Posted by Aamer Madhani at 6:15 am CST
For the record-and with quite a bit of prodding- Army chief of staff nominee Gen. George Casey made it known Thursday that he felt retired Gen. Eric Shinseki wasn’t treated all that nicely by the old guard in the Defense Department.
Shinkseki, of course, was the Army general who under persistent questioning from Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) less than month before the U.S. invasion of Iraq told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he thought it would take hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops to keep the peace in post-war Iraq.
Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, would deride Shinseki as being wildly off-the-mark to speculate it would take more troops to occupy Iraq than to topple Saddam Hussein’s regime.
The general, who was due to end his term as the chief of the army four months later, quietly retired after contradicting Rumsfeld’s plan to operate with a lighter force. Not one top civilian from the defense department attended his retirement ceremony, seen as a slap in the face by some top military officers.
Many critics of the White House’s handling of the war, including Levin, have pointed to Shinseki’s treatment as setting an atmosphere of fear among commanders on the ground in Iraq.
At Thursday's confirmation hearing for Casey, who is finishing up a troubled 2-1/2 year tour as the top commander in Iraq, it was Levin, now the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who asked Casey what he thought of Shinseki’s treatment.
For much of Casey’s tenure in Iraq, he was on the record against increasing the U.S. troop level in Iraq. But in recent weeks, Casey has gotten firmly behind President Bush’s plan to send 21,500 more troops to Baghdad and the Al Anbar province.
Here's the exchange between Casey and Levin:
SEN. LEVIN: You've talked a little bit about what General Shinseki said here about needing more troops, about the way he was treated. Do you have any feelings about the way he was treated after he spoke honestly about his opinion?
GEN. CASEY: I don't think he was treated well.
SEN. LEVIN: You've indicated on a number of occasions that your efforts were thwarted by Iraqi leaders…By the way, I couldn't agree with you more relative to Shinseki. I think he was treated miserably, and that message, I think, was an insult to everybody in uniform. But I'll leave it at that. You gave me an answer which is perfectly consistent with what I just said, although perhaps not as purple in its prose.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Casey knows how to play ball with the Bushies.
Tell them what they want to hear and damn the consequences.
I wouldn't give you two cents for any of the generals currently running things.
They're all Bush boot lickers.
Posted by: bb | February 2, 2007 6:51 AM
You didn't have to be a military genius to figure out that blitzing into Bagdhad with a small force would be relatively easy.
Likewise, you didn't have to be a genius to figure out that just toppling the Baathist govt alone isn't enough; that you have to secure and stabilize the country, get the economy running... in short, win the peace.
My friends and I were saying that, three-plus years ago while sitting around kitchen tables playing cards and drinking. It's a shame we didn't invite Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and the Pentagon Deskjockey generals to play poker with us.
It's been said several million times that winning the peace would have required many more boots on the ground, a lot of money and a long term commitment. I think it's pretty obvious that the Bush Admin. was thinking of another Grenada -- in and out quick, get some nice video for the evening news (plus for campaign ads), have a few parades...
Part of the problem -- besides the naivete and incompetence of Bush & Co -- is the nature of American warfare in the latter part of the 20th cent. It's become a domestic political ploy, a photo-op. Something fairly quick and easy that allows America to puff up its collective chest and the sitting prez to strut around like Rambo.
That worked in banana republics like Grenada and Panama. The Middle East is a whole lot trickier.
Posted by: Leo T | February 2, 2007 7:03 AM
It now appears that High Ranking Military personnel have become part of the public discussions after the fact. It's too bad they were not listened to when the decisions were made.
MSgt USMC (retired)
Posted by: Len Kreger | February 2, 2007 7:09 AM
It's always interesting reading comments from all these experts and their disdain for an administration that didn't forsee all the things that could have gone wrong in a war. Show me a perfectely fought war, can't be done. Can the attitude people. Nobody likes Monday morning quarterbacks!
Posted by: James Chudyk | February 2, 2007 7:20 AM
At the end of this we will certainly see just how many lives are lost when only a "Yes Sir!" attitude prevails. Bush & Co are guilty of creating a culture of positive ignorance. The blood of tens of thousands both past and future lies thick on their hands.
Posted by: Fair Comment | February 2, 2007 7:22 AM
No one should forget the fear mongering, bully and highly partisan atmostphere upon which this immoral war was sold and imposed to our citizens. No one should forget the blatant lies that were weaved into the war propaganda. No one should forget how the Bushies used this war to win mid-term election in 2002. Even questioning the patriotism of past war heros and congressmen, no one should forget that up till now, non of these so called political leaders have been fired for misleading the entire nation. No one should forget hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that has lost their lives for over this senseless war. It is immoral and it is evil one to another.
Posted by: Samuel Edmond | February 2, 2007 7:24 AM
Posted by: Leo T | Feb 2, 2007 7:03:57 AM
--------
Posted by: bb | February 2, 2007 7:29 AM