Petraeus Must Now Answer The Question He Dodged»

[nhboy (Premo)]

"General David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, has been promoted by the Bush administration to take charge of Central Command, or CENTCOM. For those unfamiliar with the military lexicon, CENTCOM is a geographical command that encompasses the greater Middle East from Egypt in the west to Pakistan in the east and the Horn of Africa in the south to Kazakhstan in the north.

Petraeus replaces Admiral William Fallon, who resigned in March over disagreements with the administration’s regional strategy. During his tenure as CENTCOM commander, Fallon argued for greater attention to the mission in Afghanistan, increased diplomacy with Iran, and a faster drawdown in Iraq. This last view put Fallon into conflict with both Petraeus and the White House, who both saw Iraq as the top priority. As a result, Petraeus had the ear of the White House and Fallon was marginalized in the eyes of observers.

Petraeus’ appointment as CENTCOM commander seemingly confirms the suspicion that Fallon’s resignation was due to his disagreements with the overly Iraq-centric administration regional strategy. Now, the argument goes, the White House has a commander more in tune with its own strategic priorities."

Link

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

...would have been nice, instead of all the filler you copy and pasted, to have put the 'question' on the thread thereby have some sort of continuity with the title. Then, your thread would have had the opportunity to catch more casual glancers who could then read all they care of the link after getting the gist.

This is a total non story. The administration has been firing people from day one who don't see things their way, so, Petraeus isn't caught in any kind of 'gotcha'.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

This is a total non story. The administration has been firing people from day one who don't see things their way.

I agree, I think they call that "having the authority".

Not always right, not always wrong, but it's their call. That's what we pay them for. That's why we put civilians in charge of the military - to make these calls.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

I agree, I think they call that "having the authority".

Not always right, not always wrong, but it's their call. That's what we pay them for. That's why we put civilians in charge of the military - to make these calls.

...I just wanted to take issue with the way the post was framed; it gives the impression that the good General has been ducking some important question. No one asks the captain about the colonels job. No one asks him about the generals job and no one asks the local commander about what the theatre commander does and doesn't know and/or think.

[cwo_ghwebb]

I agree with Larry. The only point worth noting from the blogger was this:

But recent history should give Congress reason to engage in deep and incisive questioning at confirmation hearings.

Which means that Socialists will be asking the general when he stopped beating his wife.