Gates wants to know if military ready at home
By Lolita C. Baldor | Associated Press | November 27, 2008
Washington —- Defense Secretary Robert Gates has ordered his top department leaders to conduct a broad review to determine whether the military, National Guard and Reserve can adequately deal with domestic disasters and whether they have the training and equipment to defend the homeland.
A 41-page memo issued Monday signaled an acknowledgment that the military must better recognize the critical role of the National Guard and Reserves in homeland defense, but stopped short of requiring many specific policy changes.
His memo comes in the wake of a stinging 400-page independent commission report that concluded the military isn’t ready for a catastrophic attack on this country, and that National Guard forces don’t have the equipment or training they need for the job.
That report, released early this year by the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, said the Pentagon must use the nation’s citizen soldiers to create an operational force that would be fully trained, equipped and ready to defend the nation, respond to crises and supplement the active duty troops in combat.
In response, Gates said that indeed the Guard and Reserves are an integral part of the force and have assumed a greater role in military operations. And he pressed his top leaders to review the training that active duty and reserve troops receive for homeland defense and civil support missions, as opposed to the warfighting now consuming them.
He gave them 25 days to submit their proposed changes, along with any budget impact they might have, in connection with 53 separate recommendations. He said 29 more recommendations are under way or finished.
The commission’s report included 95 recommendations. But Gates did not order many of the changes urged by the commission to give National Guard and Reserve troops better access to promotions, military training and education programs and other benefits. Instead, in most cases he ordered leaders in the Defense Department and the military services to review their programs to determine whether changes are needed.
His overall tone, however, pressed officials to better integrate reservists into the modern military and consider treating them on a more equal basis with active duty troops. Separately, he asked for more detailed proposals to better develop funding for Guard and Reserve programs and equipment.
Arnold Punaro, who was chairman of the commission, welcomed Gates’ recommendations, saying that improving the military’s role in homeland defense and enhancing the clout of the reserves “represent a historic break with the past.”
“Make no mistake, his decisions are aimed at landmark changes, changes that are essential if the Guard and Reserves are to remain fully capable of meeting current and future threats,” Punaro said.
Showing posts with label Robert Gates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robert Gates. Show all posts
Atlanta Journal-Constitution : Gates wants to know if military ready at home
Friday, November 28, 2008
Filed under
militarization,
pentagon,
Robert Gates
by Winter Patriot
on Friday, November 28, 2008
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
NYT : Obama Plans to Retain Gates at Defense Department
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Obama Plans to Retain Gates at Defense Department
By PETER BAKER and THOM SHANKER | November 25, 2008
WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama has decided to keep Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in his post, a show of bipartisan continuity in a time of war that will be the first time a Pentagon chief has been carried over from a president of a different party, Democrats close to the transition said Tuesday.
Mr. Obama’s advisers were nearing a formal agreement with Mr. Gates to stay on for perhaps a year, the Democrats said, and they expected to announce the decision as early as next week, along with other choices for the national security team. The two sides have been working out details on how Mr. Gates would wield authority in a new administration.
The move will give the new president a defense secretary with support on both sides of the aisle in Congress, as well as experience with foreign leaders around the world and respect among the senior military officer corps. But two years after President Bush picked him to lead the armed forces, Mr. Gates will now have to pivot from serving the commander in chief who started the Iraq war to serving one who has promised to end it.
In deciding to ask Mr. Gates to stay, Mr. Obama put aside concerns that he would send a jarring signal after a political campaign in which he made opposition to the war his signature issue in the early days. Some Democrats who have advised his campaign quietly complained that he was undercutting his own message and risked alienating war critics who formed his initial base of support, especially after tapping his primary rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, for secretary of state.
But advisers argued that Mr. Gates was a practical public servant who was also interested in drawing down troops in Iraq when conditions allow.
“From our point of view, it looks pretty damn good because of continuity and stability,” said an Obama adviser, who insisted on anonymity to discuss confidential deliberations. “And I don’t think there are any ideological problems.”
Associates said Mr. Gates was torn between a desire to retire to a home in Washington State and a sense of duty as the military faces the daunting challenges of reducing forces in Iraq and increasing them in Afghanistan.
As Mr. Obama moved closer to assembling his national security team Tuesday, he lost a top candidate for director of the Central Intelligence Agency. John O. Brennan, an agency veteran who was widely seen as the front-runner, withdrew from consideration amid concerns that he was linked to controversial intelligence programs authorized by Mr. Bush.
In a letter to Mr. Obama, Mr. Brennan said he did not want those concerns to be a “distraction” for the incoming administration. At the same time, he vigorously defended his record and called himself a “strong opponent” of the harsh interrogation methods the agency used in recent years, including waterboarding, the practice of making a suspect experience the sensation of drowning.
The developments came as Mr. Obama prepared to begin unveiling his national security team after the long Thanksgiving weekend. Besides formally announcing his nomination of Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state, Mr. Obama was expected to appoint Gen. James L. Jones, a retired Marine commandant and NATO supreme commander, as his national security adviser.
Other front-runners have emerged in recent days, including Adm. Dennis Blair, retired from the Navy, for director of national intelligence; Susan E. Rice, a former assistant secretary of state, for ambassador to the United Nations; James B. Steinberg, a former deputy national security adviser, for deputy secretary of state; and Thomas E. Donilon, a former chief of staff at the State Department, for deputy national security adviser.
The team is shaping up as one of experience more than change, figures with long résumés but at times conflicting backgrounds. Nothing reflects that more than keeping a Republican-appointed defense secretary. Although Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Gerald R. Ford made no change at the top of the Pentagon when they took office, no president has kept a defense secretary from a predecessor in another party, Donald Ritchie, a Senate historian, said.
Mr. Gates, who served as C.I.A. director under the first President Bush, would not have to be reconfirmed by the Senate. The prospect of retaining him generated praise from the military establishment and Capitol Hill, where he is viewed as a pragmatist who turned the Pentagon around after the tumultuous tenure of Donald H. Rumsfeld.
But it also stirred a debate inside Mr. Obama’s circles, where some advisers worried that the decision to turn to a Republican appointee — something President Bill Clinton did in naming William S. Cohen to the defense post in 1997 — would reinforce the notion that Democrats could not manage the military. “It makes them look like they’re too wimpy to be trusted to run the building,” said one adviser who asked not to be named.
Keeping Mr. Gates after a polarizing campaign on the war also seemed incongruous to some. “I really can’t begin to understand from a political point of view how Barack Obama, a person who got the nomination because he ran against the Iraq war, can keep around the guy who’s been in charge of it for the last two years,” said Loren B. Thompson, head of the Lexington Institute, a research organization.
Mr. Gates talked with Mr. Obama’s team about how to make the arrangement work. One adviser familiar with the discussions said the final issue was the choice of senior Pentagon personnel and whether a small circle of Gates advisers would remain.
Obama advisers have talked about Richard J. Danzig, a former Navy secretary, as a possible deputy and heir apparent to Mr. Gates, but some acknowledged that the prospect could raise concerns. If Mr. Danzig is sitting down the hall from the secretary’s office and seen as Mr. Obama’s real choice, some said, then his presence could undercut Mr. Gates’s authority.
But Mr. Gates has shown an ability to manage the Pentagon even with a small inner circle. When he took over from Mr. Rumsfeld after the 2006 midterm elections, Mr. Gates did not bring a single new aide. And the senior military officer corps will remain unchanged at the start of the administration, including Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Admiral Mullen made an unannounced trip to Chicago on Friday for a 45-minute meeting with Mr. Obama on a wide range of national security issues, Pentagon officials said. Before going, Admiral Mullen received approval from both Mr. Gates and Mr. Bush, the officials said.
The decision by Mr. Brennan to pull out of consideration for a senior intelligence job surprised specialists and lawmakers, some of whom questioned whether he had been forced by Mr. Obama’s team to withdraw. Mr. Obama’s office denied pushing Mr. Brennan aside.
The episode underscored how the C.I.A.’s secret detention program remained an incendiary issue. Mr. Brennan, who will continue to work on Mr. Obama’s transition team, was a senior adviser during the campaign and said an Obama administration would ban coercive interrogation.
Yet a group of psychologists posted a letter on the Internet last weekend calling for Mr. Obama to pass over Mr. Brennan, quoting a 2006 interview in which he seemed to defend C.I.A. operations after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Stephanie Cutter, an Obama spokeswoman, said, “John Brennan has served our nation with honor and is a man of talent and integrity,” adding that Mr. Obama “is grateful for John’s continuing assistance as a valuable member of our transition team.”
Jeff Zeleny and Mark Mazzetti contributed reporting.
By PETER BAKER and THOM SHANKER | November 25, 2008
WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama has decided to keep Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in his post, a show of bipartisan continuity in a time of war that will be the first time a Pentagon chief has been carried over from a president of a different party, Democrats close to the transition said Tuesday.
Mr. Obama’s advisers were nearing a formal agreement with Mr. Gates to stay on for perhaps a year, the Democrats said, and they expected to announce the decision as early as next week, along with other choices for the national security team. The two sides have been working out details on how Mr. Gates would wield authority in a new administration.
The move will give the new president a defense secretary with support on both sides of the aisle in Congress, as well as experience with foreign leaders around the world and respect among the senior military officer corps. But two years after President Bush picked him to lead the armed forces, Mr. Gates will now have to pivot from serving the commander in chief who started the Iraq war to serving one who has promised to end it.
In deciding to ask Mr. Gates to stay, Mr. Obama put aside concerns that he would send a jarring signal after a political campaign in which he made opposition to the war his signature issue in the early days. Some Democrats who have advised his campaign quietly complained that he was undercutting his own message and risked alienating war critics who formed his initial base of support, especially after tapping his primary rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, for secretary of state.
But advisers argued that Mr. Gates was a practical public servant who was also interested in drawing down troops in Iraq when conditions allow.
“From our point of view, it looks pretty damn good because of continuity and stability,” said an Obama adviser, who insisted on anonymity to discuss confidential deliberations. “And I don’t think there are any ideological problems.”
Associates said Mr. Gates was torn between a desire to retire to a home in Washington State and a sense of duty as the military faces the daunting challenges of reducing forces in Iraq and increasing them in Afghanistan.
As Mr. Obama moved closer to assembling his national security team Tuesday, he lost a top candidate for director of the Central Intelligence Agency. John O. Brennan, an agency veteran who was widely seen as the front-runner, withdrew from consideration amid concerns that he was linked to controversial intelligence programs authorized by Mr. Bush.
In a letter to Mr. Obama, Mr. Brennan said he did not want those concerns to be a “distraction” for the incoming administration. At the same time, he vigorously defended his record and called himself a “strong opponent” of the harsh interrogation methods the agency used in recent years, including waterboarding, the practice of making a suspect experience the sensation of drowning.
The developments came as Mr. Obama prepared to begin unveiling his national security team after the long Thanksgiving weekend. Besides formally announcing his nomination of Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state, Mr. Obama was expected to appoint Gen. James L. Jones, a retired Marine commandant and NATO supreme commander, as his national security adviser.
