Remember our pal General Odierno, you know – the fellow who told everyone about his great plan to get around the just signed SOFA requirements to withdraw US forces to bases in Iraq by simply renaming them?
Well it looks like he’s been talking again.
Gareth Porter writes in his important story at IPS:
There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy…
As both Porter and Cernig in a recent post at Crooks and Liars note, Odierno was not shy about pushing his “let’s stay in Iraq” plan in a January 29th interview with the New York Times:
Among those consulted by the president was Gen. Ray Odierno, the top commander in Iraq, who has developed a plan that would move slower than Mr. Obama’s campaign timetable, by pulling out two brigades over the next six months. In an interview in Iraq on Wednesday, General Odierno suggested that it might take the rest of the year to determine exactly when United States forces could be drawn down significantly…
General Odierno said the period between this weekend’s elections and the national elections to be held about a year from now would be critical to determining the future of Iraq. While some American forces could be withdrawn before then, he suggested that the bulk of any pullout would probably come after that.
Porter goes on to report that our two favorite generals are tied into a plan to publicly pressure Obama:
A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision…
The opening argument by the Petraeus-Odierno faction against Obama’s withdrawal policy was revealed the evening of the Jan. 21 meeting when retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, one of the authors of the Bush troop surge policy and a close political ally and mentor of Gen. Petraeus, appeared on the Lehrer News Hour to comment on Obama’s pledge on Iraq combat troop withdrawal.
Keane, who had certainly been briefed by Petraeus on the outcome of the Oval Office meeting, argued that implementing such a withdrawal of combat troops would "increase the risk rather dramatically over the 16 months". He asserted that it would jeopardise the "stable political situation in Iraq" and called that risk "not acceptable"…
Keane, the Army Vice-Chief of Staff from 1999 to 2003, has ties to a network of active and retired four-star Army generals, and since Obama’s Jan. 21 order on the 16-month withdrawal plan, some of the retired four-star generals in that network have begun discussing a campaign to blame Obama’s troop withdrawal from Iraq for the ultimate collapse of the political "stability" that they expect to follow U.S. withdrawal, according to a military source familiar with the network’s plans.
Now several writers with good military sources have said in emails that this is all a push by Keane and his hawkish friends to create the impression of a conflict where there is none – and Porter notes that Obama does not seem to be buying what Odierno and friends are selling. Still, when we have Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, publicly supporting the Keane crew rather than his Commander-in-Chief’s well known position, I’m with Cernig and say “Sack him!”
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
this is imsubordination and obama should fire the frigging guy and show some balls
Have they forgotten already that Obama is their official boss?
(Fire them for insubordination. Soon, please.)
Bush had no problem “retiring” misbehaving generals, maybe it’s time Obama took similar action to stop this blatant insubordination.
The General needs a swift and public demonstration on just what civilian control of the military means.
Wasn’t Keane the one who went around the Chain-Of-Command and undercut Fallon? Methinks General Keane might be due for a recall to active duty and Courts Martial.
The fewer Bush people Obama has to deal with, the better. Moles have been planted throughout government and the military, I’m sure.
Old soldiers never die, they just bullshit us into more war, death and destruction.
Fire his ass.
Fire their butts.
Today.
Time to reassign the bald-headed one.
There is a major environmental issue which needs addressing, and which his organizational skills and command presence will doubtless help: global warming.
One of the most pressing problems, and one which we know little about, is the extent to which the ice caps of the world are increasing and decreasing. Therefore, I suggest that the President reassign the General, with an appropriate allocation of similarly-oriented staff, to a new position which can use his skills admirably. This would be the Precipitation Measurement Command (or some similarly descriptive name). The mission of this new command will be to measure the addition of precipitation and accumulation of it, as well as the decrease through melting, in selected areas of the world.
In other words, he and his staff should be sent to count snowflakes in Greenland.
Typical. Truman had to fire MacArthur.
Odierno is to Obama what Curtis LeMay was to JFK.
