Outmaneuvered And Outranked, Military Chiefs Became Outsiders
At the Joint Chiefs of Staff in late November 2006, Gen. Peter Pace was facing every chairman's nightmare: a potential revolt of the other chiefs. Two months earlier, the JCS had convened a special team of colonels to recommend options for reversing the deteriorating situation in Iraq. Now, it appeared that the chiefs' and colonels' advice was being marginalized, if not ignored, by the White House.
During a JCS meeting with the colonels Nov. 20, Chairman Pace dropped a bomb: The White House was considering a "surge" of additional troops to quell the violence in Iraq. "Would it be a good idea?" Pace asked the group. "If so, what would you do with five more brigades?" That amounted to 20,000 to 30,000 more troops, depending on the number of support personnel.
Pace's question caught the chiefs and colonels off guard. The JCS hadn't recommended a surge, and Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Iraq commander, was opposed to one of that magnitude. Where had this come from? Was it a serious option? Was it already a done deal?
...
Pace, Schoomaker and Casey found themselves badly out of sync with the White House in the fall of 2006, finally losing control of the war strategy altogether after the midterm elections. Schoomaker was outraged when he saw news coverage that retired Gen. Jack Keane, the former Army vice chief of staff, had briefed the president Dec. 11 about a new Iraq strategy being proposed by the American Enterprise Institute, the conservative think tank.
...
Schoomaker was dismayed. Suppose the surge didn't work? "What is our fallback plan?" he asked.
There was no fallback, Pace replied.
...
...
Mullen said the all-volunteer force might break under the strain of extended and repeated deployments. "I am still searching for the grand strategy here," Mullen said. "How does a five-brigade surge over the next few months fit into the larger picture? We have so many other issues and challenges: Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea and places we are not even thinking about today."
...
...
The next morning, he went to Fort Benning, Ga., to address military personnel and their families. His decision had been opposed by Casey and Abizaid, his military commanders in Iraq. Pace and the Joint Chiefs, his top military advisers, had suggested a smaller increase, if any at all. Schoomaker, the Army chief, had made it clear that the five brigades didn't really exist under the Army's current policy of 12-month rotations. But on this morning, the president delivered his own version of history.

"The commanders on the ground in Iraq, people who I listen to -- by the way, that's what you want your commander-in-chief to do. You don't want decisions being made based upon politics or focus groups or political polls. You want your military decisions being made by military experts. They analyzed the plan, and they said to me and to the Iraqi government: 'This won't work unless we help them. There needs to be a bigger presence.' "

Bush went on, "And so our commanders looked at the plan and said, 'Mr. President, it's not going to work until -- unless we support -- provide more troops.' "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0702426_pf.html

Yes he was on 60 minutes............

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/04/...e=mostpop_story

And this idiot is still in office... get this idiot out. All this behind the scenes shit and lies in front of the American public. All these sleep walking Americans can't see the correlation between Bush and the McChurian candidate.

I seen some of the article on Huffpo, and noted that think tanks held sway with Bush instead of the joint chiefs.

I watched the 60 minutes clip. I have never seen so much propaganda in all my life.

The surge is working? Where was Bush when the military and Democratic leadership were pleading with him to increase troop levels early on in the invasion to prevent the violence that the surge was needed to stop? Instead of 80 Americans dying a day pre-surge you have, what 40 Americans dying a day and that makes it a success?

Woodward left out the role of ethnic cleansing and paying off the insurgent leadership too.

A secret weapon that magically makes Al Queada flee? Like Nixon's secret weapon in Vietnam? Oh and spying on Maliki is part of that "secret weapon" so its okay to spy on our own allies.

Woodward smirked when he said Petraus has been so successful the Bush Administration thinks he's fire proof? Please.

Bush is still shocked the Iraqi people aren't happy with being killed, their government services contracted out to corrupt American contractors who have left them without clean water and electricity and their oil being stolen out from under them. What a tool.