Other front-runners have emerged in recent days, including Adm. Dennis Blair, retired from the Navy, for director of national intelligence; Susan E. Rice, a former assistant secretary of state, for ambassador to the United Nations; James B. Steinberg, a former deputy national security adviser, for deputy secretary of state; and Thomas E. Donilon, a former chief of staff at the State Department, for deputy national security adviser.
The team is shaping up as one of experience more than change, figures with long résumés but at times conflicting backgrounds. Nothing reflects that more than keeping a Republican-appointed defense secretary. Although Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Gerald R. Ford made no change at the top of the Pentagon when they took office, no president has kept a defense secretary from a predecessor in another party, Donald Ritchie, a Senate historian, said.
Mr. Gates, who served as C.I.A. director under the first President Bush, would not have to be reconfirmed by the Senate. The prospect of retaining him generated praise from the military establishment and Capitol Hill, where he is viewed as a pragmatist who turned the Pentagon around after the tumultuous tenure of Donald H. Rumsfeld.
But it also stirred a debate inside Mr. Obama’s circles, where some advisers worried that the decision to turn to a Republican appointee — something President Bill Clinton did in naming William S. Cohen to the defense post in 1997 — would reinforce the notion that Democrats could not manage the military. “It makes them look like they’re too wimpy to be trusted to run the building,” said one adviser who asked not to be named.
Keeping Mr. Gates after a polarizing campaign on the war also seemed incongruous to some. “I really can’t begin to understand from a political point of view how Barack Obama, a person who got the nomination because he ran against the Iraq war, can keep around the guy who’s been in charge of it for the last two years,” said Loren B. Thompson, head of the Lexington Institute, a research organization.
Mr. Gates talked with Mr. Obama’s team about how to make the arrangement work. One adviser familiar with the discussions said the final issue was the choice of senior Pentagon personnel and whether a small circle of Gates advisers would remain.
Obama advisers have talked about Richard J. Danzig, a former Navy secretary, as a possible deputy and heir apparent to Mr. Gates, but some acknowledged that the prospect could raise concerns. If Mr. Danzig is sitting down the hall from the secretary’s office and seen as Mr. Obama’s real choice, some said, then his presence could undercut Mr. Gates’s authority.
But Mr. Gates has shown an ability to manage the Pentagon even with a small inner circle. When he took over from Mr. Rumsfeld after the 2006 midterm elections, Mr. Gates did not bring a single new aide. And the senior military officer corps will remain unchanged at the start of the administration, including Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Admiral Mullen made an unannounced trip to Chicago on Friday for a 45-minute meeting with Mr. Obama on a wide range of national security issues, Pentagon officials said. Before going, Admiral Mullen received approval from both Mr. Gates and Mr. Bush, the officials said.
The decision by Mr. Brennan to pull out of consideration for a senior intelligence job surprised specialists and lawmakers, some of whom questioned whether he had been forced by Mr. Obama’s team to withdraw. Mr. Obama’s office denied pushing Mr. Brennan aside.
The episode underscored how the C.I.A.’s secret detention program remained an incendiary issue. Mr. Brennan, who will continue to work on Mr. Obama’s transition team, was a senior adviser during the campaign and said an Obama administration would ban coercive interrogation.
Yet a group of psychologists posted a letter on the Internet last weekend calling for Mr. Obama to pass over Mr. Brennan, quoting a 2006 interview in which he seemed to defend C.I.A. operations after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Stephanie Cutter, an Obama spokeswoman, said, “John Brennan has served our nation with honor and is a man of talent and integrity,” adding that Mr. Obama “is grateful for John’s continuing assistance as a valuable member of our transition team.”
Jeff Zeleny and Mark Mazzetti contributed reporting.
Filed under
Barack Obama,
Robert Gates
by Winter Patriot
on Wednesday, November 26, 2008
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
IHT : Gates apologizes for Afghan deaths
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Gates apologizes for Afghan deaths
By Thom Shanker | September 17, 2008
KABUL: The U.S. defense secretary, Robert Gates, expressed "sincere condolences and personal regrets" Wednesday for the deaths of Afghan civilians during recent airstrikes and announced a series of new measures designed to make amends when innocents are killed.
Gates accepted a proposal from Afghan officials to establish a permanent joint investigative group to rapidly determine the facts surrounding incidents of civilian casualties.
And he pledged that even before all the facts are known, the United States would apologize for civilian casualties and offer compensation to survivors.
"I think the key for us is, on those rare occasions when we do make a mistake, when there is an error, to apologize quickly, to compensate the victims quickly and then carry out the investigation," Gates said.
He said he ordered the new measures "so people know most of all that we care about them" and to prove that when there are civilian casualties, "We are sorry for that and we are going to make amends as quickly as possible."
The new policy is a clear indication that the United States and its NATO allies fear they risk losing the support of the Afghan people, and of the world community, for the stabilization mission here.
Even so, senior Pentagon officials say that incidents of civilian casualties are trumpeted by the Taliban and Al Qaeda as proof of American injustice and that many of those reports are exaggerated or false.
Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said that the idea to create a permanent joint investigative body for incidents of civilian casualties was raised by senior Afghan officials and that Gates, during a day of meetings here Wednesday, officially agreed to the plan.
In several recent cases of civilian casualties, separate investigations by the Afghan government, U.S. military and international organizations have returned with conflicting assessments.
On his fourth visit to Afghanistan as defense secretary, Gates acknowledged the need for more troops here.
On Tuesday, the senior American commander, General David McKiernan, said for the first time that he needed three combat brigades of 3,000 to 4,000 soldiers each over and above the one extra battalion of 500 to 1,500 soldiers and one extra brigade that President George W. Bush has ordered to arrive here by early next year.
"My expectation is that we will be able to meet the requirements the commanders have here during the course of 2009," Gates said.
But he did not give exact figures for reinforcements, nor did he say whether any additional increases would come from the American military or if allies would be pressed to fill the short-fall in troops identified by McKiernan.
The defense secretary gave an impassioned restatement of the American commitment to the Afghanistan conflict, which often has been described as the forgotten war since vastly more resources were committed to U.S. forces in Iraq.
"You have seen the face of the enemy, the ruthlessness and the determination," he said.
"Let there be no doubt that the United States and our many partners around the world are just as determined to help you win the peace and freedom you deserve."
By Thom Shanker | September 17, 2008
KABUL: The U.S. defense secretary, Robert Gates, expressed "sincere condolences and personal regrets" Wednesday for the deaths of Afghan civilians during recent airstrikes and announced a series of new measures designed to make amends when innocents are killed.
Gates accepted a proposal from Afghan officials to establish a permanent joint investigative group to rapidly determine the facts surrounding incidents of civilian casualties.
And he pledged that even before all the facts are known, the United States would apologize for civilian casualties and offer compensation to survivors.
"I think the key for us is, on those rare occasions when we do make a mistake, when there is an error, to apologize quickly, to compensate the victims quickly and then carry out the investigation," Gates said.
He said he ordered the new measures "so people know most of all that we care about them" and to prove that when there are civilian casualties, "We are sorry for that and we are going to make amends as quickly as possible."
The new policy is a clear indication that the United States and its NATO allies fear they risk losing the support of the Afghan people, and of the world community, for the stabilization mission here.
Even so, senior Pentagon officials say that incidents of civilian casualties are trumpeted by the Taliban and Al Qaeda as proof of American injustice and that many of those reports are exaggerated or false.
Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said that the idea to create a permanent joint investigative body for incidents of civilian casualties was raised by senior Afghan officials and that Gates, during a day of meetings here Wednesday, officially agreed to the plan.
In several recent cases of civilian casualties, separate investigations by the Afghan government, U.S. military and international organizations have returned with conflicting assessments.
On his fourth visit to Afghanistan as defense secretary, Gates acknowledged the need for more troops here.
On Tuesday, the senior American commander, General David McKiernan, said for the first time that he needed three combat brigades of 3,000 to 4,000 soldiers each over and above the one extra battalion of 500 to 1,500 soldiers and one extra brigade that President George W. Bush has ordered to arrive here by early next year.
"My expectation is that we will be able to meet the requirements the commanders have here during the course of 2009," Gates said.
But he did not give exact figures for reinforcements, nor did he say whether any additional increases would come from the American military or if allies would be pressed to fill the short-fall in troops identified by McKiernan.
The defense secretary gave an impassioned restatement of the American commitment to the Afghanistan conflict, which often has been described as the forgotten war since vastly more resources were committed to U.S. forces in Iraq.
"You have seen the face of the enemy, the ruthlessness and the determination," he said.
"Let there be no doubt that the United States and our many partners around the world are just as determined to help you win the peace and freedom you deserve."
Filed under
Afghanistan,
civilian casualties,
Robert Gates
by Winter Patriot
on Wednesday, September 17, 2008
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
NYT : New Jobs Set for 2 Generals With Iraq Role
Thursday, April 24, 2008
New Jobs Set for 2 Generals With Iraq Role
By THOM SHANKER | April 24, 2008
WASHINGTON — Under a plan announced at the Pentagon on Wednesday, the two commanders most closely associated with President Bush’s current strategy in Iraq would be elevated into new posts with responsibilities extending into the next administration over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Gen. David H. Petraeus would take charge of all military affairs across the Middle East and Central Asia, and would be succeeded as the senior commander in Iraq by Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, who returned to Washington in February after serving 15 months as General Petraeus’s deputy.
Asked whether the planned nominations by Mr. Bush were a sign that American policy was to “stay the course” in Iraq, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said that the security gains that had been achieved under General Petraeus’s command meant that “staying that course is not a bad idea.”
The nomination of General Petraeus could, however, portend a renewed American focus on Afghanistan, where the American war effort is widely recognized to be lagging, with violence by the Taliban and Al Qaeda on the rise. Mr. Gates already has expressed the desire to send several thousand additional troops to Afghanistan next year, although that could require further reductions in troop commitments to Iraq. General Petraeus would be expected to apply his views of counterinsurgency to Afghanistan, which may include a push toward increased troops.
Mr. Gates said he and President Bush settled on General Petraeus for the post because his counterinsurgency experience in Iraq made him best suited to oversee American operations across a region where the United States is engaged in “asymmetric” warfare, a euphemism for battling militants and nonuniformed combatants.
The previous Central Command chief, Adm. William J. Fallon, chose early retirement in March after rankling the Bush administration with public comments that seemed to suggest differences with the White House. If General Petraeus and General Odierno were to win Senate confirmation to their new posts, Mr. Gates said, they would take over in late summer or early fall.
The situation in Iraq remains fragile, as General Petraeus acknowledged in testimony to Congress this month when he warned that recent security gains could be easily reversed. Under his command, an increase in American forces brought troop levels as high as 165,000, and even critics of the increase say it contributed to a decline in violence, along with the cease-fire proclaimed by the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr for his Mahdi Army militia and a shift in sentiment among Sunni tribes that turned them against Sunni militants.
Among the three candidates still vying to become the next president, Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, has defended the idea of maintaining high troop levels even after the troop increase runs its course in July, bringing the number down to slightly more than 140,000.
The two Democratic contenders, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, by contrast, have pressed for troop reductions at a pace far faster than those that General Petraeus has endorsed and have pledged to carry out withdrawals even if it meant going against the advice of field commanders. It would be unusual for a new president to replace a senior general new to his assignment. In a statement, Mrs. Clinton described General Petraeus as “an able and respected leader in Iraq under incredibly difficult circumstances,” and said she looked forward to hearing. “how he will meet these important challenges” of the broader Central Command region.