Yup. Better yet, don’t fire him — reassign him to some place where he can’t cause trouble. Like, say, McMurdo Station.
You’re being kind. I put him in Antarctica. :-)
that wsa a GREAT post pw
If Obama has any cojones, he’ll fire everyone associated with Bushco’s policies…including the one’s that he has appointed, the minute they defy his policy orders…but, after his pro-Bushie performance so far…I’m not holding my breath…Unfortunately, he has made it clear that he will consult with the Generals etc., and do whatever they think is best…Welcome to Bush44…God I hope I’m just disillusioned and wrong…
These folks need a good lesson – I am hoping Obama will deliver it.
And I was glad to see in Gareth’s piece that Obama has been quite clear with them so far – that’s a good start but I’d sure like to see more.
ps
thingscomeundone has a TERRIFIC diary highlighting petraus as well
I want Obama to prove that he is not “all grease and no machinery”…get it done.
bingo, anyone who endorsed the strategy needs to go, those who stayed quiet or followed orders quietly are fine
let’s not forget however how much we applauded kinseky for speaking out against bush
I respect generals who have something they believe in and speak out
Here’s Scott Horton’s (the other one) interview of Porter on his article. He talks about Petreus and Gates too.
I say turn Odierno loose and let Shinseki take care of his future needs.
Agree. Remember that Petraeus has political aspirations. He is a Repuke, and he wants to be President…he said so.
Obama is trapped in Bushco glue of his own making…or…he’s chosen that side while pretending to have other policies in mind. I don’t think we really know yet, but with all the Puke appointments…I’m mighty suspicious.
Thanks, Phoenix Woman. In comments at the link you gave is one by MinnesotaChuck at # 29 telling us of the book by James W. Douglass, ‘JFK and the Unspeakable, Why He Died and Why It Matters’. Several comments followed in response to MinnesotaChuck’s.
There seem to me to be many similiarities between the conflicts JFK had with his Joint Chiefs, the CIA, and the war materiels manufacturers (war profiteers) and the current bunch who are apparently bucking Obama.
Here is the link to the YouTube video talk with Douglass about the book:
JFK and the Unspeakable
Note to General Odierno – You are not the C-in-C !
Time to start bringing up MacArthur and Truman at every opportunity.
These two disobedient generals need to be fired, soon.
I have said this for a long time. Odierno is an idiot. He is a good charge ahead general. You would or should never choose him for a top command spot and he is completely incapable of managing a withdrawal.
and unwilling
he needs to go
Don’t worry about Petraeus. Even within the military he’s considered a wimp. Let him run for office somewhere in the south. Odierno is another case entirely, and if I were Obama I’d sack him before dinner today.
Obama, show some cojones.
The war there is over, peace and victory (democracy?) have been declared. Time to withdraw troops. Remind the generals that, this time, there is a functioning state department(unlike the former
kleptocracyadministration). The military no longer has to do it all.How do you know about Petraeus’s reputation in the military?
Obama should get rid of this guy. And, while he is at it, he needs better messaging all around. He needs to get out front ahead of the GOP hacks that are defining what is needed in the Middle East, on the Stimulus and the bailouts. The GOP is all over TV defining the Democrats and making stuff up. Come on, Barack, you have the bully pulpit. Use it and expose the GOP. Define your own stratagies for the American People.
Where is the usual “we’ve got to trust that Obama knows what he is doing” crowd? The longer this open rebellion in words by the generals goes on, the worse it is going to look, and the more traction it will get. Obama needs to act quickly and decisively or look like a wimp.
Thanks Perris:) Sadly I got to go now. But thanks for giving this story Front Page exposure Siun. Now it might get MSM coverage and thats all I care about.
Exactly. The question is…why doesn’t he? Why did he retain Gates? Why did he choose Rahm? Why did he choose Gregg? The question is…WTF is going on???? If he doesn’t start fighting back…then I guess that is his answer…he likes it that way, and he’s working for them, not us.