The parting shot, Bush believes if the next administration leaves before the job is done it will make make the war a failure. They have destroyed his glorious war as Jim Ward puts it.

I'm ashamed of Bob Woodward. History has been re-written right in front of my eyes. I'm not sure there is anything that Dems can do to counter this propaganda.

????? Woodward was pretty hard on Bush. I liked the interview with 60 minutes. We never watch that show, but did last night.

IMO, this book won't help much. Most people already know that Bush lies. What's one more lie? The Downing Street memos made clear that the facts were fixed around policy established by neocons, and that was a yawner to people in general.

Not good for the Mc Nasty stance ... " generals on the ground " - who did not want the Surge ...
Another hole in his " wannabe War Pres. B.S. " campaign; he has been stumping heavily on it - and claiming it is doing so well !

Woodward definitely helped Obama more !

I got tennis instead of 60 Min on the PVR Here the link from plodder above again Bob Woodward Hyping... topic (12:30): http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...st&p=142530

with part of the video of the famous 'Whore Within' on 60 Min.

Also, this is the Matt Lauer video segment from the Today show (6:00):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26605096#26605096 w/Wood of Woodstein.

----------------

How was Woodward hard on Bush? I saw him being a mouthpiece for Bush. Woodward reporting blamed the military for the violence and made it appear that it was Bush's leadership that saved the day with the surge.

If one's standard is reducing the number of US soldiers dying in Iraq, there's no question the surge "worked." It's ludicrous to even consider that, in an area like that involved, the insertion of FIVE freakin' brigades of US military might wouldn't be pretty GD effective in quashing tin-pot soldiers. And that's without mentioning the tens or hundreds of millions of US dollars paid to insurgent groups to switch from being our enemies to being our friends, as long as the money keeps coming.

Trouble is, simply reducing the US military deaths was supposedly NOT the goal of the surge - that which is now being used (even by Obama) to declare it has "worked."

Unlike virtually all previous military maneuvers by this administration, one thing Dems and other skeptics were able to squeeze out of this administration and the military was a list of goals for the surge, a formal list of what it would have to accomplish in order to be deemed a success, and to help determine when the operation would/should end.

Among the accomplishments on that list were items such as stability in the Iraqi government that would allow it to pass an array of agreements (especially that oil sharing compromise), a variety of laws, and to conduct elections.

I have been looking for that freakin' list for the last month or so. I'm not maintaining it has been scrubbed or disappeared. I just haven't come upon the right combination of keywords for a search that will provide something less than a bazillion hits - even when I just stick to the White House site. And when I attempt to wade through some of the results with merely a few million hits, I cannot find the stories published while the surge was under discussion and just before its implementation. It's making me crazy that the entire country seems to have developed amnesia on this.

I believe that, if I can find that list of formal White House goals for the surge, it will be easy to demonstrate that the surge has helped accomplish only one of the several goals set for it, and so the claims that it has been a "success" are ludicrous. If anyone has better recall of everything that was on it, or suggestions on how I can find that damned list, please let me know.

Of course, my holding that saving more US soldiers from death is not/was not the goal of the surge simply proves I hate the troops.

Same here.

What sickend me the most was how he pumped up Bush as a concerned God-like figure. Woodward is sickening in every labored breath he takes. All of Woodward's books are tools of Cheney/Bush propagandry. And guess what? We're in an election season.

Where are the newest UBL videos? Or have they tracked him down to his cave? Or is UBL on ice? Enquiring minds want to know.

And you don't believe his last two have been a dramatic departure, even a direct reversal from that course?

Are you counting All the President's Men?

What I saw on 60 minutes was Woodward saying that the administration was making political policy, then forcing the military to go along with it or be fired and replaced!? Where did you see a mouth piece blaming the military. They even pointed out the contradiction of Bush saying that he let the Generals on the ground advise him, yet the opposite was happening! He talked about the firings of personnel who didn't support the administrations position and he said that Bush's plan seemed to be "Kill the bastards, kill them all". That doesn't seem like Bush's mouthpiece to me. Check out the 60 minutes interview! I think he could have been MORE scathing, but he's just human.