Mr. McCain, at a news conference on Wednesday, said that General Odierno “is maybe not perfect, but I think he has done a magnificent job.” Referring to General Petraeus, Mr. McCain said, “I think he is by far the best-qualified individual to take that job” as the regional commander.
After three tours in Iraq, General Petraeus, 55, has become perhaps the best-known military officer of his generation, and it had been expected that his next assignment after Iraq would be as the top American commander in Europe. Chosen instead to take charge of a region that includes Pakistan and Iran, as well as Iraq and Afghanistan, General Petraeus issued a statement on Wednesday saying, “I am honored to be nominated for this position and to have an opportunity to continue to serve.”
General Petraeus and General Odierno have built a strong working relationship and are believed to see eye to eye on how to carry out the complicated Iraq mission — one they believe requires offensive military operations, more subtle counterinsurgency missions and society-wide reconstruction, all at once.
Mr. Gates said General Odierno was the logical choice to succeed his old boss because he was familiar to the officers and troops in Iraq and, not least, to the Iraqis. “In most parts of the world, especially the Middle East, personal relationships make a big difference,” Mr. Gates said.
The defense secretary also announced that Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, Mr. Gates’s senior military assistant, would be nominated for Army vice chief of staff, a post that General Odierno had been expected to take. General Chiarelli has had two tours in Iraq — first as commander of the First Cavalry Division and coalition forces in Baghdad, and then as the No. 2 commander in the country.
The Central Command position would be General Petraeus’s fourth tour in the region since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He first served as commander of the 101st Airborne Division, which invaded Iraq from the south and set up an area of control across the north. However, parts of the north, in particular the city of Mosul, are today among the most unstable in the nation.
He returned to Iraq to serve as commander of training Iraqi security forces, then commanded Fort Leavenworth, where he oversaw the writing of the Army’s new counterinsurgency manual, certain to influence his efforts in Afghanistan, too, if he is confirmed to the Central Command job.
General Petraeus’s challenge as leader of Central Command will be to avoid being trapped in continued, detailed management of the Iraq mission as he takes on vast geographical responsibilities across North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia, which clearly are the focus of American policy today far and above Europe or East Asia.
Mr. Gates said he believed that General Petraeus would win quick confirmation, based on recent conversations that he had with leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee. But he said “a good handoff” of responsibilities.
That transfer could come about the time that General Petraeus has promised to begin a new review of troop levels in Iraq, after the departure of five brigades by July will leave a force of about 140,000, slightly more than were in Iraq before the troop increase began.
The announcement that General Petraeus, 55, would head Central Command, and Mr. Gates’s emphasis on operations in Afghanistan as well as Iraq, reinforced the impression that Pentagon leaders expected the United States to have significant numbers of troops deployed in those two countries for some time to come.
When he was asked whether General Petraeus’s promotion to the theaterwide post, coupled with the selection of his former deputy, General Odierno, to lead forces in Iraq, should be interpreted as a warning to Iran, which has often been accused of meddling with the affairs of its neighbor Iraq, Mr. Gates did not answer directly.
But he did not discourage the suggestion of a warning to Iran, saying: “What Iranians are doing is killing American servicemen inside Iraq.”
General Odierno had been criticized in some quarters during his first tour in Iraq, as commander of the Fourth Infantry Division based in Tikrit. A high point was the capture of Saddam Hussein by forces under his command, but his troops also were criticized for heavy-handed operations that, critics said, helped fuel frustration and, perhaps, the insurgency itself.
Yet he received high marks during his most recent tour, as day-to-day commander of operations playing an important role in prosecuting that troop increase strategy.
Michael R. Gordon contributed reporting from Baghdad, and David Stout from Washington.
By THOM SHANKER | April 24, 2008
WASHINGTON — Under a plan announced at the Pentagon on Wednesday, the two commanders most closely associated with President Bush’s current strategy in Iraq would be elevated into new posts with responsibilities extending into the next administration over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Gen. David H. Petraeus would take charge of all military affairs across the Middle East and Central Asia, and would be succeeded as the senior commander in Iraq by Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, who returned to Washington in February after serving 15 months as General Petraeus’s deputy.
Asked whether the planned nominations by Mr. Bush were a sign that American policy was to “stay the course” in Iraq, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said that the security gains that had been achieved under General Petraeus’s command meant that “staying that course is not a bad idea.”
The nomination of General Petraeus could, however, portend a renewed American focus on Afghanistan, where the American war effort is widely recognized to be lagging, with violence by the Taliban and Al Qaeda on the rise. Mr. Gates already has expressed the desire to send several thousand additional troops to Afghanistan next year, although that could require further reductions in troop commitments to Iraq. General Petraeus would be expected to apply his views of counterinsurgency to Afghanistan, which may include a push toward increased troops.
Mr. Gates said he and President Bush settled on General Petraeus for the post because his counterinsurgency experience in Iraq made him best suited to oversee American operations across a region where the United States is engaged in “asymmetric” warfare, a euphemism for battling militants and nonuniformed combatants.
The previous Central Command chief, Adm. William J. Fallon, chose early retirement in March after rankling the Bush administration with public comments that seemed to suggest differences with the White House. If General Petraeus and General Odierno were to win Senate confirmation to their new posts, Mr. Gates said, they would take over in late summer or early fall.
The situation in Iraq remains fragile, as General Petraeus acknowledged in testimony to Congress this month when he warned that recent security gains could be easily reversed. Under his command, an increase in American forces brought troop levels as high as 165,000, and even critics of the increase say it contributed to a decline in violence, along with the cease-fire proclaimed by the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr for his Mahdi Army militia and a shift in sentiment among Sunni tribes that turned them against Sunni militants.
Among the three candidates still vying to become the next president, Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, has defended the idea of maintaining high troop levels even after the troop increase runs its course in July, bringing the number down to slightly more than 140,000.
The two Democratic contenders, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, by contrast, have pressed for troop reductions at a pace far faster than those that General Petraeus has endorsed and have pledged to carry out withdrawals even if it meant going against the advice of field commanders. It would be unusual for a new president to replace a senior general new to his assignment. In a statement, Mrs. Clinton described General Petraeus as “an able and respected leader in Iraq under incredibly difficult circumstances,” and said she looked forward to hearing. “how he will meet these important challenges” of the broader Central Command region.
Mr. McCain, at a news conference on Wednesday, said that General Odierno “is maybe not perfect, but I think he has done a magnificent job.” Referring to General Petraeus, Mr. McCain said, “I think he is by far the best-qualified individual to take that job” as the regional commander.
After three tours in Iraq, General Petraeus, 55, has become perhaps the best-known military officer of his generation, and it had been expected that his next assignment after Iraq would be as the top American commander in Europe. Chosen instead to take charge of a region that includes Pakistan and Iran, as well as Iraq and Afghanistan, General Petraeus issued a statement on Wednesday saying, “I am honored to be nominated for this position and to have an opportunity to continue to serve.”
General Petraeus and General Odierno have built a strong working relationship and are believed to see eye to eye on how to carry out the complicated Iraq mission — one they believe requires offensive military operations, more subtle counterinsurgency missions and society-wide reconstruction, all at once.
Mr. Gates said General Odierno was the logical choice to succeed his old boss because he was familiar to the officers and troops in Iraq and, not least, to the Iraqis. “In most parts of the world, especially the Middle East, personal relationships make a big difference,” Mr. Gates said.
The defense secretary also announced that Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, Mr. Gates’s senior military assistant, would be nominated for Army vice chief of staff, a post that General Odierno had been expected to take. General Chiarelli has had two tours in Iraq — first as commander of the First Cavalry Division and coalition forces in Baghdad, and then as the No. 2 commander in the country.
The Central Command position would be General Petraeus’s fourth tour in the region since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He first served as commander of the 101st Airborne Division, which invaded Iraq from the south and set up an area of control across the north. However, parts of the north, in particular the city of Mosul, are today among the most unstable in the nation.
He returned to Iraq to serve as commander of training Iraqi security forces, then commanded Fort Leavenworth, where he oversaw the writing of the Army’s new counterinsurgency manual, certain to influence his efforts in Afghanistan, too, if he is confirmed to the Central Command job.
General Petraeus’s challenge as leader of Central Command will be to avoid being trapped in continued, detailed management of the Iraq mission as he takes on vast geographical responsibilities across North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia, which clearly are the focus of American policy today far and above Europe or East Asia.
Mr. Gates said he believed that General Petraeus would win quick confirmation, based on recent conversations that he had with leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee. But he said “a good handoff” of responsibilities.
That transfer could come about the time that General Petraeus has promised to begin a new review of troop levels in Iraq, after the departure of five brigades by July will leave a force of about 140,000, slightly more than were in Iraq before the troop increase began.
The announcement that General Petraeus, 55, would head Central Command, and Mr. Gates’s emphasis on operations in Afghanistan as well as Iraq, reinforced the impression that Pentagon leaders expected the United States to have significant numbers of troops deployed in those two countries for some time to come.
When he was asked whether General Petraeus’s promotion to the theaterwide post, coupled with the selection of his former deputy, General Odierno, to lead forces in Iraq, should be interpreted as a warning to Iran, which has often been accused of meddling with the affairs of its neighbor Iraq, Mr. Gates did not answer directly.
But he did not discourage the suggestion of a warning to Iran, saying: “What Iranians are doing is killing American servicemen inside Iraq.”
General Odierno had been criticized in some quarters during his first tour in Iraq, as commander of the Fourth Infantry Division based in Tikrit. A high point was the capture of Saddam Hussein by forces under his command, but his troops also were criticized for heavy-handed operations that, critics said, helped fuel frustration and, perhaps, the insurgency itself.
Yet he received high marks during his most recent tour, as day-to-day commander of operations playing an important role in prosecuting that troop increase strategy.
Michael R. Gordon contributed reporting from Baghdad, and David Stout from Washington.
Filed under
Afghanistan,
CENTCOM,
David Petraeus,
Iraq,
Peter Chiarelli,
Raymond Odierno,
Robert Gates
by Winter Patriot
on Thursday, April 24, 2008
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
WaPo : Top U.S. Officer in Mideast Resigns
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Top U.S. Officer in Mideast Resigns
By Thomas E. Ricks | Washington Post Staff Writer | March 12, 2008
The top U.S. commander in the Middle East, whose views on strategy in the region have put him at odds with the Bush administration, abruptly announced his resignation yesterday, calling reports of such disagreements an untenable "distraction."
Adm. William J. "Fox" Fallon became head of U.S. Central Command last March, putting him ostensibly in charge of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But he clashed frequently with Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, over strategy and troop levels, Pentagon officials said. Though technically Fallon's subordinate, Petraeus has more experience in Iraq and has forged a strong connection with President Bush.
Fallon had made several comments reflecting disagreement with the administration's stance on Iran, most recently in an Esquire magazine article last week that portrayed him as the only person who might stop Bush from going to war with the Islamic republic.
"Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president's policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time," Fallon said in a statement. Though he denied that any discrepancies exist, he said "it would be best to step aside and allow" Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates "and our military leaders to move beyond this distraction."
