Bush slaps down top general after he calls for troops to be pulled out of Iraq

The top American commander in Iraq has been privately rebuked by the Bush administration for openly discussing plans to reduce troop levels there next year, The Sunday Telegraph has learned.

President George W Bush personally intervened last week to play down as "speculation" all talk of troop pull-outs because he fears that even discussing options for an "exit strategy" implies weakening resolve.

Gen George Casey, the US ground commander in Iraq, was given his dressing-down after he briefed that troop levels - now 138,000 - could be reduced by 30,000 in the early months of next year as Iraqi security forces take on a greater role.

The unusual sign of US discord came as Iraqi politicians and clerics drafting a new constitution continued their own wrangling over autonomy demands by various factions.

Politically, the administration will be under pressure to signal a significant cut in the US presence by autumn next year to help Republicans fighting mid-term elections in November 2006. Military commanders, however, also need to wind down numbers, the imperative that prompted Gen Casey's comments, according to Dan Goure, a Pentagon adviser and vice-president of the Lexington Institute defence think-tank.

Their "best scenario" target is to reduce numbers to 60,000-70,000 by next autumn if Iraqi forces start to make progress against the insurgents. The fall-back option would be Gen Casey's minimum 30,000 reduction by the summer.

Source:
Telegraph

I guess General Casey was too "Liberal" in his Thinking - so he had to pack his things and Go.

I bet Master Bush put a new, more Hardline General in control in Gen. Casey's place now - must have "reliable" people in all places.

General Casey spoke out of school. You can't have each and every one of your subordinates creating their own version of the game plan. That should be obvious.

.
The Bush administration is not a big fan of free speech or an open dialogue.

Frankly I think the signals from the Whitehouse are confused and muddled.
They can not come up with clear identifyable goals in Iraq.

The whitehouse and the Neocons probably have become addicted to the only reason they won the last election, the Iraq war. They can't even think clearly.

Time for some clarity for us and the Iraqis.
Make sure Saddam is dead.
Tell Iraqis we are leaving and do they need assitance while the transition is made.
Its up to the Iraqis to make a government work.
Not the Whitehouse.
Not the congress.
Not the generals.

We may not like the government(s) they choose, but if it is what Iraqis want that is what actual democracy is all about.
.

Only people that Gerneral helped where the terrorists, you cant win a war, however illegal it is, with such public spats in the high command.

If Gen Casey were a civilian or an elected official then I would have to agree with Souljah, but he's in the military and that means he has a chain of command to follow.....and making such statements without the commander 'n chiefs approval (especially on this matter) is a breakdown in the chain of command. Our nation's top brass and the president need to be in sync' with what they say (wether it's right or wrong)....that's just the way it works.

Anways, I think we should reduce our troop strength. The new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (the top military man) Gen. Peter Pace feels the same, he said we should reduce our strength but he has not yet said we are...see the difference?



[edit on 15/8/2005 by SportyMB]

"War" is almost as integral to war profiteering as the actual profiteering.

Halliburton/KBR can't charge to feed troops that aren't there. Oh, maybe they can.

Well, let's just not advertise it. Terrorists need targets anyway. I think that's the point of all this now. I know I'm paying for sumin' damnit.

Here's a flag.

All better?

Originally posted by RANT
Well, let's just not advertise it. Terrorists need targets anyway. I think that's the point of all this now. I know I'm paying for sumin' damnit.

Here's a flag.

All better?

I like the flag, he,he,

Now so far we know that every General that has dared to speak negatively against the war and the toubles in Iraq had met "dismissal"

I guess when it comes to "corporate power" they rule after all is more money to be make and more sheeps to be slaughter, I meen is still more soldiers to profit from.

Haliburton, the Carlyle group and all the oil barons still don't have enough so America get ready because they want "our souls"

I think that General Casey did not fit the Profile of the Current US Military situation. I think that he did not Agree with some of the Plans and he had to go. Maybe it was not about Iraq anyway - but for some other reasons, where the General did not agree with the Supreme Commander of Armed Forces and his plans for the Military.

Well, for whatever reason - He's Gone.