Well, Woodward had to point out what we all already know. That's the beauty of propagandy.

This propaganda book is largely to pump up Petraeus, and point out that, yes, Bush was not drunk, uninvolved, or fishing around for complete sentences - he was in fact saying kill those islamo-fascists in Iraq ---- as drops of god-like sweat drips from W.'s brow and see there? his hair is all white now - oh how George has suffered.

Are you hearing this Bush "Lie-bary" people? There IS a legacy, afterall . . .

Run the clip Chip:

Bush kissing up and raising a glass to the Commies Legacy:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=UHPZBNuYPBo&...feature=related

I will give credit to Wooward saying, President just doesn't understand why Iraqis are not beholden to him.

I suggest curious George take a little ride into the walled off slums of Baghdad (part of surge strategy) and watch Iraqis trying to find food.

Or try to find the thousands of displaced Iraqis scattered throughout the regions beyond Iraq. And does George care about Iraqi women? A lot of them are having to prostitute themselves to feed their families.

I did check out the interview. My comments were based on the video. I think egghead summed it up.

I don't want this to come across as I'm attacking your opinion. You heard things that should be damning, but I'm seeing this through a different filter.

Yes Bush didn't listen to the Generals. To "normal" educated people hearing it, Bush was caught in a lie. However the issue is being spun by making Bush look wiser than the Generals because the surge worked. The Generals didn't want the surge, and the White House did. So Bush is the hero & the media will protect that. History is already being re-written.

Again "kill the bastards, kill them all" to normal people is frightening to hear, but again that is not how its being spun. For starters 20% of Americans out there get off on the thought of killing. They don't care that it sounds psychotic. The media has done a good job of making the lives of Iraqis have always been irrelevant in this war and occupation for the rest of the population. The only thing that matters is American lives. Again Bush comes across as if he's being a bad ass and American protector.

All the lies and thuggish behavior by the Bush Administration has been caught in are irrelevant if the majority of the American people believe the surge has worked and we can somehow "win" in Iraq.

I'm counting:

State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III

&

The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008

Though I'd think you would also appreciate:

Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987

The Choice: How Bill Clinton Won

The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House

And, of course -

All the President's Men

I was also an ENORMOUS fan of this one:

The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court

A classic that should perhaps be mandatory reading for anyone who thinks they know diddly about the Supremes.

And, there's no question I'm disgusted and repulsed by:

Plan of Attack

&

Bush at War

Personally, I wouldn't mind having a 7-2 record for books. But maybe that's exactly my problem.

Does anyone truly believe the civilian command acted in good faith?

The sickest thing is that support for Bush's Iraq policy was equated with support for soldiers. It doesn't get more cynical than hiding behind soldiers to avoid accountability.

But that's not a really hard thing to say, eggy, considering that Bush has delusions of royalty. "America is mine. Therefore, Americans love me." We now occupy Iraq. "Iraq is mine. Why don't the Iraqis love me?" Of course, the love George felt in 2001 has diminished to a small enclave of those who are as insane as he is. For Woodward to say it at all, great. `But it's kind of like pointing out a hubcap on the street when there's a horrible car crash right in front of you.

In observing Wooward saying that, Pestoney? I noted a touch of the tongue in the left cheek, not the right.

I was just picking on that one point. No sock puppet here!

I don't care how many books that are written that confirm what people suspected. The real question is why are these people still allowed to be free? Its been a point of fact that we have been led into a war based on lies, why are these people not in prison?