Fallon is expected to step down at the end of the month, after barely a year in his position, and just eight days before Petraeus is scheduled to testify before Congress about conditions in Iraq. Military officers said it appeared that it was made clear to Fallon that nobody would object if he stepped down.
"Admiral Fallon reached this difficult decision entirely on his own," Gates said yesterday in an unscheduled news conference. He added: "I believe it was the right thing to do, even though I do not believe there are, in fact, significant differences between his views and administration policy."
The defense secretary also praised Fallon's abilities as a strategist, even though it was the admiral's strategic views that seemed to trouble the administration. "He is enormously talented and very experienced, and he does have a strategic vision that is rare," Gates said.
The Esquire article, written by Thomas P. M. Barnett, a former Naval War College professor, asserted that if Fallon left his job anytime soon, it could signal that Bush intends to go to war with Iran. Asked about that yesterday, Gates called it "just ridiculous."
Several Democrats were quick to accuse the administration of not tolerating dissent. "It's distressing that Admiral Fallon feels he had to step down," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.). "President Bush's oft-repeated claim that he follows the advice of his commanders on the ground rings hollow if our commanders don't feel free to disagree with the president." Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) asked whether Fallon's resignation is a reflection that the administration is hostile to "the frank, open airing of experts' views."
A likely successor to Fallon is Petraeus, some defense experts said. The general could be promoted to the Centcom post and replaced in Baghdad by Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, who until last month was Petraeus's deputy in Iraq. Odierno, who has been nominated to become Army vice chief of staff, developed a strong working relationship with Petraeus.
Another possible successor mentioned yesterday is Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the head of Special Operations in Iraq. McChrystal recently was nominated to be director of the staff of the Joint Chiefs, a key Pentagon position.
On Iraq, Fallon butted heads with Petraeus over the past year, arguing for a more rapid drawdown of U.S. troops and a swifter transition to Iraqi security forces. Fallon even carried out his own review of the conduct of the war -- a move that surprised many Pentagon officials, in part because Odierno and Petraeus had already revamped U.S. strategy in Iraq and, with Bush's approval, had implemented a buildup of about 30,000 additional troops, moving them off big bases and deploying them among the Iraqi population.
In the Esquire article, Fallon contends that Iraq was consuming excessive U.S. attention. In a part of the world with "five or six pots boiling over," he is quoted as saying, "our nation can't afford to be mesmerized by one problem."
The article was "definitely the straw that broke the camel's back," a retired general said, especially because of its "extraordinarily flip, damning and insulting" tone. He noted that since it appeared last week, it has been the talk of military circles, where it was expected that Fallon would be disciplined.
Fallon, one of the last Vietnam veterans in the U.S. military, was the first Navy officer selected to lead Centcom, a role traditionally granted to Army and Marine generals such as H. Norman Schwarzkopf, Tommy R. Franks and Anthony C. Zinni. One reason he was chosen to replace Army Gen. John P. Abizaid was because the administration -- dealing with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a diplomatic crisis over Iran's nuclear program -- wanted a seasoned officer who could step into the job quickly, without having to learn the ropes of top command, according to a person involved in his selection.
As a veteran of Pacific Command, where he focused on dealing with the rise of China, Fallon was seen as someone who would be comfortable operating at the highest levels of diplomacy and politics. He had told colleagues that he viewed Iran as a problem similar to China -- one that mainly required steady engagement rather than aggressive confrontation. That stance put him at odds with Iran hawks both inside and outside the administration.
Peter D. Feaver, a former staff member of Bush's National Security Council, said that the public nature of Fallon's remarks made it necessary for the admiral to step down. "There is ample room for military leaders to debate administration policy behind closed doors," said Feaver, a political scientist at Duke University. "However, taking such arguments into the media would violate basic democratic norms of civil-military relations."
But Richard Danzig, who served as Navy secretary from 1998 to 2001 and has known Fallon for 15 years, said Fallon's departure will leave a significant hole in a critical region. "Any turnover in Centcom has real costs, because this is an arena in the world, more than others, that depends a lot on relationships and extensive periods of conversation and mutual understanding," he said.
That might prove especially true in Pakistan. Fallon had become a point man for crucial military relations there as the Pentagon implements a stepped-up program to help Pakistani forces deal with Islamic extremism along the border with Afghanistan. In visits to Islamabad in November and January, he cemented ties with Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani, the new armed forces chief of staff. The administration hopes that Kiyani will keep the military out of Pakistani politics while showing new aggression toward al-Qaeda and Taliban forces along the Afghan border.
Fallon's departure also reflects Gates's management style. During his 15 months at the Pentagon, the defense secretary has shown a willingness to move decisively in cases of internal conflict. A career intelligence officer, he demanded the resignation of Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey last year because of the way he handled the fallout from reports about substandard care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Gates also declined to nominate Gen. Peter Pace, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for a second two-year term, amid concerns that a Democratic-controlled Congress would grill Pace on Iraq.
Yesterday, Gates said the perception that Fallon disagreed with the administration's policies was enough to concern Fallon that he may no longer be effective in the region. Gates quoted Fallon as saying that the situation was "embarrassing."
Staff writers Josh White, Karen DeYoung and Peter Baker contributed to this report.
By Thomas E. Ricks | Washington Post Staff Writer | March 12, 2008
The top U.S. commander in the Middle East, whose views on strategy in the region have put him at odds with the Bush administration, abruptly announced his resignation yesterday, calling reports of such disagreements an untenable "distraction."
Adm. William J. "Fox" Fallon became head of U.S. Central Command last March, putting him ostensibly in charge of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But he clashed frequently with Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, over strategy and troop levels, Pentagon officials said. Though technically Fallon's subordinate, Petraeus has more experience in Iraq and has forged a strong connection with President Bush.
Fallon had made several comments reflecting disagreement with the administration's stance on Iran, most recently in an Esquire magazine article last week that portrayed him as the only person who might stop Bush from going to war with the Islamic republic.
"Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president's policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time," Fallon said in a statement. Though he denied that any discrepancies exist, he said "it would be best to step aside and allow" Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates "and our military leaders to move beyond this distraction."
Fallon is expected to step down at the end of the month, after barely a year in his position, and just eight days before Petraeus is scheduled to testify before Congress about conditions in Iraq. Military officers said it appeared that it was made clear to Fallon that nobody would object if he stepped down.
"Admiral Fallon reached this difficult decision entirely on his own," Gates said yesterday in an unscheduled news conference. He added: "I believe it was the right thing to do, even though I do not believe there are, in fact, significant differences between his views and administration policy."
The defense secretary also praised Fallon's abilities as a strategist, even though it was the admiral's strategic views that seemed to trouble the administration. "He is enormously talented and very experienced, and he does have a strategic vision that is rare," Gates said.
The Esquire article, written by Thomas P. M. Barnett, a former Naval War College professor, asserted that if Fallon left his job anytime soon, it could signal that Bush intends to go to war with Iran. Asked about that yesterday, Gates called it "just ridiculous."
Several Democrats were quick to accuse the administration of not tolerating dissent. "It's distressing that Admiral Fallon feels he had to step down," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.). "President Bush's oft-repeated claim that he follows the advice of his commanders on the ground rings hollow if our commanders don't feel free to disagree with the president." Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) asked whether Fallon's resignation is a reflection that the administration is hostile to "the frank, open airing of experts' views."
A likely successor to Fallon is Petraeus, some defense experts said. The general could be promoted to the Centcom post and replaced in Baghdad by Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, who until last month was Petraeus's deputy in Iraq. Odierno, who has been nominated to become Army vice chief of staff, developed a strong working relationship with Petraeus.
Another possible successor mentioned yesterday is Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the head of Special Operations in Iraq. McChrystal recently was nominated to be director of the staff of the Joint Chiefs, a key Pentagon position.
On Iraq, Fallon butted heads with Petraeus over the past year, arguing for a more rapid drawdown of U.S. troops and a swifter transition to Iraqi security forces. Fallon even carried out his own review of the conduct of the war -- a move that surprised many Pentagon officials, in part because Odierno and Petraeus had already revamped U.S. strategy in Iraq and, with Bush's approval, had implemented a buildup of about 30,000 additional troops, moving them off big bases and deploying them among the Iraqi population.
In the Esquire article, Fallon contends that Iraq was consuming excessive U.S. attention. In a part of the world with "five or six pots boiling over," he is quoted as saying, "our nation can't afford to be mesmerized by one problem."
The article was "definitely the straw that broke the camel's back," a retired general said, especially because of its "extraordinarily flip, damning and insulting" tone. He noted that since it appeared last week, it has been the talk of military circles, where it was expected that Fallon would be disciplined.
Fallon, one of the last Vietnam veterans in the U.S. military, was the first Navy officer selected to lead Centcom, a role traditionally granted to Army and Marine generals such as H. Norman Schwarzkopf, Tommy R. Franks and Anthony C. Zinni. One reason he was chosen to replace Army Gen. John P. Abizaid was because the administration -- dealing with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a diplomatic crisis over Iran's nuclear program -- wanted a seasoned officer who could step into the job quickly, without having to learn the ropes of top command, according to a person involved in his selection.
As a veteran of Pacific Command, where he focused on dealing with the rise of China, Fallon was seen as someone who would be comfortable operating at the highest levels of diplomacy and politics. He had told colleagues that he viewed Iran as a problem similar to China -- one that mainly required steady engagement rather than aggressive confrontation. That stance put him at odds with Iran hawks both inside and outside the administration.
Peter D. Feaver, a former staff member of Bush's National Security Council, said that the public nature of Fallon's remarks made it necessary for the admiral to step down. "There is ample room for military leaders to debate administration policy behind closed doors," said Feaver, a political scientist at Duke University. "However, taking such arguments into the media would violate basic democratic norms of civil-military relations."
But Richard Danzig, who served as Navy secretary from 1998 to 2001 and has known Fallon for 15 years, said Fallon's departure will leave a significant hole in a critical region. "Any turnover in Centcom has real costs, because this is an arena in the world, more than others, that depends a lot on relationships and extensive periods of conversation and mutual understanding," he said.
That might prove especially true in Pakistan. Fallon had become a point man for crucial military relations there as the Pentagon implements a stepped-up program to help Pakistani forces deal with Islamic extremism along the border with Afghanistan. In visits to Islamabad in November and January, he cemented ties with Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani, the new armed forces chief of staff. The administration hopes that Kiyani will keep the military out of Pakistani politics while showing new aggression toward al-Qaeda and Taliban forces along the Afghan border.
Fallon's departure also reflects Gates's management style. During his 15 months at the Pentagon, the defense secretary has shown a willingness to move decisively in cases of internal conflict. A career intelligence officer, he demanded the resignation of Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey last year because of the way he handled the fallout from reports about substandard care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Gates also declined to nominate Gen. Peter Pace, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for a second two-year term, amid concerns that a Democratic-controlled Congress would grill Pace on Iraq.
Yesterday, Gates said the perception that Fallon disagreed with the administration's policies was enough to concern Fallon that he may no longer be effective in the region. Gates quoted Fallon as saying that the situation was "embarrassing."
