Left Flank

Success breeds more success, or so hopes US Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Gates announced his new Army team:

The nomination of Petraeus to the Central Command post, which was vacated last month when Adm. William «Fox» Fallon abruptly resigned, was not unexpected. It was originally thought Petraeus would become the commander of US European Command and the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO troops in Brussels. But after Admiral Fallon resigned, over his increasingly public views on Iran that appeared to be at odds with the White House, speculation centered on Petraeus to replace him.

The decision to send Petraeus to Central Command and Odierno back to Baghdad hints that there is a shallow bench of officers suited for the job in Iraq. Gates acknowledged that there are only a «handful of generals» who have the experience necessary, but also said the vacancy left by Fallon's resignation left him few options. «So I'm faced with a critical combatant command where a commander is needed and a commander who knows what's going on in the region,» he said.

(…)

Odierno had already been nominated to become vice chief of the Army. That nomination will be withdrawn and Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli will be nominated in his place. General Chiarelli, who had been on the short list to replace Petraeus in Iraq, has been Gates's senior military aide for more than a year.

Intel Dump's Phillip Carter calls this all «musical chairs», especially the part about Odierno and Chiarelli.

I'm a bit surprised to see him moved into the vice chief of staff job, because I thought he was a shoe-in to take the top Iraq job that Odierno just got. But these are both four-star jobs and both important. And, there's definitely some institutional politics going on here. Unlike some of the other generals, Chiarelli remains relatively untainted by the Bush administration and the war in Iraq, because he served as a relatively apolitical corps commander and division commander. So putting him in at Vice means that the Army might get to keep him in a Democratic administration. Look for Chiarelli to be the next MNF-I or CENTCOM commander in January 2009 -- or to join the Joint Chiefs, either as chairman of the Joint Chiefs or chief of staff of the Army.

Thomas P.M. Barnett makes two arguments about Petraeus' promotion: that more responsibility will lead to more flexibility on Iran; that he's a better match for a President Obama than for a President McCain. What if a Vice-President Clinton is as forceful an «advisor» as the current vice-president?

Overall, all three decisions are prudent. It's what Uncle Jimbo likes. However, as Noah Schachtman summarizes, these Army nominations leave a trail of disgruntled old-schoolers in their wake.

According to WaPo, the generals in Iraq are doing as little posible to keep favor with the White House and not make the situation in Baghdad worse.

Gates brought back from Baghdad a plan put forth by Iraqi leaders that would redefine the U.S. mission to focus more on fighting Sunni insurgents while the Shiite-led government tries to contain Shiite militias. He also brought back views from U.S. commanders on the ground, who have said publicly that they are open to a so-called surge in troops if their mission is clearly defined.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff have resisted additional troops unless a clear, achievable mission is defined and believe the White House is putting forward an ill-conceived idea in a desperate bid to salvage the situation. The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that Gen. George W. Casey Jr. and Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the top commanders in Iraq, have decided to recommend the surge, a position that if true could make it easier for Bush to go forward even if Pentagon generals remain unenthusiastic.

It was unclear, however, whether Casey was genuinely supporting a buildup or simply restating privately what he has already said publicly. «I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea,» if sending more troops would help achieve strategic objectives, he said at a Baghdad news conference with Gates last week.

The White House and Pentagon officially had no comment. A Pentagon official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the discussions, said it would be an exaggeration to say that Casey is pushing for additional troops.

«To say that Casey wants more forces, that isn't the case,» the official said. Indeed, he said, Casey told Gates in Iraq that an infusion of U.S. forces would not help him politically with the Iraqi government and could impede reconciliation efforts.

«Casey's position all along has been, 'If you want to put additional forces in, I'm not opposed to that -- if it serves the strategic purpose, which is to put Iraqis in the lead,' » the official said.

Casey and Gates agreed that under the current «clear, hold and build» approach, more U.S. troops would be useful only as part of a broader reconstruction effort to hold areas after they have been cleared. This would involve immediate work such as garbage removal, followed by infrastructure projects.

Powered by ScribeFire.