The View from Right Field

More On the Petraeus and Odierno Promotions

and other commanders who argue that the counterinsurgency struggle in Iraq must be pursued as the military's top priority and ultimately resolved on U.S. terms.

Let me follow up with some more comments on the promotions of General David Petraeus and Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno to head U.S. Central Command and U.S. operations in Iraq, respectively. I am doing so because I think these promotions are very interesting on at least three levels: (i) military operations in Iraq; (ii) inside the Pentagon; and (iii) the possible political implications, both for the new President in January of 2009 and, more immediately, for the Presidential election in November.

                                                                 1.

As I mentioned in my prior post, these appointments mean that Bush is going to continue Petraeus’s counterinsurgency ("COIN") strategy in Iraq through the end of his term. Continuing COIN in Iraq, especially with Petraeus and Odierno in charge, means our troop levels will probably not be reduced much, if at all, after the surge is over. The force level in Iraq will probably be close to the pre-surge level through the end of Bush’s term.

As Robert Kaplan said, the resignation of Admiral William Fallon as head of Centcom probably had less to do with differences between Bush and Fallon on Iran (which is the reason that most of the media cited as the reason for Fallon’s resignation) and more to do with disagreements between Petraeus and Fallon, who as head of Centcom was Petraeus’s boss, over troop levels in Iraq. Fallon wanted to cut troop levels in Iraq, and Petraeus did not. Now Fallon is gone and Petraeus is in charge. That means the troop levels will probably not decrease that much once we get back down to the pre-surge level.

Also, with Petraeus heading Centcom and Odierno back in Iraq, not only will the COIN strategy continue in Iraq, but we can also feel confident generals who really know how to implement COIN successfully will be in charge. This is one of the best signs we can have for continued success in Iraq over the next eight-plus months.

                                                                2.

In the long run, the promotions, especially Petraeus’s, may mean even more in the Pentagon than in Iraq. While the Presidential candidates have been going around stating and re-stating what everybody knows are their positions on Iraq, a much more interesting debate has been going on in the Pentagon.

At times, for people who are not in the armed forces or who do not have experience in or with the military, the military seems like a monolith, and all soldiers seem the same. This is far from the truth. For example, while many people think General Petraeus has done a great job in Iraq (I do) with his COIN strategy and manpower surge, there are lots of people in the military who do not agree with General Petraeus or his COIN strategy.

For example, there are plenty of generals who argue that we need to reduce our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. They say that the surge has put too big of a strain on the Army and Marines and that we cannot continue to maintain 140,000 troops in Iraq (plus those in Afghanistan) after the surge is over. The continuing deployments and redeployments to Iraq and Afghanistan are putting too big of a strain on the Army and Marines. It is too much to expect of the men and women in the Army and Marines and their families back home. We are exhausting the troops and ruining the Army. General Richard A. Cody, the Army’s out-going vice chief of staff, told Congress that the deployments are putting "incredible stress" on the soldiers and their families and that they pose "a significant risk" to the all-volunteer military.

But it just wasn’t the strain on individuals that Cody talked about. "When the five-brigade surge went in … that took all the stroke out of the shock absorbers for the United States Army," Cody told Congress. "I’ve never seen our lack of strategic depth be where it is today."

According to The Washington Post:

"Cody said that the Army no longer has fully ready combat brigades on standby should a threat or conflict occur.

The nation needs an airborne brigade, a heavy brigade and a Stryker brigade ready for ‘full-spectrum operations,’ Cody said, ‘and we don’t have that today.

Soldiers and Marines also lack training for major combat operations using their entire range of weapons, the generals [i.e., Cody and Marine Corps General Robert Magnus] said. For example, artillerymen are not practicing firing heavy guns but are instead doing counterinsurgency work as military police."

Also, there is the question of what kind of conflict the armed forces should be preparing to fight. Jim Hoagland in The Washington Post describes the debate going on in the Pentagon:

"On one side are the ‘fight-win guys,’ as some describe themselves. They are led by Gen. David Petraeus

In this view, the Middle East is the most likely arena for future conflicts, and Iraq is the prototype of the war that U.S. forces must be trained and equipped to win.

Arrayed against them are the uniformed chiefs of the military services who foresee a ‘broken army’ emerging from an all-out commitment to Iraq that neglects other needs and potential conflicts. It is time to rebuild Army tank battalions, Marine amphibious forces and other traditional instruments of big-nation warfare -- while muddling through in Iraq."