I know there were tensions between Petraeus and the Joint Chiefs because he was hogging all the resources for Iraq when he was commander there (the position that Odierno now holds) and because he was using his relationship with Bush to do end runs outside of the chain of command around them.
Thanks.
Thanks for your diary too!
Siun, in your link to Porter’s story. did you happen to read anything, other than Porter’s supposition, that ties public opposition to Obama’s policies to Petaeus?
In addition, the Kennedy administration had done something extremely dangerous when it increased the larger mission to Vietnam: it corrupted the truth to suit its political needs for short term political profit-in effect buying time to get through the 1964 election. Because in the process it planted the flag even more deeply, it needed even greater results, for appearances were everything, and it needed them faster. But those results were not forthcoming, because the policy never worked. Never. Therefore, to compensate for the failure to produce the desired results in the field, the Kennedy administration soon created something quite extraordinary, a giant lying machine, one based in Washington, with its major affiliate in Saigon, and machine that not only systematically rejected all pessimistic reports from the field, and punished those who tried to tell the truth, but created it’s own illusion of victories and successes, victories and successes that never existed. It was a great exercise in self-deception: what the great lying machine did in that period was delay the arrival of the truth in Washington by some three years, and of course it also began the process of diminishing the credibility of the government of the United States. What was also lost in those three years was the ability to make wiser judgments about whether the commitment worked.. . .
One day when he came out of an NSC meeting in which they had discussed some disastrous problem handed down by the previous administrations he said, “Oh well, think of what we’ll pass on to the poor fellow who comes after me”.
Yes. Sounds like he’s still up to his old tricks of screwing with the chain of command.
And my suggestions to Obama from last September seem more necessary than ever.
Halberstam, “The Coldest Winter”. . .for all you Camelot fans.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they stirred up trouble in Iraq and then said, “See, we can’t leave now!” He needs to get rid of them.
Raven !
Thanks. I haven’t read that yet. Will put it on my list.
Have you read Bright & Shining Lie? Of the books I’ve read on Vietnam, that’s my favorite, in large part because it’s the only one I’ve read that explained what NV did to win the war.
Macaquerman – good question. I have not seen public statements by Petraeus yet – which may mean I have missed them – so I did not focus on him in this post. That said, Odierno has been playing this game for a while and he does answer to Petraeus eh?
I do have a ton of respect for Gareth’s work from past experience and trust his reporting more than some of the pushback which has been a touch strident for no apparent reason.
try “Fire In The Lake” by Frances Fitzgerald.
It appears that as Petraeus flips the Super Bowl coin, supply lines to US forces in Afghanistan are being cut.
Why does the phrase “Nice job, Brownie” come to mind?
Don’t forget the NATO atrocity order scandal. Bad mil commanders urgently needing immediate outplacement abound.
We are already witnessing the GOP machine rearing up and attempting to smother the Obama presidency in the crib.
The media whores, the GOP rump, the politicized members of the US military and governmental agencies are going to see fit that Obama will fail.
-G
In the Porter interview that I linked in 20, Porter specifically sez that Petreus has not spoken out publically, and therefore has not committed a firing offense, unlike Odierno. However, he goes into how dangerous Petreus is to the Obama plan. And how dubious Gates is.
if obama doesn’t put an end to this shit NOW, his presidency is over. the pentagon will ensure that.
Porter has not been wrong about these big developments. He is the one who to whom Fallon, presumably intentionally, conveyed his displeasure with the previous administration’s designs on Iran.
President Obama better get to realizing that the more he reaches out to the GOP the harder they will f*ck him.
-G
Thx. I had noticed that you had not jumped on Petraeus, but some of the others had.
I can’t see that Odierno and Petraeus have ever been alike in methodology.
Petraeus is nuanced, while Odierno pretty much appears to be a kick’em in the nuggets type.
The question of who Odierno answers to will, hopefully, soon be settled.
Thanks for the reference. When I go to amazon, I read the negative reviews (the positive ones are useless; they all say great book, must read). If you have the time, check this one out and tell me if it has validity.