I have been trying to catch most of the first Woodward interviews on this, and tonight's Larry King interview is the best by far. Maybe my expectations were low, because it was LK asking the questions after all, but I sensed that Woodward was itching to get a few more things out there...almost like he was frustrated with the softball stuff that he had been tossed already. This caught my ear, anyway:

Woodward: When you look at the data, and you see what they can do in these operations...it's astounding... somewhat comparative (sic) to the Manhattan Project in WWII which led to the atomic bomb. It was a big explosion...in this case, there's not going to be a big explosion...there's going to be a drop off in violence and targeted killing of people who are the enemy leaders. And if you look at the chart, it's a ski slope.....right down....in a matter of months; cutting the violence in half. This isn't gonna happen with a bunch of joint security stations or the surge. This..these top secret operations which some day in history will be described to people's amazement.

King: When are we going to learn about it?

Woodward: I don't know. That's up to others. I sat with a four star general and described what I knew about this...I've rarely seen the blood actually drain from somebody's face...but it did in this case. He said, 'You just cannot write about this'. And, uh, I see why...and, uh, but it's a factor in all of this, uh, it's a wonderful example of American ingenuity solving a problem in war...as we often have.

King: And it's being used.....right now...

Woodward: Uh..uh...eb..eh.. It certainly is.

This interview seemed a bit more pointed in his responses anyway. It would be interesting to get someone else's take on it.

Does anyone remember that interesting new (and rather freaky) weapon that was shown about a year or so ago, that could be used from quite a distance, and either just shock people, or put them down on the spot? I wonder if this is something along the lines of what he is eluding to. I don't mean necessarily this particular weapon...but something similar that the military is keeping under wraps....

You know, you make me feel like I finally found someone ELSE who thinks spouses, kids and neighbors are being taken over by pods. For God's sake, DON"T GO TO SLEEP!




But seriously, the national consciousness seems to go no further back than a couple of weeks. Dems, Republicans, all of 'em. The media has many, many faults, but I blame the lazy-assed people.