Staff writers Josh White, Karen DeYoung and Peter Baker contributed to this report.
Filed under
CENTCOM,
David Petraeus,
Robert Gates,
William J. Fallon
by Winter Patriot
on Tuesday, March 11, 2008
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
NYT : Top U.S. Commander in Mideast to Retire Early
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Top U.S. Commander in Mideast to Retire Early
By THOM SHANKER and DAVID STOUT | March 11, 2008
WASHINGTON — Adm. William J. Fallon, the top American commander in the Middle East whose views on Iran and other issues have seemed to put him at odds with the Bush administration, is retiring early, the Pentagon said Tuesday afternoon.
The retirement of Admiral Fallon, 63, who only a year ago became the first Navy man to be named the commander of the United States Central Command, was announced by his civilian boss, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who said that he accepted the admiral’s request to retire “with reluctance and regret.”
President Bush said Admiral Fallon had served his country with “honor, determination and commitment” and deserved “considerable credit” for the progress in Afghanistan and Iraq.
But despite the warm words from Mr. Bush and Mr. Gates, there was no question that the admiral’s premature departure stemmed from a public appearance of policy differences with the administration, and with Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq.
Mr. Gates acknowledged as much when he said that Admiral Fallon, in asking permission on Tuesday morning to retire, had expressed concerns that the controversy over his views were becoming “a distraction.” But the secretary labeled as “ridiculous” any speculation that the admiral’s retirement portends a more bellicose American approach toward Iran.
Admiral Fallon had rankled senior officials of the Bush administration with outspoken comments on such issues as dealing with Iran and on setting the pace of troop reductions from Iraq — even though his comments were well within the range of views expressed by Mr. Gates.
Officials said the last straw, however, came in an article in Esquire magazine by Thomas P. M. Barnett, a respected military analyst, that profiled Admiral Fallon under the headline, “The Man Between War and Peace.” The article highlighted comments Admiral Fallon made to the Arab television station Al Jazeera last fall, in which he said that a “constant drumbeat of conflict” from Washington that was directed at Iran and Iraq was “not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working for. We ought to try to do our utmost to create different conditions.”
Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, was asked at a news briefing on Monday to comment on the controversy. Mr. Morrell said Mr. Gates and the admiral maintained a good working relationship, but that, like all military commanders, Admiral Fallon served at the pleasure of the president.
Mr. Gates said on Tuesday that Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey would take Admiral Fallon’s place until a permanent replacement is nominated and confirmed by the Senate.
The Esquire article quotes Admiral Fallon as urging a “combination of strength and willingness to engage.”
Readers of the Esquire article who are among the admiral’s boosters said they did not believe on reading that piece that Admiral Fallon himself had made comments that could be viewed as insubordinate to the president.
But the cast of the lengthy piece put the admiral at odds with the White House.
“If, in the dying light of the Bush administration, we go to war with Iran, it’ll all come down to one man,” the article begins. “If we do not go to war with Iran, it’ll come down to the same man.”
Both Mr. Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, have maintained an unwavering public line that disagreements with Iran should be resolved diplomatically, and that any military option remained only the last resort.
“I think that the secretary has made clear and I think Admiral Fallon has made clear that the first priority of this administration is to deal with our problems with Iran in a diplomatic fashion,” Mr. Morrell said Monday. “That is our first hope. That is our first effort. However, we have all made clear, time and time again, that nothing, no avenue is off the table.”
Democrats pounced on the retirement announcement, with Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, calling it “yet another example that independence and the frank, open airing of experts’ views are not welcomes [sic] in this administration.”
Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he was sorry to see the admiral go. “Admiral Fallon is well known for his excellent diplomatic skills in representing the United States overseas,” Mr. Levin said. “I can only hope that the decision to retire was his own.” And Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who often differs with the administration on foreign-policy issues, said that “the credibility which Admiral Fallon brought to the issues he was involved in will be sorely missed.”
When Admiral Fallon was nominated in January of 2007 to be commander of American military forces across a region where they are engaged in two ground wars, it struck many analysts as odd. When he was confirmed for the post, he replaced Gen. John Abizaid as the top officer of Central Command.
At the time, a range of senior Pentagon civilians and military officers said Mr. Gates had recommended that Admiral Fallon move from his post as commander of American forces in the Pacific to bring a new strategic view — as well as maritime experience — to the Middle East.
The admiral began service through a commission from the Navy’s Reserve Officer Training Program, as opposed to the more prestigious Naval Academy. He later graduated from the Naval War College and the National War College, and earned a master’s degree in international studies from Old Dominion University.
Although known for being tough on his subordinates, Admiral Fallon also developed a reputation for nuanced diplomatic negotiations with friendly nations — and some with whom the United States has more prickly ties. Earlier in his career, when he was the American military commander in the Pacific, he annoyed conservatives by taking what they considered an overly conciliatory stance toward China.
Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican candidate for president, praised the admiral. “As a fellow Naval aviator, I know the sacrifices he made during his long and distinguished career,” the senator said. “Under Admiral Fallon’s leadership at Central Command, the situation in Iraq has improved dramatically. All Americans should be grateful for Admiral Fallon’s service, and respect his decision to retire. I am confident President Bush will act promptly to select the right person to lead Central Command at this critical juncture.”
By THOM SHANKER and DAVID STOUT | March 11, 2008
WASHINGTON — Adm. William J. Fallon, the top American commander in the Middle East whose views on Iran and other issues have seemed to put him at odds with the Bush administration, is retiring early, the Pentagon said Tuesday afternoon.
The retirement of Admiral Fallon, 63, who only a year ago became the first Navy man to be named the commander of the United States Central Command, was announced by his civilian boss, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who said that he accepted the admiral’s request to retire “with reluctance and regret.”
President Bush said Admiral Fallon had served his country with “honor, determination and commitment” and deserved “considerable credit” for the progress in Afghanistan and Iraq.
But despite the warm words from Mr. Bush and Mr. Gates, there was no question that the admiral’s premature departure stemmed from a public appearance of policy differences with the administration, and with Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq.
Mr. Gates acknowledged as much when he said that Admiral Fallon, in asking permission on Tuesday morning to retire, had expressed concerns that the controversy over his views were becoming “a distraction.” But the secretary labeled as “ridiculous” any speculation that the admiral’s retirement portends a more bellicose American approach toward Iran.
Admiral Fallon had rankled senior officials of the Bush administration with outspoken comments on such issues as dealing with Iran and on setting the pace of troop reductions from Iraq — even though his comments were well within the range of views expressed by Mr. Gates.
Officials said the last straw, however, came in an article in Esquire magazine by Thomas P. M. Barnett, a respected military analyst, that profiled Admiral Fallon under the headline, “The Man Between War and Peace.” The article highlighted comments Admiral Fallon made to the Arab television station Al Jazeera last fall, in which he said that a “constant drumbeat of conflict” from Washington that was directed at Iran and Iraq was “not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working for. We ought to try to do our utmost to create different conditions.”
Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, was asked at a news briefing on Monday to comment on the controversy. Mr. Morrell said Mr. Gates and the admiral maintained a good working relationship, but that, like all military commanders, Admiral Fallon served at the pleasure of the president.
Mr. Gates said on Tuesday that Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey would take Admiral Fallon’s place until a permanent replacement is nominated and confirmed by the Senate.
The Esquire article quotes Admiral Fallon as urging a “combination of strength and willingness to engage.”
Readers of the Esquire article who are among the admiral’s boosters said they did not believe on reading that piece that Admiral Fallon himself had made comments that could be viewed as insubordinate to the president.
But the cast of the lengthy piece put the admiral at odds with the White House.
“If, in the dying light of the Bush administration, we go to war with Iran, it’ll all come down to one man,” the article begins. “If we do not go to war with Iran, it’ll come down to the same man.”
Both Mr. Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, have maintained an unwavering public line that disagreements with Iran should be resolved diplomatically, and that any military option remained only the last resort.
“I think that the secretary has made clear and I think Admiral Fallon has made clear that the first priority of this administration is to deal with our problems with Iran in a diplomatic fashion,” Mr. Morrell said Monday. “That is our first hope. That is our first effort. However, we have all made clear, time and time again, that nothing, no avenue is off the table.”
Democrats pounced on the retirement announcement, with Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, calling it “yet another example that independence and the frank, open airing of experts’ views are not welcomes [sic] in this administration.”
Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he was sorry to see the admiral go. “Admiral Fallon is well known for his excellent diplomatic skills in representing the United States overseas,” Mr. Levin said. “I can only hope that the decision to retire was his own.” And Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who often differs with the administration on foreign-policy issues, said that “the credibility which Admiral Fallon brought to the issues he was involved in will be sorely missed.”
When Admiral Fallon was nominated in January of 2007 to be commander of American military forces across a region where they are engaged in two ground wars, it struck many analysts as odd. When he was confirmed for the post, he replaced Gen. John Abizaid as the top officer of Central Command.
At the time, a range of senior Pentagon civilians and military officers said Mr. Gates had recommended that Admiral Fallon move from his post as commander of American forces in the Pacific to bring a new strategic view — as well as maritime experience — to the Middle East.
The admiral began service through a commission from the Navy’s Reserve Officer Training Program, as opposed to the more prestigious Naval Academy. He later graduated from the Naval War College and the National War College, and earned a master’s degree in international studies from Old Dominion University.
Although known for being tough on his subordinates, Admiral Fallon also developed a reputation for nuanced diplomatic negotiations with friendly nations — and some with whom the United States has more prickly ties. Earlier in his career, when he was the American military commander in the Pacific, he annoyed conservatives by taking what they considered an overly conciliatory stance toward China.
Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican candidate for president, praised the admiral. “As a fellow Naval aviator, I know the sacrifices he made during his long and distinguished career,” the senator said. “Under Admiral Fallon’s leadership at Central Command, the situation in Iraq has improved dramatically. All Americans should be grateful for Admiral Fallon’s service, and respect his decision to retire. I am confident President Bush will act promptly to select the right person to lead Central Command at this critical juncture.”
Filed under
CENTCOM,
Martin Dempsey,
Robert Gates,
William J. Fallon
by Winter Patriot
on Tuesday, March 11, 2008
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
IHT : Gates backs maintaining U.S. troop levels in Iraq
Monday, February 11, 2008
Gates backs maintaining U.S. troop levels in Iraq
By Thom Shanker | February 11, 2008
BAGHDAD: Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday endorsed the concept of keeping U.S. troop levels steady in Iraq, at least temporarily, after the departure this summer of the five combat brigades sent last year as part of the Bush administration's efforts to improve security.
After meeting with top U.S. commanders, Gates said for the first time that he supported the idea of ordering a pause in troop reductions until the impact on security of the lower force levels could be assessed. "I think that the notion of a brief period of consolidation and evaluation probably does make sense," he said.
His comments were another strong indication that U.S. troop numbers in Iraq were unlikely to drop far below 130,000 this year, and certainly not to the level of 100,000 advocated by some military officials and analysts worried about the strains on the army.
General David Petraeus, the senior U.S. commander in Iraq, has hinted that he would recommend freezing troop levels, at least while he conducted further assessments, after the military presence drops back to 15 combat brigades in July. By that time, the last of five additional brigades ordered to Iraq last year by President George W. Bush would have departed.