And I have to Agree with Opinion by RANT - with one Correction:

"War" IS integral to war profiteering.

i remember one Army General wanted some 300,000 to 500,000 troops in Iraq. and the Bush admin disagrees with him, for that is too many. so in which case the generals pretty much dont have much a say in how to conduct Iraq policy.

This is not about free speech, or flag-waving patriotism, or about Halliburton or the Carlyle group. Some people bait their hook with ten types of bait, and I wonder what they are fishing for. They only manage to divert attention, to sidetrack the debate.

This is about military discipline. General Casey was out of line when he spoke of specific numbers and dates.

Discipline is what makes the military succeed.

he was probably given specific info..i doubt he just made up the dates and troop numbers. i wonder if he known Mr. Brynes...formerly 4 star general Brynes...................................hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

When the military top brass are unhappy with the way the war is being directed from the Whitehouse the Pandoras box has been opened.

Maybe I'm nieve but shouldn't Milatary decisions be made by military men not by idealogs in Washington.

Let the Generals make the military decisions and the politicians should stay out things they obviously know nothing about.

Let the Generals make the military decisions and the politicians should stay out things they obviously know nothing about.

I totally agree

But all that should go on behind closed doors.....we (the public) should not know about a bigtime disagreement between the prez and and our top generals. Should they disagree? of course! Politicians can openly bicker and opinionate all they want, but in the military it should be done in private.

Originally posted by SportyMB

Let the Generals make the military decisions and the politicians should stay out things they obviously know nothing about.

I totally agree

I agree with you also, the politicians in washington are not the ones in the front lines nor facing the enemy and resorces avalilable, they are sitting confortable in their airconditioned offices "thinking that they know what they are doing"

Their decisions are not influenced by the people that are in Iraq facing the danger or looking at the problems at hand.

But by the ones that are resposible for pushing this war to benefit the corporate agendas.

None of them have family member in Iraq, and none of them are facing a death of a love one.

Shame on all of them and anyone that agrees with them.

Souljah you are definitely anti-American. You have done nothing on this forum, but use propaganda against the U.S. A concise drumming of anti-American policy has stemmed from your posts. You are the enemy.

In an attempt to show foolishness on the side of U.S. forces, far from it. Nice pic of Casey - to appear as he is pouting. What we have is Casey geeeting backlash of intel mistakes of publicizing info. The pullout will continue, but no need to rock the boat with statements to incite individuals like yourself to wage further campaigns of harassment.

Originally posted by vincere7
Souljah you are definitely anti-American. You have done nothing on this forum, but use propaganda against the U.S. A concise drumming of anti-American policy has stemmed from your posts. You are the enemy.

If for You AMERICA is represented by the Current Goverment - them Damn Rigt I am Anti-American. But I know thats not how the Entire America thinks, and I have got to know alot of Good people, that are not even in the same League as your current president is along with this money hungry corporate war dogs.

Too bad you can't see the pictures from my point of view - things would get alot more clearer and you would understand why I act this way. But you don't want to see that - as you have proven in your previous posts. So be it. You can read my posts on ignore them. I really don't give a Damn.

This is sad and I truly think the general was thinking for the lives of his troops, which I believe is the first and foremost objective of every commander, military or not.

But, that being said, the question you have to ask or more precisly what the army has to ask...

"Have the actions or behaviour of an individual adversely impacted or are they likely to impact on the efficiency or operational effectiveness of the Army?"

The answer is yes.

BTW , I agree with whaaa and Sporty on the "behind closed doors" approach.

Originally posted by devilwasp
BTW , I agree with whaaa and Sporty on the "behind closed doors" approach.

Yep, I agree with that Approach too.

Bush looks to me in this Events like Hitler, who was basicly a Politican, who REALLY Liked to make Military Decisions.

Let the Army do its Job and Vice Versa.

Originally posted by Souljah
Yep, I agree with that Approach too.

Bush looks to me in this Events like Hitler, who was basicly a Politican, who REALLY Liked to make Military Decisions.

Let the Army do its Job and Vice Versa.

You do relise that hitler was a soldier too?
Bush isnt hitler, he is a politican...

I don't think that Mr. Bush will ever be a "hitler" but I have the feeling that he in his sick overpowering self importance as a president love playing like one.