General Petraeus has been tapped to be the next commander of CENTCOM, which leads to a number of quick questions / observations.
First, it'll be interesting to see how he handles the tension of Afghanistan and Iraq from that position since Gates, Mullen and Fallon have all made clear that Iraq is hurting our mission in Afghanistan. Somehow I have a feeling that he will advise that we continue to place all of our strategic eggs in the Iraq basket.
Second, the confirmation hearings should give Democrats an opportunity to finally get Petraeus to answer some central questions. Is the mission in Iraq hurting Afghanistan and Pakistan? What is the central front in the fight against Al Qaeda? What about our overstretched forces? Is Iraq making America safer? Petraeus was able to dodge (Somewhat legitimately) on a number of these questions in the past by arguing that this wasn't his job. Well, now it is. So he really needs to answer.
Third, there was speculation that Petraeus was going to move off to NATO right around January. This guarantees that if there is a Democratic administration, Petraeus may end up playing a central role in helping design an exit strategy. Of course, in testimony last month he brought into question whether he'd actually be willing to do that. Which is huge, and must be asked again during the hearings.
Finally, there is the question of how many quotes Mike O'Hanlon will get today in the media. Because naturally, that's the only military expert worth talking to. I'm hoping we see some comments from Andrew Bacevich, Larry Korb, Tammy Schultz, Michele Flournoy, Tony Cordesman and a slew of retired generals (Who aren't part of the Pentagon media strategy). But I doubt we'll see that.
Get real.
Impeach the criminals Bush and Cheney.
Grow a spine Democrats.
Impeach the criminals Bush and Cheney.
Grow a spine Democrats.
Impeach the criminals Bush and Cheney.
The hearings will indeed give the Democrats an opportunity to get Petraus to finally answer some key questions.
Getting an opportunity and taking advantage of one are of course two different things.
A reported asked: "Who was in charge of training the Iraqi forces"?
Answer: "General Petraeus was in charge in 2004 and 2005"
What was General Petraeus' primary mission when assigned to Iraq in Feb. 2007?
Asnswer: General Petraeus's Primary Mission was to Secure Baghdad to allow the Iraqi Governemet a secure envirnment to pas key legislation.
Status: The Iraqi Govenment has passed 5 of 18 key legislations.
Over the past 3 days several US Troops and over a dozen Civilians have been KILLED and WOUNDED in THE GREEN ZONE!!
Basra and Mosel remain the most dangerous places in Iraq slightly behind Baghdad.
In June 2004, less than six months after the 101st returned to the U.S., Petraeus was promoted to lieutenant general ( 2 Star ) and charged with the task of training the new Iraqi Army and security forces as commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command Iraq.
Petraeus returned to Iraq in February 2007 ( as a 4 Star General ) to lead the "SURGE". He commands 650,000 Allied and Iraqi Forces that are trying to "DEFEAT" 6000 Al Qaida Terrorists that want to come to the United States and KILL Americans.
Sadr City is about to EXPLODE.
Petraeus is scheduled to return to the US later this year (MAY) with a PROMOTION to 5 Stars.
Give ME a BREAK!
Imagine what Iraq will be like if McCrazy has his way and we're there 100 years.
(It will take one heck of an imagination!)
Why did Fallon suddenly resign shortly after testifying before congress that we don't have have enough troops to continue the war?
I know I saw something about that on TV or maybe on TV in dreamland but I believe it was on PBS's POV or something. Not so sure. If that were the case, are there not a lot of generals that are being over looked? No wonder a bunch of generals are retiring. You just can't pick juniors to command seniors.
Remember, officers in the military get their commissions from Congress, and what Congress bestow, Congress can take away.
Neither the Huffpost Goldenberg article, nor the “Huffpost pick” comment mentions Petreaus’ unflagging support for the phoney neoCON argument that problems in Iraq are not caused by resistance to foreign US occupation, but instead by “meddling” of Iran.
The greater likelihood of the cause for the promotion is that Petreaus is replacing Fallon in order to facilitate aggression against Iran.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JD25Ak01.html
Why doesn't the demos question Petraeus about his op-ed article supporting Bush for reelection in 2004? The obviously partisan general might have problems supporting a CiC from across the aisle.
More importantly, the dems should put a hold on his appointment until the whitehouse comes up with the emails they refuse to submit and the testimony from Miers and Bolten they refuse to allow. Congress should give back to the whitehouse exactly what they have been getting!
Betrayus steps up in position over the bodies of real heroes.
The Dems cannot stop the shit until they have the power - THEN we investigate, prosecute and IMPRISON (to late for "Exit Pardon" all around)