Here is a key question for the future of our military: Should the armed forces be training to fight more conflicts like Afghanistan and Iraq, where counterinsurgency doctrine will be what it takes to prevail or should we focus on "big-nation warfare," with tanks and sophisticated fighter jets and Marine amphibious forces? Is the enemy in the future more likely to look like what we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan today or what we fought in Korea and would have fought in Western Europe but for the deterrent success of NATO?

After Vietnam, the Army turned its back on the lessons that were learned in the four years General Creighton Abrams led our forces there. America wanted to forget about Vietnam, and so did the military. Similarly, today there are plenty of generals and admirals who do not think Petraeus’s COIN strategy is what the military should be focusing on in the future. They favor preparation for what General Cody called "full spectrum warfare," and they worry about our readiness for that kind of warfare. They think we need to focus on the kind of wars we trained for in the 1980s, with tanks and big units fighting each other in traditional-style battles.

With Bush’s promotion of General Petraeus, it would appear that Bush and Defense Secretary Gates may be putting their weight behind Petraeus’s view. It would be interesting to know what the Presidential candidates think about this issue, though I doubt any of them (except one) has given it any thought, assuming they even realize it is an issue.

                                                                3.

Which brings me to the possible political implications of these appointments. I briefly mentioned this in my prior post, but let me go into more detail here. First, though, let me say that I do not think President Bush considered the political implications in making these appointments. President Bush is doing what he thinks is the best for the war in Iraq, and my guess is that he does not care what it means politically.

But the promotions do have political implications. First, assume the promotions get approved by the Senate. That means Petraeus will be in Centcom and Odierno will be in Iraq when the new President takes over in January. Obviously, if McCain wins, it is no big deal, but what if Clinton or Obama win? How will either of them like the advice that they are likely to get from Petraeus and Odierno? Both Obama and Clinton have pretty much made up their minds on Iraq, and neither of them seems particularly interested in letting the facts or changes on the ground in Iraq affect their view. They have both said they are going to get out and get out quickly. So what are they going to do if the generals with the most knowledge about what is really happening in Iraq, militarily, give them different advice? Will the new President remove them? They would have just been approved by the Senate and now they would be removed.

On the other side, if the new President directs Petraeus and/or Odierno to do something that they totally disagree with, what will Petraeus and Odierno do? Will they resign? What would the political implications be if generals, who are perceived by many as doing a good job in Iraq, resigned instead of implementing a new policy set by Clinton or Obama? The "out now" crowd wouldn’t mind, but they don’t agree that Petraeus and Odierno have done a good job in Iraq. But what about middle America? I’m not talking about those who have supported everything Bush did in Iraq. I’m talking about those who thought Iraq was going badly but didn’t want America to lose and were happy Petraeus and Odierno turned it around. I’m talking about those who have been glad to see things get better in Iraq and would like to see us succeed. What would they say?

But, as I mentioned in the update to my earlier post, I wonder if Petraeus and Odierno will even get confirmed? I read that the Bush Administration talked with Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, who is the head of the Armed Services committee in the Senate, and he promised prompt hearings. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid may have different ideas. His statement, which I linked to in my prior post, gave no assurance of any kind of prompt hearings. In fact, it read more like the kind of thing the Democrats say when they are planning to delay some judicial nomination for a couple of years.

Certainly, one way to make sure that a President Obama or Clinton does not have the political problem I mentioned above, would be to not confirm the nominations. You don’t have to vote them down. All you have to do is give them the old "things take time/we are busy with other pressing matters/detailed hearings are required" answer on timing. Then ask for detailed information from President Bush and the Department of Defense that would be objected to by any president on executive privilege grounds and say you cannot hold hearings until you get the information. Also, not voting means that neither Clinton nor Obama would have to vote on something that, if they voted one way, would drive the leftwing netroots crazy and that, if they voted the other way, could raise big questions for the moderates they need to win in November.

But, and this was point of the update to my prior post, how is it going to look to delay the vote or to not vote at all. We are in a war. Most people think Generals Petraeus and Odierno have done a good job (regardless of how they felt about Iraq before these two guys took over). It is one thing to delay a hearing on some Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. The person just goes on as Acting Assistant Secretary. It isn’t great, but nobody is going to die.

But we are not talking about HUD or the Department of Education here. We’re talking war. How is going to look to not vote on the men who have been nominated to lead our troops in war? Is it okay to force Odierno to go on as Acting head of our troops in Iraq or have Petraeus be Acting head of Centcom?

What does that tell the other side? What does it tell our soldiers risking their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq? Exactly how is that "supporting the troops"?

Even though I don’t think Bush made these appointments for political purposes (he just doesn’t care about that kind of stuff any more), he has created an interesting dilemma for the Democrats and a possible big issue for John McCain.