Petraeus is linked to the death of Ted Westhusing because he was the Commanding Officer, and Westhusing was making noise about the corruption he was witness to on the part of the contractors and their military counterparts.
Wayne Madsen Reports can be searched using the words “Petraeus Westhusing” and here is the top article…
January 23, 2006 — More details emerge on Col. Ted Westhusing’s “suiciding” in Iraq
publication date: Apr 16, 2007
|
author/source: Wayne Madsen
January 23, 2006 — More details emerge on Col. Ted Westhusing’s “suiciding” in Iraq. Days before his supposed suicide by a “self-inflicted” gunshot wound in a Camp Dublin, Iraq trailer, West Point Honor Board member and Iraqi police and security forces trainer Col. Ted Westhusing reported in e-mail to the United States that “terrible things were going on in Iraq.” He also said he hoped he would make it back to the United States alive. Westhusing had three weeks left in his tour of duty in Iraq when he allegedly shot himself in June 2005.
It is noteworthy that after Westhusing’s death, two top Army generals, both responsible for training Iraqi forces, General Dave Petraeus, the Commander of the Multi National Security Transition Command Iraq (MNSTCI), and Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil, the Commander of the 1st Cavalry Division, were quickly transferred without much fanfare to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas and Fort Hood, Texas, respectively.
Informed sources report that Westhusing was prepared to blow the whistle on fraud involving US Investigations Services (USIS), a Carlyle Group company, when he died. [See Jan. 14 story below]. He had also discovered links between USIS principals and clandestine events involving the Iran-Contra scandal of the Reagan-Bush I administrations. Westhusing has also linked USIS to the illegal killing and torture of Iraqis. USIS personnel whom Westhusing was investigating had the keys to his trailer. In addition, Westhusing’s personal bodyguard was given a leave of absence shortly before the colonel’s death.
The U.S. Army’s official report on Westhusing’s death contained a number of falsehoods, according to those close to the case. Most importantly, the Army report stated that Westhusing had electronically communicated an interest in obtaining hollow point bullets. The bullet which killed Westhusing was a hollow point. However, the Army’s statement was false, according to an informed source. In addition, the Army combed Westhusing’s service record and interviewed a number of colleagues in order to concoct a story that would make suicide appear plausible.
California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer is reportedly trying to get the Senate to investigate Westhusing’s death. However, with the Republicans in firm control, it appears that murder of senior U.S. military officers is also something the GOP is more than willing to cover up.
just saw an ad on msnbc Obama asking people to tell their representatives to stop supporting failed policies of the past.
also, pundit linking Boner and Limbaugh and Shelby all of a piece. unfortunately the anchor is repeating porkbarrel talking point.
well this will get epu’d but I must post anyway;
obama should be able to get that hold released, the hold might actually help the books sales I might add
What’s the substance of this threat by this fat fuck Keane?
Since the public’s “anti-war sentiment” is acknowledged, what’s the real “price”?
Listen to the interview I linked at 20 if you want Porter’s view of Petreus.
I thought we knew that already, about Rummy not giving the resources to go after OBL. And why would the CIA hold up a book to help out SecDef?
On the bright side, Porter describes Petraeus’s “shock” at being put in his place by Obama. So people shouldn’t jump to the foregone conclusion that he’ll be a “wimp”. Give these two Bush-generals enough rope to hang themselves with.
I can’t listen. What’s the gist?
Funny that Rumsfeld is walking the streets of DC, trying to catch buses, with no security?! [Edited by Mod]
dood.
Thx I listened to the first nine minutes, and will listen to more later.
I can’t see anything about Petraeus other than that he met with Obama and left the meeting with an appearance interpreted as “shaken”.
Opinions are running a lot thicker than facts. Questioning Petraeus’ loyalty and fitness to remain in service should probably wait until some facts are available.
Bright Shining Lie is incomparable, but Fire in the Lake is well worth reading.
