Casey approval to chief faces uphill battle
Chief of staff nomination keyed to job in Iraq
By Sean D. Naylor - Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Jan 27, 2007 12:35:38 EST
As key senators question the nomination of Gen. George Casey to be the next Army chief of staff, officers also are voicing their concern that if the politicians confirm Casey, they would not be holding him accountable for U.S. failures in Iraq, where he has been the senior coalition military commander for the past 30 months.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., on Jan. 23 told Army Times that Casey’s approach of limiting U.S. troop numbers in the war zone “was a failed policy in Iraq that he continued to support and testified before Congress that it was going to be successful. That raises serious concerns.”
McCain’s comments repeated those he made two days earlier on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
He said he might oppose Casey and might not, depending on Casey’s answers during his scheduled Feb. 1 confirmation hearing. Other senators have expressed similar misgivings, including Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who told Army Times he is not certain Casey is the best person for the job.
“It is nothing personal,” he said. “It’s a question of whether promoting him helps implementing the new strategy in Iraq and what kind of signal it sends.”
Asked if he was leaning for or against Casey’s nomination, Graham said he had not decided.
“The jury is out with regard to that,” he said.
Other legislators, including Sen. John Warner, R-Va., and Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., have voiced support for Casey but indicated the confirmation hearing could sway their positions.
Concerns about Casey’s performance as commander of Multi-National Force-Iraq are finding an echo in the officer corps.
A retired senior Army leader said that field-grade officers had been asking him, “Why are we rewarding somebody who has failed?”
“Why isn’t he being held to the same standards that everyone else is held to in time of war?” the retired senior officer questioned. “Why is he being rewarded when he has failed to perform?”
“What I’m hearing from peers and subordinates, and even some seniors, is that there’s an issue of accountability,” said a colonel who spent more than a year in Iraq during Casey’s time in charge.
In particular, the colonel identified what he said was Casey’s reluctance to increase the size of U.S. forces in Iraq — except for a couple of temporary spikes — even though his subordinates were pleading for more troops.
“He stated that if he needed more troops he’d ask,” the colonel said. “Field commanders have been asking for quite some time for more forces ... The question
is: Why not listen to your commanders in the field? What has he seen from his level that the commanders in the field aren’t seeing when they’re asking for more resources?”
Casey’s staff did not respond to requests by Army Times for a response.
An active-duty Army general said it is “fair to say” that Casey becoming chief would leave battalion and brigade commanders, as well as some other generals, “a bit disappointed.”
“There’s a simple little word called ‘accountability,’ and I think that’s the word you’re going to see popping up out of Sen. McCain and Lindsey Graham and others,” the general said.
Another active-duty Army general said that it was “a legitimate question” to ask whether making Casey chief would be consistent with the military concept of accountability.
“For better or for worse, George Casey is the guy that’s been in charge, and it may be unfair, it may be fair, but when in charge, you’re the one that’s ultimately responsible.”
However, he said, “there’s been a growing cry for accountability on the Hill and in the public, but I haven’t heard it from inside the Army.”
more:
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/01/atCasey070127/
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