Bush has said he would put great weight on Petraeus's formal recommendations, due this spring, and repeatedly has said that he would do whatever was necessary to sustain gains in security made over the months of the troop increase.
Gates met for two hours Monday with Petraeus and Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, who is scheduled to leave Iraq soon after 15 months as the No. 2 commander.
After the private session, Gates acknowledged that his assessment on whether to recommend that Bush put off additional troop withdrawals had been developing at the same time and along the same lines as that of the commanders'. "I had been kind of headed in that direction, as well," he said.
But the defense secretary cautioned that significant questions were still to be decided, including "how long is that period" of a pause in troop cuts, and "what happens after that."
Gates stressed that the president still had made no decisions and that Bush would receive separate assessments from Petraeus, from commanders responsible for the broader Middle East and from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who would evaluate strain on the military and global threats.
Officials worried about stress on the ground forces had expressed hopes that U.S. troop levels in Iraq could begin dropping toward 100,000 this year.
Although Bush has indicated that he would order no further troop reductions if security gains might be undermined, decisions on the U.S. commitment to Iraq will pass to a new president in January.
The top Democratic presidential candidates have said they favor more rapid troop reductions in Iraq, while Senator John McCain, the front-runner for the Republican nomination, is an unwavering supporter of the troop increase.
The troop increase ordered by Bush in January 2007 acknowledged that Baghdad was the center of gravity for security in Iraq, and the goal of adding combat forces was to drive terrorists from the city and from a belt of communities surrounding the capital, as well as to suppress insurgent groups and sectarian death squads.
In violence Monday, two car bombs exploded in Baghdad, killing at least 11 people in what appeared to be a coordinated attack on a leader of the citizens' groups that have turned against Sunni insurgents, Iraqi officials said. The blasts, within a few hundred meters of one another, erupted around noon in the largely quiet and religiously mixed neighborhood of Karada. The bombs seemed to be another attack on the so-called Awakening groups, mostly Sunni tribesmen now allied with United States and Iraqi forces to defeat Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.
The television network CBS, meanwhile, said in a brief statement Monday that two journalists were missing in the southern city of Basra. "All efforts are under way to find them," said the statement, which also asked other news organizations not to "speculate on the identity of those involved."
The Iraqi police reported that those missing were a reporter and translator, and that they had been taken away in what appeared to be official police vehicles. A semi-independent news network, Voices of Iraq, citing police sources in Basra, reported on its Web site that a British journalist, apparently a photographer, and his Iraqi interpreter were abducted from their hotel, the Qasr al-Sultan, in Basra. CBS declined to comment on those details.
Ian Fisher contributed reporting from Baghdad and James Glanz contributed from New York.
By Thom Shanker | February 11, 2008
BAGHDAD: Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday endorsed the concept of keeping U.S. troop levels steady in Iraq, at least temporarily, after the departure this summer of the five combat brigades sent last year as part of the Bush administration's efforts to improve security.
After meeting with top U.S. commanders, Gates said for the first time that he supported the idea of ordering a pause in troop reductions until the impact on security of the lower force levels could be assessed. "I think that the notion of a brief period of consolidation and evaluation probably does make sense," he said.
His comments were another strong indication that U.S. troop numbers in Iraq were unlikely to drop far below 130,000 this year, and certainly not to the level of 100,000 advocated by some military officials and analysts worried about the strains on the army.
General David Petraeus, the senior U.S. commander in Iraq, has hinted that he would recommend freezing troop levels, at least while he conducted further assessments, after the military presence drops back to 15 combat brigades in July. By that time, the last of five additional brigades ordered to Iraq last year by President George W. Bush would have departed.
Bush has said he would put great weight on Petraeus's formal recommendations, due this spring, and repeatedly has said that he would do whatever was necessary to sustain gains in security made over the months of the troop increase.
Gates met for two hours Monday with Petraeus and Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, who is scheduled to leave Iraq soon after 15 months as the No. 2 commander.
After the private session, Gates acknowledged that his assessment on whether to recommend that Bush put off additional troop withdrawals had been developing at the same time and along the same lines as that of the commanders'. "I had been kind of headed in that direction, as well," he said.
But the defense secretary cautioned that significant questions were still to be decided, including "how long is that period" of a pause in troop cuts, and "what happens after that."
Gates stressed that the president still had made no decisions and that Bush would receive separate assessments from Petraeus, from commanders responsible for the broader Middle East and from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who would evaluate strain on the military and global threats.
Officials worried about stress on the ground forces had expressed hopes that U.S. troop levels in Iraq could begin dropping toward 100,000 this year.
Although Bush has indicated that he would order no further troop reductions if security gains might be undermined, decisions on the U.S. commitment to Iraq will pass to a new president in January.
The top Democratic presidential candidates have said they favor more rapid troop reductions in Iraq, while Senator John McCain, the front-runner for the Republican nomination, is an unwavering supporter of the troop increase.
The troop increase ordered by Bush in January 2007 acknowledged that Baghdad was the center of gravity for security in Iraq, and the goal of adding combat forces was to drive terrorists from the city and from a belt of communities surrounding the capital, as well as to suppress insurgent groups and sectarian death squads.
In violence Monday, two car bombs exploded in Baghdad, killing at least 11 people in what appeared to be a coordinated attack on a leader of the citizens' groups that have turned against Sunni insurgents, Iraqi officials said. The blasts, within a few hundred meters of one another, erupted around noon in the largely quiet and religiously mixed neighborhood of Karada. The bombs seemed to be another attack on the so-called Awakening groups, mostly Sunni tribesmen now allied with United States and Iraqi forces to defeat Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.
The television network CBS, meanwhile, said in a brief statement Monday that two journalists were missing in the southern city of Basra. "All efforts are under way to find them," said the statement, which also asked other news organizations not to "speculate on the identity of those involved."
The Iraqi police reported that those missing were a reporter and translator, and that they had been taken away in what appeared to be official police vehicles. A semi-independent news network, Voices of Iraq, citing police sources in Basra, reported on its Web site that a British journalist, apparently a photographer, and his Iraqi interpreter were abducted from their hotel, the Qasr al-Sultan, in Basra. CBS declined to comment on those details.
Ian Fisher contributed reporting from Baghdad and James Glanz contributed from New York.
Guardian : Gates Doubts Europeans' War Commitment
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Gates Doubts Europeans' War Commitment
By ROBERT BURNS | AP Military Writer | October 25, 2007
HEIDELBERG, Germany (AP) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Thursday questioned the commitment of some NATO allies to winning in Afghanistan, saying the outcome there is at "real risk" because some European nations are unwilling to provide enough troops and resources to the mission.
"In Afghanistan a handful of allies are paying the price and bearing the burdens," he told a conference of army leaders from 38 European nations organized by the chief of U.S. Army Europe.
"The failure to meet commitments puts the Afghan mission - and with it, the credibility of NATO - at real risk," he added in remarks that were notably critical of European governments that have been close security, political and economic partners of the United States for more than five decades.
He also said restrictions that some allies put on how and where their troops can operate in Afghanistan have unfairly burdened other coalition partners and "done real harm" to the overall war effort.
The United States has 26,000 troops in Afghanistan and the non-U.S. total is 23,000. For the past year, NATO has had overall command of the forces, other than 13,000 U.S. troops doing counterterrorism missions. In that period, violence led by the Taliban has increased, although Gates said NATO should take credit for blunting a spring offensive by the Taliban, especially in the south.
Gates spoke hours after leaving a two-day meeting of NATO defense ministers in Noordwijk, the Netherlands, where U.S.-led efforts to provide sufficient troops for the Afghanistan mission was a central topic.
His audience in Heidelberg included army chiefs from most NATO countries, plus their counterparts from other European nations. It was the first time an American secretary of defense had addressed the group, known as the Conference of European Armies. It also was the first time since the annual gatherings began in 1991 that reporters were allowed to cover part of the proceedings.
Gates said before the NATO session that he was not satisfied with the allies' efforts. In Heidelberg he was more direct and specific, telling the army chiefs that the stakes in Afghanistan are great.
"If an alliance of the world's greatest democracies cannot summon the will to get the job done in a mission that we agree is morally just and vital to our security," he told the European army generals, "then our citizens may begin to question both the worth of the mission and the utility of the 60-year-old trans-Atlantic security project itself," referring to NATO, which was created in 1949.
He cited one example that has been a particular irritant to Pentagon officials - the allies' failure to provide a small number of helicopters to perform a mission deemed essential by the overall commander in Afghanistan. In the meantime, the U.S. military has bridged that gap, though reluctantly.
"Consider that earlier this year the U.S. extended its aviation bridging force in Afghanistan - in Kandahar - because the mightiest and wealthiest military alliance in the history of the world was unable to produce 16 helicopters needed by the ISAF commander - 16," Gates said. He used the acronym for the International Security Assistance Force, which is the NATO-led group that commands coalition forces.
His remarks drew little reaction from the generals in his audience, who applauded politely when he finished. They chuckled when he recalled being surprised to find himself at a topless beach on the French island of Guadeloupe in 1978 as a member of an advance team sent from Washington to plan a NATO summit.
"Luckily, the Guadeloupe summit later went off without a problem, but I must admit, my notes from that seaside meeting were quite incomplete due to nearby distractions," he said with a laugh.
After his Heidelberg stop Gates headed back to Washington, completing a five-day trip that also took him to Ukraine and the Czech Republic.
By ROBERT BURNS | AP Military Writer | October 25, 2007
HEIDELBERG, Germany (AP) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Thursday questioned the commitment of some NATO allies to winning in Afghanistan, saying the outcome there is at "real risk" because some European nations are unwilling to provide enough troops and resources to the mission.
"In Afghanistan a handful of allies are paying the price and bearing the burdens," he told a conference of army leaders from 38 European nations organized by the chief of U.S. Army Europe.
"The failure to meet commitments puts the Afghan mission - and with it, the credibility of NATO - at real risk," he added in remarks that were notably critical of European governments that have been close security, political and economic partners of the United States for more than five decades.
He also said restrictions that some allies put on how and where their troops can operate in Afghanistan have unfairly burdened other coalition partners and "done real harm" to the overall war effort.
The United States has 26,000 troops in Afghanistan and the non-U.S. total is 23,000. For the past year, NATO has had overall command of the forces, other than 13,000 U.S. troops doing counterterrorism missions. In that period, violence led by the Taliban has increased, although Gates said NATO should take credit for blunting a spring offensive by the Taliban, especially in the south.
Gates spoke hours after leaving a two-day meeting of NATO defense ministers in Noordwijk, the Netherlands, where U.S.-led efforts to provide sufficient troops for the Afghanistan mission was a central topic.
His audience in Heidelberg included army chiefs from most NATO countries, plus their counterparts from other European nations. It was the first time an American secretary of defense had addressed the group, known as the Conference of European Armies. It also was the first time since the annual gatherings began in 1991 that reporters were allowed to cover part of the proceedings.
Gates said before the NATO session that he was not satisfied with the allies' efforts. In Heidelberg he was more direct and specific, telling the army chiefs that the stakes in Afghanistan are great.