A Candidate to Be Proud Of

During the Ohio primary last month, Senators Obama and Clinton were in a race to show the people of Ohio which one of them was more anti-free trade and which of them was more against NAFTA. Senator Clinton’s problem was that her husband, the one whose administration she got all that "experience" in, proposed NAFTA and pushed hard to get it passed. Senator Obama’s problem was that his main economic adviser told Canadian government officials that Obama’s NAFTA-bashing was just "politics" and that Obama really didn’t mean it.

Well, John McCain is not having that kind of credibility problem. On Tuesday, Senator McCain went to Youngstown, Ohio, right in the middle of the old Ohio steel mill country. According to The New York Times:

"Mr. McCain kept up his free-trade-is-good message in this economically depressed city, a contrast to his Democratic competitors … .

Mr. McCain, who compared the struggles of Youngstown to his own back-from-the-dead campaign, insisted that in the end workers would be better off through retraining and education programs in technology he has promised them as president."

The Independent, a UK paper, quoted McCain as saying:

"The biggest problem is not free trade, but our inability to adjust to a new world economy. I can't look you in the eye and tell you that I believe those jobs are coming back... [but] protectionism and isolationism have never worked in American history."

Finally, back to The New York Times:

"‘I can’t tell you that these jobs are ever going to come back to this magnificent part of the country,’ Mr. McCain told another questioner, Sam Carbon, a student at Youngstown State, who asked Mr. McCain about how he planned to save American jobs. ‘But I will commit to giving these workers a second chance. They need it, they deserve it. I know that’s small comfort to you, but I can’t look you in the eye and tell you those steel mills are coming back.’"

Now that is a candidate to be proud of.

Petraeus and Odierno Promoted

I see General David Petraeus has been named to head the U.S. Central Command, which is responsible for all operations in the Middle East, including both Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, Lt. General Raymond Odierno, who was most recently Petraeus’s number two man in Iraq, has been named to replace Petraeus as the top commander in Iraq.

I will be interested in what other people say, but I think these could be very significant appointments. Appointing Odierno to replace Petraeus in Iraq insures that the counterinsurgency ("COIN") strategy that has worked so well in the last year will be continued.

Appointing Petraeus to head the Central Command (in place of Admiral William Fallon, who resigned several weeks ago and did not seem to support Petraeus’s strategy in Iraq) indicates that there will be continued support for our COIN strategy in Iraq.

Obviously, the strategy in Iraq was going to continue while Bush was President. But if somebody other than John McCain is elected in November, how is that new President going to like having these generals in place? And what will these generals do when that new President orders them to implement the "get out now" policy that both of them have been promising to implement?

This could be interesting.

-------------------
Update [4/23/08 4:53 p.m.]:  Here is Senator Harry Reid's statement on the Petraeus and Odierno promotions.  Hmmm.  Does this mean, in spite of all the progress we have had in Iraq in the last 15 months from a military point of view, that Senator Reid is going to try to get the Senate Democrats to delay voting on these promotions - or maybe even not vote on them at all?  This could be a "support the troops" issue like we have never seen before.

It's Not the Bitter; It's the Condescension

The problem with what Barack Obama said in San Francisco last week* is not so much that he was claiming the people in small town Pennsylvania, and by extension, small town America, are bitter. The problem is the condescension in what he said.

Obama has been campaigning as somebody who would talk to all Americans. He would listen to everybody. He would bring us together.

I had always been a little skeptical about whether Obama would really listen to everybody – or at least whether, even if he did listen, it would make a difference in what he decides. In the Senate, he has pretty much always come down on the side of his party; in fact, the liberal side of his party.

Unlike some candidates for President this year, Obama has never been out there opposing the majority of his party on some big issue because he thought it was right to do so. And that’s fine if that’s what he believes. It’s just something the voters need to keep in mind when they listen to him saying he will bring us together. He will bring us together all right – as long as we all agree with the liberal Democratic position.

Which brings me back to what Obama said in San Francisco. In my mind, what Obama said shows him to be just another know-it-all liberal. The kind of liberal who thinks, if somebody disagrees with them, it’s because the other person is stupid or bitter (see above) or something else. It can’t be because they honestly disagree. There has to be a reason because if they were smart, if they really understood things, they would agree with the Democrats. Because the liberal Democrats are right. And anybody who disagrees with them is stupid or bitter or selfish or maybe, as one candidate’s spouse put it in slightly different context, mean.

So, in spite of his great speeches (and Senator Obama does talk good), Barack Obama’s comments in San Francisco pretty much confirm that he is just another condescending, know-it-all liberal Democrat.

