US Senate confirms Iraq commander

[Posteritatis]

(Ugh, hope this posts properly - I got a pile of disconnects from DU trying to preview it.)

The US Senate has unanimously confirmed veteran soldier Lt-Gen David Petraeus as the commander of US forces in Iraq.

Lt-Gen Petraeus, who has spent two of the last four years in Iraq, replaces Gen George Casey.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6303277.stm

I've heard very, very little ill about this guy. Between literally writing the book on counterinsurgency this past summer (I'm reading through it; it's replete with shots at the current handling of Iraq both subtle and not. There's a section called "unsuccessful actions in counterinsurgency" which is basically a checklist of everything going on in Iraq; he suggests crackheaded, insane things like looking out for the population's safety and welfare, paying them for work, and stuff like that!) and from what I can see of how he handled administering his part of Iraq after the war (seemingly in the opposite way people are doing so now), I'm not sure I mind this guy being in charge of the overall thing.

I'm frankly wondering how he got the appointment; someone like Bush can't possibly like the things this guy suggests at times. Maybe there's a bit more Pentagon-WH infighting than we think, and the former just scored a point against the President?

I'm still firmly in the "get the hell out of the damned country already" camp, which isn't going to change anytime soon, but until that happens I suppose I'm more content with someone like this guy in charge than many, if not most, of the alternatives. Basically, I'm skeptical, but I'm just a little less skeptical.

I dunno. I suppose we'll see if he's in charge, or if someone else is in charge in his name.

[jobycom]

1. Bush's hires remind me of Al Davis trying to find a head coach.

It's not a question of who he wants, sometimes it's a question of who will take the job.

[PATRICK]

2. Maybe

it signals the whole occupation is going on the defensive in perspective of the upcoming Iran War- which will have a "surge" in insurgency. That means the entire stated purpose of the new troops was a lie for cover. Bushco never planned anything except to have a good man in charge of the besieged Occupation while the real story moves elsewhere. Anyone remember Afghanistan or who their commanders are now?

[Posteritatis]

3. I keep a closer eye on Afghanistan, but I'm Canadian

Our guys are carrying a lot of the weight (and the casualties, dammit) there lately. Got some Stories from returning vets at the local universities.

But I do absolutely see your point there.

I have heard the suggestion that Petraeus was given that position to be a fall guy too; it's not an idea I like, though it's way, way too plausible. It would help explain why they put a lieutenant-general in charge of something that large, though. ;P

[Kagemusha]

4. What's unfortunate is Dick Cheney & others using Petraus' words

to smear opponents of Bush's plans as giving aid and reassurance to the enemy. (I think those are Lieb's words to which Petraus agreed.)

Today Gates said any sign of "flagging" (ugh...) would embolden the enemy.

Petraus created a media narrative that got him this job. I'm not sure what he's gonna actually do with it.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. I don't think he is going to be very popular

From the brief rightup in Fiasco I get the impression that he is going to take away the comfy walled off bases with ac and internet cafes and swimming pools and make our troops actually live with the civilian populations. That is not going to win him any beauty contests, it is also not going to happen.

Will he be effective: no of course not. It is way too late for that.

Oh and I forgot: he views our turn of the last century campaign in the Philippines (c 1900) as a success. That was a success in the sense that we piled dead filipinos up so high that they eventually gave up fighting us directly and just waited us out. Ugh.