. But do you think Bush is the kind of president who will enjoy sitting through a detailed strategy assessment? If Ike were president, I'd want him to. Of course they're reevaluating the situation, and I agree that Petraeus will have significant - but not the only - input.

I wonder what Gates' involvement in this is? I'm sure Rummy would have shut everyone down. I'm not saying it is a bad thing that so many voices will be heard, just that it is an indication that the military has no consensus on a way forward.

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

The "big deal" is that the Commander In Chief has already decided to let a general, and not even the highest ranking one, make his decision for him, whatever that may be. He isn't even asking for a sneak preview of his report to Congress; The Commander Guy is waiting to be told what to do just like the rest of us civilians. Got it now?

This really isn't a convincing argument. Surely the president is meant to support the guy who he's put in charge of the forces in Iraq? I'm no fan of Bush, and the handling of the whole war has been a fiasco, but this really does look like you're grasping.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Here's the thing. "The decision" is whether or not we stay in Iraq, and that's "the decision" that The Decider has made.

Unless a miracle occurs, and Congress tells him to stuff it.

But aside from that remote possibility, you're right.

What we do while we're there is going to be decided by Petreaus. Until and unless he tells Bush something Bush doesn't want to hear. Then Bush will replace him with someone else.

True.

But Bush has been telling us for years that he would listen to the generals regarding tactics and strategy in order to win in Iraq-- whatever it even means to "win" there.

Until, as you say, they tell Bush something he doesn't want to hear.

Since an instance of this happened just this last winter - the generals were largely agreed that we needed to start gradually reducing the number of American troops in Iraq, but Bush Decided otherwise, and found a general who agreed with him - it's hard to disagree with this interpretation, I think. (Not that you are - just thinking of other participants in the thread here.)

So, now he's telling us the same thing. Imagine that!

Bush is, but the generals aren't.

In the past, the generals reacted by lining up behind the Decider's new policy. Once The Surge was the deal, the brass stopped suggesting that other choices might've been better.

And it's clear that Petraeus will find reason, the week after next, to say that the Surge needs more time to finish its work, and even more clear that Bush will back him in this.

Yet the military is openly saying that they're not giving him different options on how to continue the Surge, but different options altogether - with Petraeus apparently being the only high-ranking guy backing the Surge.

ISTM that they're saying to Bush, "If you continue down this road, it will be over our strong objections. Short of resigning, we're doing everything we can to say that we believe you should choose another course. If you don't, don't say we didn't warn you."

The generals have put down a marker, and not on the number that the President has placed his bet on. That's pretty unusual in the middle of a war, I'd guess.

Now, there's nothing Constitutionally wrong with a President choosing to overrule his generals. Lincoln did a bit of that, and a damned good thing that he did.

The difference, of course, is that Bush has proven himself to be a blithering incompetent with respect to anything and everything outside the realm of domestic politics, and watching him Decide what our military should do is like watching the SNL skits of Toonces, the cat who could drive a car.

[Mr. Moto]

Originally Posted by Voyager

I'm not saying it is a bad thing that so many voices will be heard, just that it is an indication that the military has no consensus on a way forward.

Again, what consensus did our military commanders have in WWII? Or in any other war - remember how things changed in Vietnam after Abrams took over from Westmoreland.

Ultimately the decision has to be made on Pennsylvania Avenue. Both ends of it.

[Mr. Moto]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Now, there's nothing Constitutionally wrong with a President choosing to overrule his generals.

I think you ought to read your pocket Constitution, and remember who takes orders from whom in our setup here.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

I think you ought to read your pocket Constitution, and remember who takes orders from whom in our setup here.

What - are you saying that it IS unconstitutional for the President to overrule his generals??

And you are telling me to re-read the Constitution?!

Good grief.

[RTFirefly]

BTW, John, pretty much all of post #18 after "Bush is, but the generals aren't" is aimed at the arguments of Sam Stone and Mr. Moto rather than yours. I should have so indicated. My apologies for any confusion.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

BTW, John, pretty much all of post #18 after "Bush is, but the generals aren't" is aimed at the arguments of Sam Stone and Mr. Moto rather than yours. I should have so indicated. My apologies for any confusion.

OK. But I'm not so sure the generals have always just lined up, saluted, and kept their mouths shut. Isn't that the reason Bush canned so many of them over the years? Remember General Shinseki?

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by John Mace

OK. But I'm not so sure the generals have always just lined up, saluted, and kept their mouths shut. Isn't that the reason Bush canned so many of them over the years? Remember General Shinseki?

I certainly do. So, who's he canned since?

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

Again, what consensus did our military commanders have in WWII? Or in any other war - remember how things changed in Vietnam after Abrams took over from Westmoreland.

Ultimately the decision has to be made on Pennsylvania Avenue. Both ends of it.

Do you think Marshall went to FDR with five generals backing five invasion options? I'm not talking tactics here, I'm talking about things that need presidential decisions. Do you think any president hears every possible option?

Why do you think I'm disputing that the ultimate decision lies with the President? Far from it - it sounds like in this case the president is going to be more deciding, from more options, than is usual. If you remember Hersh's article on Iran, the military objected to a nuclear strike even being in the list of options. Their job is to winnow the possibilities down to those that are feasible and the best, with advantages and disadvantages of each. The President then decides among them. It sounds like the generals can't do a lot of winnowing, or choose not to. Perhaps they think no option (besides business as usual) is satisfactory, so they'll dump all of them on the table.

