Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Our Current General McClellan
Casey, an armored forces commander, a tank guy, was senior coalition commander in Iraq from June 2004 to February 2007, the dark days of the Iraq war. He replaced three star Ricardo Sanchez and about every thing he did after that was wrong. Rather than conduct a proper counter-insurgency, he holed up his forces in huge bases and waited for the populace and Iraqi forces to provide him with the actionable intelligence he needed to go kill terrorists. It never came, mainly because it was very dangerous under those circumstances to co-operate with the Iraqi forces or with us. So we frittered away years and thousands of American soldiers' bodies and lives (usually to IEDs) as the al Askari Mosque in Samara was bombed and Iraq slouched towards a full civil war. Casey opposed the so-called surge change in tactics proposed by Generals Keane and Petraeus, et al., the latter of which generals replaced him, thank the Lord, and won the war that Casey was blowing big time. Casey was apparently a constant thorn in the side of President Bush, who ultimately had to kick him upstairs where it was thought that he could do no real damage. Fat freakin' chance.
Here is part of what Casey said in response to questions about the alleged traitorous murders of fellow soldiers at Fort Hood by alleged Muslim extremist Major Hasan (I don't know why I keep writing "alleged"--whom am I kidding?):
I’m concerned that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And I’ve asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that.[...]
Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.Again, let's take the first, first. What freakin' backlash? Mona Charen nails the old and getting older calumny here. I'm sorry, were Muslim soldiers the victims here or were American soldiers the victim of a Muslim? It's difficult to tell sometimes.
As to the latter, the 'diversity über alles' shibboleth, is this really what this loser thinks? Perhaps in the specific case of one soldier shooting his fellow soldiers, we're carrying the big tent thing a bit too far. As Mark Steyn writes:
General Casey has a point: An army that lets you check either the "home team" or "enemy" box according to taste is certainly diverse.But I think we want our soldiers defending their comrades in arms and shooting the enemy not the other way around. It is the elevation of "diversity" over plain old common sense, which kept Major Hasan on an Army base and promoted him, when any rational leadership would have at least kicked him out of the Army, if not brought him up on charges (sedition, anyone? Bueller? Bueller?).
There is no evidence in his background and history that General George Casey, Jr. has any ability other than to rise through the ranks. He should be invited to resign.
I'm reminded of an old joke from the Vietnam War (paraphrased here): What's the difference between the Boy Scouts and the Army?
The Boy Scouts have adult leadership.
Nope. If you have any evidence that Hasan's actions were foreseeable, please advise. He should have been kicked out of the army or incompetence but his superiors decided that the paper work was TMFA so like Gen. Casey, he was promoted to a position and post where it was thought he could do no harm.
To paraphrase Dan Jenkins in Semi Tough: "The problem with country is not that a Muslim can't get hired. The problem is that a Muslim cant get fired."
"I actually have less regard for Casey than he [Fraley] does, but that's because he didn't witness up close Casey's conduct as the J5, the Director of the Joint Staff, and the Army's Vice Chief of Staff before he went to Iraq in 2004, and I did."
Lastly, as to the other Anon.'s challenge re: foreseeable actions. I believe that Ft. Hood is another example of Taleb's black swan theory, where an unthinkable event takes place to devastating effect, and the importance of each of the cookie crumbs leading up to it is evident only in retrospect. Just as with 9/11, the USS Cole, and other terrorist events, looking back one can say, "but it was all there for anyone to see." However, the prescient one who might have suggested the probability of any of these events in advance of the actual event would likely have been made a laughingstock by his peers.
Thanks for the comment second anonymous--it was very helpful. I haven't finished with Casey yet.
You're welcome. I like your blog, & think its quality is deserving of wider readership (since I tend to agree with most of your opinions.)
If I hear any more scuttlebutt from my mil-friend (an x-spooky type) re: Gen. Casey, et al., I'll pass it along.
Hopefully, if nothing else results from Ft. Hood, this overarching deference to "diversity," at least in the military, will cease. Not sure, though. Did you see where the Naval Academy now has a policy of selecting applicants with a goal of "diversity" at Annapolis?
See here: http://blog.usni.org/?p=3320
I'll be looking forward with great anticipation to your blogging on the Great Trial of the Century that our moronic AG Eric Holder has now committed to.