"If an alliance of the world's greatest democracies cannot summon the will to get the job done in a mission that we agree is morally just and vital to our security," he told the European army generals, "then our citizens may begin to question both the worth of the mission and the utility of the 60-year-old trans-Atlantic security project itself," referring to NATO, which was created in 1949.
He cited one example that has been a particular irritant to Pentagon officials - the allies' failure to provide a small number of helicopters to perform a mission deemed essential by the overall commander in Afghanistan. In the meantime, the U.S. military has bridged that gap, though reluctantly.
"Consider that earlier this year the U.S. extended its aviation bridging force in Afghanistan - in Kandahar - because the mightiest and wealthiest military alliance in the history of the world was unable to produce 16 helicopters needed by the ISAF commander - 16," Gates said. He used the acronym for the International Security Assistance Force, which is the NATO-led group that commands coalition forces.
His remarks drew little reaction from the generals in his audience, who applauded politely when he finished. They chuckled when he recalled being surprised to find himself at a topless beach on the French island of Guadeloupe in 1978 as a member of an advance team sent from Washington to plan a NATO summit.
"Luckily, the Guadeloupe summit later went off without a problem, but I must admit, my notes from that seaside meeting were quite incomplete due to nearby distractions," he said with a laugh.
After his Heidelberg stop Gates headed back to Washington, completing a five-day trip that also took him to Ukraine and the Czech Republic.
Filed under
Afghanistan,
NATO,
Robert Gates
by Winter Patriot
on Thursday, October 25, 2007
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
NYT : Gates Says Military Faces More Unconventional Wars
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Gates Says Military Faces More Unconventional Wars
By DAVID S. CLOUD | October 11, 2007
WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Wednesday that the Army needed to improve its ability to train foreign militaries and to prepare for other unconventional conflicts that it was likely to face in coming decades.
Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates spoke in Washington on Wednesday to a gathering of current and retired soldiers.
Speaking to a gathering of current and retired soldiers, Mr. Gates sketched out a vision for making the Army better at conducting wars like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, which he said would “remain the mainstay of the contemporary battlefield for some time.”
His message was in many ways a blunt challenge to the Army not to treat the current conflicts as anomalies and to retreat into the more familiar task of preparing for conventional combat, as it did after the Vietnam War. Future conflicts, he said, “will be fundamentally political in nature and require the application of all elements of national power.”
“Success will be less a matter of imposing one’s will and more a function of shaping behavior of friends, adversaries, and most importantly, the people in between,” he said.
He noted that a vital capability that the military needed was “standing up and mentoring indigenous armies and police” — a task the Army has struggled to carry out in recent years in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But he offered no specific proposals for improving the Army’s abilities in this area.
He was speaking to the annual convention of the Association of the United States Army here.
Mr. Gates alluded to the desire among some officers to spend billions of dollars on re-equipping the Army and to return to training for what the service called “high intensity” conflict, a euphemism for conventional combat.
While supporting the idea of large outlays in coming years for new equipment and to expand the size of the Army, Mr. Gates said that the Army had to regain its edge in fighting conventional wars while retaining what it had learned about fighting unconventional wars.
The adaptations the Army has already made in Iraq and Afghanistan have been “impressive,” he said.
But in the future, he said: “Army soldiers can expect to be tasked with reviving public services, rebuilding infrastructure and promoting good governance. All these so-called nontraditional capabilities have moved into the mainstream of military thinking, planning and strategy, where they must stay.”
Also on Wednesday, Maj. Gen. Thomas P. Bostick, commander of the Army Recruiting Command, said at a Pentagon news conference that in fiscal year 2007, 18 percent of the military’s recruits had prior criminal records and needed a waiver to join, up from 15 percent the previous year. He said 87 percent of those were for misdemeanors like joy riding or violating curfew.
David Chu, the Defense Department’s under secretary for personnel, defended the waiver policy, saying it took into consideration the whole person and his or her future abilities, not just mistakes the person might have made. Mr. Chu announced that the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines had all met their recruiting targets last year.
By DAVID S. CLOUD | October 11, 2007
WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Wednesday that the Army needed to improve its ability to train foreign militaries and to prepare for other unconventional conflicts that it was likely to face in coming decades.
Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates spoke in Washington on Wednesday to a gathering of current and retired soldiers.
Speaking to a gathering of current and retired soldiers, Mr. Gates sketched out a vision for making the Army better at conducting wars like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, which he said would “remain the mainstay of the contemporary battlefield for some time.”
His message was in many ways a blunt challenge to the Army not to treat the current conflicts as anomalies and to retreat into the more familiar task of preparing for conventional combat, as it did after the Vietnam War. Future conflicts, he said, “will be fundamentally political in nature and require the application of all elements of national power.”
“Success will be less a matter of imposing one’s will and more a function of shaping behavior of friends, adversaries, and most importantly, the people in between,” he said.
He noted that a vital capability that the military needed was “standing up and mentoring indigenous armies and police” — a task the Army has struggled to carry out in recent years in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But he offered no specific proposals for improving the Army’s abilities in this area.
He was speaking to the annual convention of the Association of the United States Army here.
Mr. Gates alluded to the desire among some officers to spend billions of dollars on re-equipping the Army and to return to training for what the service called “high intensity” conflict, a euphemism for conventional combat.
While supporting the idea of large outlays in coming years for new equipment and to expand the size of the Army, Mr. Gates said that the Army had to regain its edge in fighting conventional wars while retaining what it had learned about fighting unconventional wars.
The adaptations the Army has already made in Iraq and Afghanistan have been “impressive,” he said.
But in the future, he said: “Army soldiers can expect to be tasked with reviving public services, rebuilding infrastructure and promoting good governance. All these so-called nontraditional capabilities have moved into the mainstream of military thinking, planning and strategy, where they must stay.”
Also on Wednesday, Maj. Gen. Thomas P. Bostick, commander of the Army Recruiting Command, said at a Pentagon news conference that in fiscal year 2007, 18 percent of the military’s recruits had prior criminal records and needed a waiver to join, up from 15 percent the previous year. He said 87 percent of those were for misdemeanors like joy riding or violating curfew.
David Chu, the Defense Department’s under secretary for personnel, defended the waiver policy, saying it took into consideration the whole person and his or her future abilities, not just mistakes the person might have made. Mr. Chu announced that the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines had all met their recruiting targets last year.
Filed under
militarization,
Robert Gates
by Winter Patriot
on Saturday, October 13, 2007
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
NYT : U.S. Needs ‘Long-Term Presence’ in Iraq, Gates Says
Thursday, September 27, 2007
U.S. Needs ‘Long-Term Presence’ in Iraq, Gates Says
By DAVID S. CLOUD | September 27, 2007
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told Congress on Wednesday that he envisioned keeping five combat brigades in Iraq as a “long-term presence.”
Mr. Gates told the Senate Appropriations Committee, “When I speak of a long-term presence, I’m thinking of a very modest U.S. presence with no permanent bases, where we can continue to go after Al Qaeda in Iraq and help the Iraqi forces.”
He added that “in my head” he envisioned a force as a quarter of the current combat brigades.
There are now 20 combat brigades in the country, a number that is scheduled to drop to 15 by next summer. Mr. Gates has previously expressed hope that if security conditions in the country continue to improve, force levels in Iraq could drop to 10 brigades by the end of 2008.
Mr. Gates gave no timetable for reaching that force level or for how long the forces would be required to stay. He added that there had been no detailed planning by the Pentagon about what level of forces would be required on a more or less permanent basis.
A combat brigade has 3,500 to 4,500 soldiers, leaving a minimum of 17,500 combat troops in Iraq under the plan Mr. Gates described. The total American force required would probably end up being at least twice that, because of the need for support troops and other related personnel.
Mr. Gates also laid out at the hearing a Bush administration request for an added $42 billion for war-related expenses in 2008. The request increases to nearly $190 billion the amount the Bush administration is seeking for 2008 to finance military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In February, the administration asked for $141.7 billion for the wars, an amount that officials said at the time was an estimate that could increase.
The Appropriations Committee chairman, Senator Robert C. Byrd, a Democrat from West Virginia, responded with blistering criticism of the administration’s Iraq strategy and warned that his panel would not “rubber stamp” Mr. Bush’s requests for war financing.
“The president and his supporters claim that we’re now finally on the cusp of progress and that we must continue to stay the course,” Mr. Byrd said. “I’ve heard that before. Call me a skeptic, but we have heard this tune before. Yes, haven’t we?”
Antiwar protesters in the hearing room responded with cries of “Yes! Yes!”
Mr. Byrd later had the room cleared of protesters after they disrupted an answer by Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Mr. Gates said $11 billion of the requested money was for building 15,000 heavily armored vehicles designed to better withstand the roadside bombs that cause the majority of American casualties in Iraq.
The Pentagon also seeks $9 billion to repair and refit American equipment stocks. The administration is also requesting $1 billion to train Iraqi security forces, bringing the total 2008 request for training funds to $5.7 billion.
But Mr. Gates said that American troops, “under some of the most trying conditions, have done far more than what was asked of them, and far more than what was expected.”
By DAVID S. CLOUD | September 27, 2007
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told Congress on Wednesday that he envisioned keeping five combat brigades in Iraq as a “long-term presence.”
Mr. Gates told the Senate Appropriations Committee, “When I speak of a long-term presence, I’m thinking of a very modest U.S. presence with no permanent bases, where we can continue to go after Al Qaeda in Iraq and help the Iraqi forces.”
He added that “in my head” he envisioned a force as a quarter of the current combat brigades.
There are now 20 combat brigades in the country, a number that is scheduled to drop to 15 by next summer. Mr. Gates has previously expressed hope that if security conditions in the country continue to improve, force levels in Iraq could drop to 10 brigades by the end of 2008.
Mr. Gates gave no timetable for reaching that force level or for how long the forces would be required to stay. He added that there had been no detailed planning by the Pentagon about what level of forces would be required on a more or less permanent basis.
A combat brigade has 3,500 to 4,500 soldiers, leaving a minimum of 17,500 combat troops in Iraq under the plan Mr. Gates described. The total American force required would probably end up being at least twice that, because of the need for support troops and other related personnel.
Mr. Gates also laid out at the hearing a Bush administration request for an added $42 billion for war-related expenses in 2008. The request increases to nearly $190 billion the amount the Bush administration is seeking for 2008 to finance military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In February, the administration asked for $141.7 billion for the wars, an amount that officials said at the time was an estimate that could increase.
The Appropriations Committee chairman, Senator Robert C. Byrd, a Democrat from West Virginia, responded with blistering criticism of the administration’s Iraq strategy and warned that his panel would not “rubber stamp” Mr. Bush’s requests for war financing.
“The president and his supporters claim that we’re now finally on the cusp of progress and that we must continue to stay the course,” Mr. Byrd said. “I’ve heard that before. Call me a skeptic, but we have heard this tune before. Yes, haven’t we?”
Antiwar protesters in the hearing room responded with cries of “Yes! Yes!”
Mr. Byrd later had the room cleared of protesters after they disrupted an answer by Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Mr. Gates said $11 billion of the requested money was for building 15,000 heavily armored vehicles designed to better withstand the roadside bombs that cause the majority of American casualties in Iraq.
