Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Washington Examiner
April 24, 2007
By Rowan Scarborough, National Security Correspondent
WASHINGTON - When Navy Adm. William J. Fallon delivered his first detailed testimony on the Iraq war, he didn’t make any attempt at happy talk.
Fallon, one of two four-star officers President Bush put in place this year to try to win in Iraq, told the House Armed Services Committee last week he has “some cause for optimism.”
But he quickly said, “I’ll tell you that there’s hardly a week goes by, certainly almost a day that doesn’t go by, without some major event that also causes us to lose ground.”
Fallon, who took over U.S. Central Command on March 16, called leadership within the Iraqi army “a mixed bag.” The army itself is “a work in progress.”
“My initial impression of Iraq is we’ve got a lot of work to do,” he said. “Whatever went on in the past is what it is.”
And in case anyone thought Fallon, a former U.S. Pacific Command chief who used diplomacy to soothe China, could bring Iraq’s neighbors into a pro-Iraq alliance, he quickly dashed that prospect.
“The idea that they would cooperate together for any common purpose is one that’s a really tough sell,” said Fallon, who toured the Middle East during his first two months in command.
Fallon’s frank talk was a refreshing change of pace for defense experts, who believe the previous military leadership put too rosy a face on a stalemated war.
“I think Fallon is afraid to be optimistic given the roller-coaster ride over the past four years in Iraq,” said Robert Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and military analyst. “There were times some of the leadership, uniform and civilian, were very optimistic, only to see those hopes dashed by the next round of violence from a corner of Iraq that was unexpected.”
Gen. George Casey, the top commander in Iraq in 2004-07, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2005, “I do believe that the possibility for troop — for condition-based reductions of coalition forces — still exists in 2006.”
Gen. Richard B. Myers, then the Joint Chiefs chairman, dismissed speculation that more American troops would be sent to Iraq.
“This strategy has been reviewed — George, I don’t know how many times we’ve picked at your strategy by the Joint Chiefs of Staff — and we certainly don’t think that more American forces is the answer,” he said.
Sixteen months later, Bush repudiated that strategy by announcing in January he would dispatch more American forces to Iraq to try to secure Baghdad.
Army Gen. David Petraeus, Casey’s successor in Iraq, also delivers low-key assessments. He acknowledged last week that al Qaeda in Iraq’s suicide bombings have knocked the security plan off stride.
“Clearly these sensational attacks can’t be anything other than viewed as setbacks,” he said.
April 24, 2007
By Rowan Scarborough, National Security Correspondent
WASHINGTON - When Navy Adm. William J. Fallon delivered his first detailed testimony on the Iraq war, he didn’t make any attempt at happy talk.
Fallon, one of two four-star officers President Bush put in place this year to try to win in Iraq, told the House Armed Services Committee last week he has “some cause for optimism.”
But he quickly said, “I’ll tell you that there’s hardly a week goes by, certainly almost a day that doesn’t go by, without some major event that also causes us to lose ground.”
Fallon, who took over U.S. Central Command on March 16, called leadership within the Iraqi army “a mixed bag.” The army itself is “a work in progress.”
“My initial impression of Iraq is we’ve got a lot of work to do,” he said. “Whatever went on in the past is what it is.”
And in case anyone thought Fallon, a former U.S. Pacific Command chief who used diplomacy to soothe China, could bring Iraq’s neighbors into a pro-Iraq alliance, he quickly dashed that prospect.
“The idea that they would cooperate together for any common purpose is one that’s a really tough sell,” said Fallon, who toured the Middle East during his first two months in command.
Fallon’s frank talk was a refreshing change of pace for defense experts, who believe the previous military leadership put too rosy a face on a stalemated war.
“I think Fallon is afraid to be optimistic given the roller-coaster ride over the past four years in Iraq,” said Robert Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and military analyst. “There were times some of the leadership, uniform and civilian, were very optimistic, only to see those hopes dashed by the next round of violence from a corner of Iraq that was unexpected.”
Gen. George Casey, the top commander in Iraq in 2004-07, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2005, “I do believe that the possibility for troop — for condition-based reductions of coalition forces — still exists in 2006.”
Gen. Richard B. Myers, then the Joint Chiefs chairman, dismissed speculation that more American troops would be sent to Iraq.
“This strategy has been reviewed — George, I don’t know how many times we’ve picked at your strategy by the Joint Chiefs of Staff — and we certainly don’t think that more American forces is the answer,” he said.
Sixteen months later, Bush repudiated that strategy by announcing in January he would dispatch more American forces to Iraq to try to secure Baghdad.
Army Gen. David Petraeus, Casey’s successor in Iraq, also delivers low-key assessments. He acknowledged last week that al Qaeda in Iraq’s suicide bombings have knocked the security plan off stride.
“Clearly these sensational attacks can’t be anything other than viewed as setbacks,” he said.