I was just reading between Woodward's lines. That's what I meant.

~~~~~~~~~~~~



Whatever.


Yeah, why aren't Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest in prison or standing at the Hague?

My impression is that Woodward has been referring to programs and tactics, not weaponry. Things like having access to communications - not only those of the "enemy" but also throughout Maliki's administration and the virtually wholly corrupt Interior Ministry.

Programs like killing figureheads, blackmailing middle management, and so forth are also mixed in.

Word of new weaponry DOES leak out when it's used. There isn't a reporter in Iraq whose ears wouldn't perk up with (just blue sky talk speculating here) word of fatalities that involve no visible injury, or unusual injuries aside from bombs and firearms. Families talk to each other, and residents talks to reporters - and plenty of reporters are actually stringers, locals who have become reporters.

I am under the impression from what Woodward HAS been saying that they have a much better fix on who is aligned with whom, who is a double or triple agent for whom, who is raping thousands or millions of dollars from the system, who is planning what activities, and who was involved in which bombings, and so forth. Not that they're all knowing, but they're way ahead of where they were.

Woodward hasn't alluded to any special weapons technology, but to information and detail on a scale not previously seen before.

And THAT's the sort of information that military folk dread getting out. Remember when the Senator (Was it Spector?) boasted back in 2003 that Bin Laden was being tracked by his cell phone, and the military establishment flipped out, because it simply taught Bil laden to toss his phones? I think this is the same sort of thing, where they are paranoid that any word leaking on how they're doing it would force those being monitored to simply drop their current practices and take up yet another new system.

Re-reading that, I worry is sounds like I'm gung-ho and supportive of all that, so I hasten to add we shouldn't be there in the first place. And I suspect they're talking about shit I'd join others here in denouncing if we knew details. But from everything I've read thus far and heard Woodward say, I believe those are the new programs he's talking about. It's not a new way to kill people, but instead a new way to select the people to be killed, or bribed, or strong-armed, or sucked up to.

Good question. I am dumbfounded why people aren't in the streets with all that has come to pass.

Nonetheless, I found it very interesting that Woodward was crediting this particular special ops killing strategy, not the surge, for the quell in violence.

Of course, lining their pockets with Benjamins doesn't hurt either.

Your explanation seems perfectly rational. I just have a hard time getting past the 'Manhattan Project' comparison... and this:

'these top secret operations which some day in history will be described to people's amazement'

Somehow I don't think that people would be so amazed by new CIA type fingering methods.

Yup .... I thought that was the main revelation - still "bush-it-ing" US ... and no further backup plan ...

Tells us, the generals' on the ground, are telling him to stay .... yet it is really the NEO-con-MEN in the American Enterprise Institute - the hegemonist from the now defunked PNAC and their corporate sponsors - that told him to escalate and calll it a "SURGE".


When Murtha raised his legitimate concerns and very accurate anology to Vietnam; Nixon's false campaign pledge - secret plan to end the Vietnam War.
As in Vietnam the administration was decieving US - Nixon had no plan and caused twice as many deaths before we inevitablily withdrew.
Murtha was right and twice as many death and injuries have happend since his revelation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Murtha#R...orces_from_Iraq

Iraqi study group said begin a phased withdrawl ...

Bush does the opposite - hegemony not accomplished - did not have oil contracts.

Accepting the "surge is working" mantra seems really dangerous. In the face of the facts that Maliki's army invaded Basra after the British pulled out, Iran brokered a cease-fire and the Sunni Awakening began close to two years before it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...30/wiraq130.xml

That the surge had little to do with it.

Justifying it's sucess by fewer deaths is ludicrous and continuing Admin. distraction from the overall illegality and stupidity of every facit of this "quagmire" - [to use the Cheney description].
http://icasualties.org/oif/

No plan going in, no plan now !

The Iraqis have been taking charge militarily - even before the escalation - 2 years before it in Anbar.
There is no direct causal relationship, just coincidental to the Iraqis involvement.

Murtha was right .... all else is corporate and partisan posturing. At the unecessary expense of 2000+ more American dead and 10,000+ more injuries; unaccounted for Iraqis .... and bankrupting or country.


Seems the way to end it is to encourage American Enterprise Institute to send more troops - then he will withdraw them !

So what I wonder is why did he wait to report it in a book that he will make money on? Why didn't he report this sooner?

Glad I could help.



Thanks for the transcript. I have a really hard time believing Woodward.

Why wouldn't the military and Bush Administration be shouting from the roof tops about this secret weapon? I would think they could get a lot out political mileage out of it.

This whole thing is strange!

You are welcome. Gotta love digital back up. I don't think I could have a teevee without it

You are right...it is strange. I caught Michael Ware talking about it, and he was rather dismissive of it. He basically said that whatever this new technology is, great. As he sees it, the reduction in violence has much more to do with the 100,000 insurgents we put on the payroll, ethnic separation in neighborhoods (12 ft walls), the Awakening, and the deal with Muqtada al-Sadr.

I believe he used the phrase 'that's rich'... dripping with a bit of sarcasm, in relation to Woodward's assertion. I tend to put a great deal of stock into what Ware says. In fact, if there is one journalist who I would turn to for facts on the ground in Iraq... it would be him.

I don't.

Just a whore ....
backed Bush in the beginning [Bush at War (2002)],
then seemed to be more objective in susequent books
[Plan of Attack (2004) ,State of Denial and Bush at War, Part (2006)].
...

is an assistant managing editor of The Washington Post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Woodward

But has not adequately held his feet to the fire - contiuously -unless he can make mega-bucks !

Leak of CIA data angers officials
Sen. Hatch denies revealing secrets
...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...0,5761343.story

Denied it but was on tape telling the whole F_____ world .

Right after 9/11 2001 - Whitehouse used it to take "top secret" access away from most of Congress ...."
how is that working out ... could not read intelligence reports on Iraq - had to rely on edited and redacted copies from the Admin.