Odierno was head of Multi-National Corps-Iraq (day to day operations in Iraq) while Petraeus was the Multi-National Force-Iraq. Petraeus is a political general. Odierno is a Patton-esque type. There were questions whether Odierno would be able to work with Petraeus and the Petraeus plan for civilian protection in Baghdad. But Petraeus was able to contain him. Now that Petraeus is at CENTCOM there is less direct control of Odierno. And Odierno has the tendency to open his big mouth and put his foot in it. He seems to me like a perfect dupe for Keane to egg on.
But again I just don’t see Odierno as the kind of guy who can manage a disengagement and withdrawal. It is almost a diplomatic operation and, like the Bush Administration, Odierno does not do diplomatic.
I’m right with you. Odierno’s methods are plain and crude and Petraeus’ methods are way different.
Odierno: “You’re reassigning me to the Pentagon?”
Obama: “Read the order again. That’s not a typo…I’m reassigning you to PATAGONIA.”
Just me and I have said this before the 4 people I would have fired on day one of an Obama Administration were DNI Mike McConnell, CIA Director Michael Hayden, General Petraeus, and General Odierno.
No one’s questioning Petraeus’ loyalty; he’s clearly loyal to Bush.
Thanks, eCAHNomics! I clicked your link; that’s a great interview. I had been wondering about Gates. I keep remembering that he was Dir of CIA back in the day….who knows what he really is up to???
Wow, that’s a foul thing to say.
More seriously, I doubt it.
He’s got an ego, serious conviction that his ideas are right, and a bit (maybe two bits) of ambition.
I think he’s well-positioned in Afghanistan.
After the Bush cabal we are left with a corrupted General Corps. It’s a good time to move up for smart field grade and one or two stared Generals isn’t it?
Gates was involved in the Iran-Contra cover-up…that is the nature of what he is up to…
Siun, begging your pardon, bluebutterfly asked me to find this for her.
http://www.humanist.org.nz/doc…..istan.html
sought and found.
It’s tine to recall Shinseki to active duty as chief of the joint chiefs and let him clean up the mess. Or else have him replace Gates.
I think Obama will manage just fine with these guys, who got where they are by sucking up. The Villagers are another question. They do not accept that two-thirds to three-quarters of the American public want out of Iraq. And why should they? That public to them isn’t America. They are the only America that counts. Imperialism. It’s alive and well and living in Washington DC and Northern Virginia.
to blame Obama’s troop withdrawal from Iraq for the ultimate collapse of the political “stability” that they expect to follow U.S. withdrawal,
Anyone want to bet that if there is no “ultimate collapse of the political “stability”" that the generals, especially the ones in the field, will create one? Remember that it takes a war for a military officer to advance and get his name in the history books. Leading a pullout is only good for the country, not the general in charge, so there is no way that any of these gung-ho “warriors” will every be part of a peaceful solution. So what if the grunts are the ones doing the suffering, they’re expendable, right?
the ‘odious Odierno’
I so love alliteration!
Hate posting and talking to myself. Maybe someone’ll come along later. Anyway about JFK and Vietnam …
Would JFK have pulled out of Vietnam ?
Part 1 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhLlOiWvvXo
Part 2 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN6r7MTTf9Y
JFK and Vietnam: Deception, Intrigue, and the Struggle for Power
http://www.amazon.com/JFK-Viet…..0446516783
googlebooks
JFK: the CIA, Vietnam, and the plot to assassinate John F Kennedy
http://books.google.com/books?…..lt#PPP1,M1
I agree with BlueTexas and others. Though not of the same degree of seriousness, this is a Truman/MacArthur moment for Obama.
Politely set a date, like tomorrow morning, and time for the General to appear in the Oval Office and tell him where he gets off.
If he cannot follow the program then he can request a reassignment.
That’s a respectful way to handle a subbornate with a good record, and puts the ball back into the Generals court. Follow your Commander of get out of his command.
I think Gen Odierno is going to do what he’s told.