The Pentagon also seeks $9 billion to repair and refit American equipment stocks. The administration is also requesting $1 billion to train Iraqi security forces, bringing the total 2008 request for training funds to $5.7 billion.
But Mr. Gates said that American troops, “under some of the most trying conditions, have done far more than what was asked of them, and far more than what was expected.”
NYT : Gates Sees a ‘Protracted’ Stay for Troops
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Gates Sees a ‘Protracted’ Stay for Troops
By BRIAN KNOWLTON | September 16, 2007
WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 — Two days after saying he hoped American forces in Iraq might be reduced to 100,000 by the end of next year, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said today that American troops were likely to remain in that country for a “protracted period.”
He also said he would recommend a presidential veto if Congress passes a Democratic proposal to limit the time troops can spend in Iraq.
But Mr. Gates emphasized in two television interviews that American troops would play an increasingly circumscribed role. “The idea is that we would have a much more limited role in Iraq for some protracted period of time as a stabilizing force, a force that would be a fraction of the force that we have there now,” focusing on border security, fighting terrorists and training Iraqi security personnel, he said.
Mr. Gates said that he was talking about “a relatively small number compared to what we have today,” but that it was far too soon to nail down precise levels; much would depend on whether there was no unraveling of the progress reported last week by General David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq.
The defense secretary also said the United States could deal with Iranian interference in Iraq without attacking into Iran; and that the United States was intently watching Syria and North Korea after reports of possible nuclear cooperation by Pyongyang with Damascus. Such cooperation, Mr. Gates said, “would be a real problem.”
Democrats, forcefully rejecting President Bush’s new plan for a gradual troop drawdown as tantamount to an “endless” occupation of Iraq, are preparing this week to advance a new, constraining proposal. It would force the Bush administration to give individual soldiers more time away from the battlefield.
But Mr. Gates said the proposal, while “well-intentioned,” would leave the Pentagon with “extremely difficult” problems in managing its forces.
“We’d have to look at potentially making greater use of the Guard and Reserve,” Gates said on “Fox News Sunday.” “We’d have to cobble together units” and to withdraw some units before others were able to replace them. He said the Pentagon would face a management nightmare: having to track the service in Iraq of each soldier.
Mr. Gates had raised the possibility on Friday that American troop levels in Iraq could be brought down to 100,000 by the end of 2008. That did not contradict Mr. Bush’s plan to cut back from the 169,000 troops now in Iraq to perhaps 130,000 by July; Mr. Gates was looking, tentatively, to a farther horizon.
One Democrat, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, said today that an American troop drawdown could be accelerated if NATO forces or other allied troops agreed to a larger role in training Iraqi troops.
But if the proposal from Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, to give troops more time away from Iraq should pass, Mr. Gates said, he would recommend that Mr. Bush veto it. It would require that troops be given at least as much time at home as spent on their latest Iraq deployment — a shift from current standards of 12 months at home for every 15 served.
The latest developments made it clear that even if Mr. Bush gained some time by embracing the report and recommendations of General Petraeus, his running battle with Democrats over the war was no nearer a truce.
Mr. Webb’s proposal and its exact impact on troop availability are likely to be hotly debated this week as the Senate resumes consideration of a major defense policy bill.
Up to now, the Democrats’ hands have been tied. Joined by two independents, the Democrats control the Senate by a bare majority of 51, well short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate, let alone the 67 required to override a presidential veto. In a series of antiwar votes this year, the Democrats have at times reached 56 votes with the help of a handful of Republicans.
Some Democrats believe that the Webb bill, which has support among military families, and from some senior military officers concerned about strains on the troops, may be their best chance yet to entice wavering Republicans.
“It has a good chance of passing,” said Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, on “Face the Nation” on CBS. “I think we have a good chance to get to the 60 votes to call for a change in policy.”
The Republicans’ problem was apparent today when Senator John Cornyn, a conservative Texas Republican, was asked on CNN how he would vote on Mr. Webb’s proposal. “I’m concerned about deployments, lengthy deployments,” and their effect on military families, he said — while declining to say how he would vote.
A Democratic presidential hopeful, Senator Joseph R. Biden of Delaware, defended the Webb approach as a least-bad solution, saying that the failure to provide relief to a severely stretched military would have “absolutely disastrous” consequences.
“If you don’t figure out how to get these folks some time home, you are going to break, break this military,” he said on Fox.
In a vote in July, the Webb proposal drew 56 votes, 4 short of the 60 needed to prevent a filibuster. Since then, Senator Tim Johnson, Democrat of South Dakota, who had been recuperating from a brain hemorrhage, has returned.
Mr. Webb said that two Republicans, Senators George V. Voinovich of Ohio and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, had expressed interest in his bill. Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Senator Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina are also studying it.
One Republican who has not wavered is Senator John McCain of Arizona. “To pull the plug at this particular time, I believe, would be disastrous for the future of this country,” he said on “Meet the Press” on NBC.
The Bush administration has argued that its new plan to withdraw 5,700 troops by year’s end and send home five of 20 combat brigades by July was made possible by some security gains, particularly in Anbar Province and Baghdad and that an earlier departure would have calamitous effects. Democrats insisted today that the Republicans were misrepresenting their efforts.
“We’re not talking about abandoning Iraq,” Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts said on NBC. “We’re talking about changing the mission.”
Mr. Kerry argued, too, that the Iraq war was tying down and weakening American forces, making them less able not more to deal with any Iranian threat.
General Petraeus was asked on Fox about American complaints that Iranians are providing highly lethal weapons and training to Iraqi insurgents.
“We believe that we know where some of the training camps are,” the general said, and where weapons were coming from. But he declined to say whether he had been involved in weighing possible attacks on those sites.
Mr. Gates, too, played down speculation that the Bush administration might be contemplating more forceful action against Iran.
“We always say all options are on the table,” Mr. Gates said, “but clearly the diplomatic and economic approach is the one we’re pursuing.”
By BRIAN KNOWLTON | September 16, 2007
WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 — Two days after saying he hoped American forces in Iraq might be reduced to 100,000 by the end of next year, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said today that American troops were likely to remain in that country for a “protracted period.”
He also said he would recommend a presidential veto if Congress passes a Democratic proposal to limit the time troops can spend in Iraq.
But Mr. Gates emphasized in two television interviews that American troops would play an increasingly circumscribed role. “The idea is that we would have a much more limited role in Iraq for some protracted period of time as a stabilizing force, a force that would be a fraction of the force that we have there now,” focusing on border security, fighting terrorists and training Iraqi security personnel, he said.
Mr. Gates said that he was talking about “a relatively small number compared to what we have today,” but that it was far too soon to nail down precise levels; much would depend on whether there was no unraveling of the progress reported last week by General David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq.
The defense secretary also said the United States could deal with Iranian interference in Iraq without attacking into Iran; and that the United States was intently watching Syria and North Korea after reports of possible nuclear cooperation by Pyongyang with Damascus. Such cooperation, Mr. Gates said, “would be a real problem.”
Democrats, forcefully rejecting President Bush’s new plan for a gradual troop drawdown as tantamount to an “endless” occupation of Iraq, are preparing this week to advance a new, constraining proposal. It would force the Bush administration to give individual soldiers more time away from the battlefield.
But Mr. Gates said the proposal, while “well-intentioned,” would leave the Pentagon with “extremely difficult” problems in managing its forces.
“We’d have to look at potentially making greater use of the Guard and Reserve,” Gates said on “Fox News Sunday.” “We’d have to cobble together units” and to withdraw some units before others were able to replace them. He said the Pentagon would face a management nightmare: having to track the service in Iraq of each soldier.
Mr. Gates had raised the possibility on Friday that American troop levels in Iraq could be brought down to 100,000 by the end of 2008. That did not contradict Mr. Bush’s plan to cut back from the 169,000 troops now in Iraq to perhaps 130,000 by July; Mr. Gates was looking, tentatively, to a farther horizon.
One Democrat, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, said today that an American troop drawdown could be accelerated if NATO forces or other allied troops agreed to a larger role in training Iraqi troops.
But if the proposal from Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, to give troops more time away from Iraq should pass, Mr. Gates said, he would recommend that Mr. Bush veto it. It would require that troops be given at least as much time at home as spent on their latest Iraq deployment — a shift from current standards of 12 months at home for every 15 served.
The latest developments made it clear that even if Mr. Bush gained some time by embracing the report and recommendations of General Petraeus, his running battle with Democrats over the war was no nearer a truce.
Mr. Webb’s proposal and its exact impact on troop availability are likely to be hotly debated this week as the Senate resumes consideration of a major defense policy bill.
Up to now, the Democrats’ hands have been tied. Joined by two independents, the Democrats control the Senate by a bare majority of 51, well short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate, let alone the 67 required to override a presidential veto. In a series of antiwar votes this year, the Democrats have at times reached 56 votes with the help of a handful of Republicans.
Some Democrats believe that the Webb bill, which has support among military families, and from some senior military officers concerned about strains on the troops, may be their best chance yet to entice wavering Republicans.
“It has a good chance of passing,” said Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, on “Face the Nation” on CBS. “I think we have a good chance to get to the 60 votes to call for a change in policy.”
The Republicans’ problem was apparent today when Senator John Cornyn, a conservative Texas Republican, was asked on CNN how he would vote on Mr. Webb’s proposal. “I’m concerned about deployments, lengthy deployments,” and their effect on military families, he said — while declining to say how he would vote.
A Democratic presidential hopeful, Senator Joseph R. Biden of Delaware, defended the Webb approach as a least-bad solution, saying that the failure to provide relief to a severely stretched military would have “absolutely disastrous” consequences.
“If you don’t figure out how to get these folks some time home, you are going to break, break this military,” he said on Fox.
In a vote in July, the Webb proposal drew 56 votes, 4 short of the 60 needed to prevent a filibuster. Since then, Senator Tim Johnson, Democrat of South Dakota, who had been recuperating from a brain hemorrhage, has returned.
Mr. Webb said that two Republicans, Senators George V. Voinovich of Ohio and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, had expressed interest in his bill. Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Senator Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina are also studying it.
One Republican who has not wavered is Senator John McCain of Arizona. “To pull the plug at this particular time, I believe, would be disastrous for the future of this country,” he said on “Meet the Press” on NBC.
The Bush administration has argued that its new plan to withdraw 5,700 troops by year’s end and send home five of 20 combat brigades by July was made possible by some security gains, particularly in Anbar Province and Baghdad and that an earlier departure would have calamitous effects. Democrats insisted today that the Republicans were misrepresenting their efforts.
“We’re not talking about abandoning Iraq,” Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts said on NBC. “We’re talking about changing the mission.”
Mr. Kerry argued, too, that the Iraq war was tying down and weakening American forces, making them less able not more to deal with any Iranian threat.
General Petraeus was asked on Fox about American complaints that Iranians are providing highly lethal weapons and training to Iraqi insurgents.
“We believe that we know where some of the training camps are,” the general said, and where weapons were coming from. But he declined to say whether he had been involved in weighing possible attacks on those sites.
Mr. Gates, too, played down speculation that the Bush administration might be contemplating more forceful action against Iran.
“We always say all options are on the table,” Mr. Gates said, “but clearly the diplomatic and economic approach is the one we’re pursuing.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