I've never been in the situation, so I don't know for sure, but I suspect that if you're for option D and your commanding officer chooses to present options A and B, you STFU and get with the program. That's not a bad thing.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

The "big deal" is that the Commander In Chief has already decided to let a general, and not even the highest ranking one, make his decision for him, whatever that may be.

Yeah, well, not long ago, the Commander in Chief "decided" to follow the advice of the Iraq Study Group, but when they told him things he didn't want to hear . . .

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

What - are you saying that it IS unconstitutional for the President to overrule his generals??

Or to overrule the Vice President, either.

Originally Posted by Gary Kumquat

Surely the president is meant to support the guy who he's put in charge of the forces in Iraq?

Nope, not in a normally functioning world. It's the other way around. See above.

Originally Posted by John Mace

So, who is making the decision here, Petraeus or Bush?

Petraeus. Other generals a level or so down from even the JCS have and are expressing other opinions, as the OP notes, but The Decided has very publicly delegated this most important decision to the highest level of the chain of command with any credibility remaining.

Yes, that could indeed be all for show, with the real decision process being something else, if in fact it wasn't made years ago - but that's how it appears.

Sam, here's a hint: If your argument depends on imagining the facts supporting it, you've failed right from the start. And the further those imaginary facts differ from reality, the sadder will be the shakes of the heads of those reading it. M'kay, bro?

[marshmallow]

Just to drive the point home, Bush has said on more than one occasion that we're not leaving Iraq as long as he's president. For example, take this August 2006 press conference (bolding mine):

The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve their objectives and their dreams, which is a democratic society. That's the strategy. The tactics -- now, either you say, yes, its important we stay there and get it done, or we leave. We're not leaving, so long as I'm the President. That would be a huge mistake. It would send an unbelievably terrible signal to reformers across the region. It would say we've abandoned our desire to change the conditions that create terror. It would give the terrorists a safe haven from which to launch attacks. It would embolden Iran. It would embolden extremists.

No, we're not leaving. The strategic objective is to help this government succeed. That's the strategic -- and not only to help the government -- the reformers in Iraq succeed, but to help the reformers across the region succeed to fight off the elements of extremism. The tactics are which change. Now, if you say, are you going to change your strategic objective, it means you're leaving before the mission is complete. And we're not going to leave before the mission is complete. I agree with General Abizaid: We leave before the mission is done, the terrorists will follow us here.

And so we have changed tactics. Our commanders have got the flexibility necessary to change tactics on the ground, starting with Plan Baghdad. And that's when we moved troops from Mosul into Baghdad and replaced them with the Stryker Brigade, so we increased troops during this time of instability.

It'll be interesting to see if a "viable tactic" for President Bush would be bringing home, say, 80,000 soldiers. That might smell a little bit like emboldening talk. I guess it all depends on how much of a true believer he really is, deep down, versus how much he wants to help the GOP electoral chances in '08.

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Nope, not in a normally functioning world. It's the other way around.

The hell it is. How crap a boss would you be to put someone in charge of a project, then not support the guys decisions? Sorry but that's just not a convincing argument at all. With all the shit you could validly attack Bush with for this farce, "he's not micro-managing and over-riding his generals" really does not seem a winner.

[RTFirefly]

The clusterfuck continues:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 30 — An independent commission established by Congress to assess Iraq’s security forces will recommend remaking the 26,000-member national police force to purge it of corrupt officers and Shiite militants suspected of complicity in sectarian killings, administration and military officials said Thursday.

The commission, headed by Gen. James L. Jones, the former top United States commander in Europe, concludes that the rampant sectarianism that has existed since the formation of the police force requires that its current units “be scrapped” and reshaped into a smaller, more elite organization, according to one senior official familiar with the findings. The recommendation is that “we should start over,” the official said.

The report, which will be presented to Congress next week, is among a number of new Iraq assessments — including a national intelligence estimate and a Government Accountability Office report — that await lawmakers when they return from summer recess. But the Jones commission’s assessment is likely to receive particular attention as the work of a highly regarded team that was alone in focusing directly on the worthiness of Iraq’s army and police force.

<snip>

National police units were designated earlier this year to play a major role securing neighborhoods after United States and Iraqi Army units cleared the areas of insurgents. But the police have proven to be a tenuous element of that strategy. Rampant sectarianism as well as supply and equipment problems have led to frequent complaints by the American military that the national police have been ineffective or openly allied with Shiite militants in many neighborhoods.

American commanders on the ground in Shiite-controlled areas of Baghdad say that the local police actively subvert efforts to loosen the grip of militias, and in some cases, attack Americans directly. One commander in northwest Baghdad said most bomb attacks against American patrols in the area this spring occurred close to police checkpoints.

<snip>

American officers have been trying to fix the police force since before 2006, which the military labeled “the year of the police,” a slogan meant to show their determination to fix what were, even then, longstanding sectarian problems.

The problem isn't that the police are being trained well or poorly; the problem is Iraq. It had sectarian divisions before we arrived, whose effects were blunted by Saddam's dictatorial rule. The past four and a half years have greatly exacerbated those divisions. The likelihood of finding a nonsectarian anything in Iraq is pretty small these days.

One of the recurring features of the occupation is the whole "sure, we made a bunch of mistakes earlier, but this time we're finally getting it right" claims. There are some in the parts of the article that I didn't quote. If we're still trying to stabilize Iraq in 2010, we'll hear them then, I'm sure.