-------------------------
* In case you have not seen it, here is what Barack Obama said to a group of supporters at a $1,000 a ticket fundraising event in San Francisco on April 6:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

The First Amendment Protects Everything – Except Criticizing Your Congressman Just Before an Election

Let me see if I understand this. A Texas court invalidated a law that placed a special $5 tax on pole dancing. The court said that pole dancing is protected by the First Amendment and that the law was invalid because Texas could not come up with a "compelling government interest" to impose the tax. Similarly, begging is protected by the First Amendment. I guess there is no "compelling government interest" there, either.

It almost seems like the only thing not protected by the First Amendment is the right of two or more people to pool their money and put a commercial on TV or radio that mentions a candidate’s name within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election. Congress claims they have a compelling government interest to prohibit this: they want to avoid even the appearance of corruption. Of course, that’s not the real reason. The real reason is that they don’t like people saying bad things about them just before an election. It makes it too hard to get re-elected.

How Do We Know What Is Really Happening In Iraq?

I don’t know about other people, but sometimes I find it really difficult to really know what is going on in Iraq. A good example of this is the recent fighting in Basra and other places, including Baghdad, between Iraqi government forces and various Shiite militias. I try to read news and opinion articles from different publications and websites and from different points of view. The reports in this case have had totally different conclusions. Some said it was a disaster for the Iraqi government, others said the government did pretty well, and still others said it was a stalemate. I do not know if any of the articles were right, but given the different conclusions, at least some of them had to be wrong.

So what do you do in these cases? How do you know what and who to believe? In situations such as this, I try to look at the articles in several ways:

    Where is the writer and where is he getting his information from? Is he near the fighting or hundreds of miles away, just reporting what he is told by others (whether government spokespeople or somebody else)? Sometimes a reporter can’t get the big picture if he is too close, but if the reporter is holed up in the Green Zone in Baghdad and the fighting is in Basra, I question the report a little more.

    When it comes to fighting, does the reporter have any special expertise or experience on military matters? I don’t mean service in the military; I just mean some real knowledge about things military. Many regular reporters do not have the knowledge to be able to understand and report what battles really mean, as opposed to what they might appear to be on the surface at first glance.

    What is the editorial position of the publication in which the article appears? News articles do not always follow the editorial policy, but the more extreme the editorial positions, the more careful you should be about the news reports in that publication – at least until you have more experience with that reporter yourself,

    How much of the article seems to be based on quoting people? When I see a reporter trying to explain things by quoting this person or that, I sometimes wonder how those people got picked. How do we know that the people quoted are representative? Sometimes I wonder whether reporters aren’t just passing on their own opinions by the quotations they pick to give us. In other cases, the people willing to talk to a reporter may not be representative of the people as a whole.

    Finally, at least when it comes to battles and things like that, I always figure the quicker and earlier the report or the article is, the less likely it is to be accurate. Military operations take a while. You cannot properly evaluate them at the beginning or in the middle – or sometimes even right after they are over. A little time for evaluation and review increases the chances the report is accurate.

Walks for This, Walks for That

I may be off base here, but I thought I would post this and see if anybody else ever had the same feeling.

I was looking at the bulletin in church last Sunday. In the upcoming events section they listed an American Cancer Society "Relay for Life" one weekend and a "2008 CROP Walk" on behalf of Church World Service the next weekend.

That’s nice, I thought, but how does me going out and walking some long distance help people with cancer or Church World Service? If it was the American Heart Association, I could see it. All that walking would help my heart. But cancer or Church World Service? I don’t understand.

Actually, of course, I do understand. They didn’t say so in the bulletin, but what this is really about is raising money. I am supposed to get people to "sponsor" me, committing to contribute X dollars (or Y cents) for each mile I walk. In other words, it really isn’t about walking, it’s about money. They don’t really need me to walk. They want me to raise money. As long as I sent them the money, they probably wouldn’t care if I walked (except for losing the publicity value of having lots of people show up).

Really, these walks are just another way to try to raise money. It’s sort of the charitable equivalent of a Tupperware® party. Instead of inviting your neighbors in to buy overpriced plastic bowls they don’t really need, you ask them to contribute money to something that they wouldn’t otherwise give to. And to make it easier to ask – and harder for them to say no – you agree to do something, like walk a certain number of miles, to get them to give. If Tupperware parties are selling by guilt, this is fund-raising by guilt.

---------------
Update (4/12/08 11:20 p.m.): Based on comments I have received, I think I may have missed the point on at least some of the various walks out there. I may have been too cynical about them. I stand corrected. But I still say Tupperware® parties are selling by guilt!

Baseball and Memories

It seems like every year in the spring there are all kinds of articles about "Fathers, Sons, and Baseball". (See here for one of this year’s.) As I read these articles, I don’t know whether to scream at these guys for being dumb or pity them for being stupid. What these articles, what these fathers, are missing is half the human race.

Going to baseball games with your son is great, but so is going with your daughter. I have great memories of Cubs games I have gone to with my son, one time waiting out a four-hour rain delay for the game to start – in the bleachers. But I also remember watching almost an entire game with my daughter in a light but steady rain – in the bleachers.

The article I referenced above talks about the father and son getting together to watch the game in which Cal Ripkin broke Lou Gehrig’s consecutive game record. I remember watching the game with my son – and my daughter. And she remembered it herself when she visited Camden Yards 2-1/2 years later on an eighth grade class trip.

I have waited in hours-long autograph lines at the annual Cubs Convention with my son – and with my daughter. And now they both have autographed baseballs signed by their favorite players in their bedrooms.

Going to baseball games with your kids, whether your son or your daughter, is really about memories, not just creating memories for your kids (and yourself), but also reliving the memories you have of going with your Dad.

"Fathers, sons, and baseball" is great; just like "fathers, daughters, and baseball." There’s no difference. … Well, maybe there is one difference. I do have one memory of going to baseball games with my daughter that I do not have with my son.

You see, at Wrigley Field, in the men’s rooms, they don’t have individual urinals. They just have these big, long troughs. And in the upper deck, where I usually sat with my kids, the individual stalls were at the far end of the men’s room. So the memory I have is running my daughter all the way, the entire-length of the men’s room, to get to those stalls – and praying that one of them would be empty. I also remember how very happy I was when she was finally old enough to go to the ladies’ room by herself.

On Opening Day

A few comments on an Opening Day that almost was.

Because this is the 100th anniversary of the last time the Cubs … made it to the playoffs two years in a row (and the last time the Cubs won the World Series), there have been lots of articles on the Cubs and their fans. The whole long-suffering thing and all that. I have already said what I think of that (see here), so I am not going to do it again.

Ernie Banks was honored by the unveiling of a long-overdue statue. It’s a great statue. It really looks like him. Ernie also threw out the first pitch. On first pitches they usually have the newest rookie doing the catching, but when Ernie Banks threw out the first pitch yesterday, Kerry Wood was the catcher. He gave Ernie a hug after the throw. Kerry Wood is a class act.

I liked Wayne Messmer singing the National Anthem. He’s the best.

Sometimes it seems the fans in the stands are getting cruder and coarser each year. I don’t know if it is because recent near misses have gotten hopes up, because higher salaries for the players mean the fans demand perfection every time, or because increased ticket prices are attracting the wrong kind of people, but there is a different feeling at Wrigley Field at times, a negativeness or even meanness. I don’t like it. It’s not my Wrigley Field. And those aren’t my kind of Cubs fans.

Finally, with the 100th anniversary and all, there have been lots of articles about some of those near misses in the past. 2003 has featured prominently in those discussions, especially the eighth inning of the sixth game of the series against the Marlins. Many of the articles talk about how a fan reached over the outfield wall to knock a foul ball away from Moises Alou and how that cost us a pennant. Wrong.

First, the fan did not reach over the outfield wall to try to catch the foul ball. Moises Alou was trying to reach into the stands to catch the ball. Also, the problem was not the fan. Alou did not have to have to throw a fit about what happened. If he had just gone back to his position and played baseball, maybe he could have calmed everybody down instead of getting them more upset.

(Actually, if you want to see what Alou should have done, look at your tape or DVD of the Sandberg game. {You do have a DVD or tape of the Sandberg game, don’t you?} In about the seventh inning a ball was hit down the left field line in almost the same place as the ball in 2003. A fan knocked the ball away from the Gary Matthews. But instead of throwing a hissy fit like Alou, the Sarge acted like it was not big deal, and therefore it was no big deal.)

Back to 2003. Second, Alex Gonzales should have fielded the double play ball that the next batter hit, instead of booting it.

But most importantly, the Cubs’ manager should have gotten out of the dugout and gone to the pitcher’s mound to either calm down or replace a young Mark Prior before it was too late.

-------------
Update (4/3/08 1:10 p.m.):  Moises Alou has told a reporter for the Associated Press that he could not have caught the ball in question anyway.  (See here.)  As I asked above, then why did he have to throw a fit?  Why didn't he just go back to his position and play baseball?  Things might have turned out better; they couldn't have turned out worse.