BAGHDAD — Newly declassified statistics on the frequency of insurgent attacks in Iraq suggest that after major security gains last fall in the wake of an American troop increase, the conflict has drifted into a stalemate, with levels of violence remaining stubbornly constant from November 2007 through early 2008.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/world/middleeast/12iraq.html?_r=1&ex=1362974400&en=c341125788d6c3ae&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin

The Admiral was in charge, after all..!

“…McMaster’s nonpromotion has not been widely reported, yet every officer I spoke with knew about it and had pondered its implications. One colonel, who asked not to be identified because he didn’t want to risk his own ambitions, said: “Everyone studies the brigadier-general promotion list like tarot cards — who makes it, who doesn’t. It communicates what qualities are valued and not valued.”
MB4 on March 12, 2008 at 1:18 AM

Damn fine point[s] MB.

I’ve noted from many of the comments on this page, that there persists a general; lack of knowledge of military history, scope of understanding of military operations and politics and a rather smug attitude of…
Never served…
Never wanted to serve…
And there, but for the grace of God go others and not me…!

Thanks for your service.

I know it makes you feel good,

but it has no other purpose for the rest of us.

Perfect reason why an Admiral should not be in charge of a Combatant Command in a ground war…Let the boys in blue fight the Air Wars, the Navy can have the sea battles and the Soldiers and Marines can run the ground campaigns. The job is too important for OJT…Would you want an Army guy running an air campaign???
Nozzle…

Would you want an Army guy running an air campaign???
Plenty of Navy guys fighting on the ground in Iraq.
Squid Shark…

MARINE: http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/main5/6A9F54EACD3677188525722200698195

SEAL: http://www.navy.mil/moh/mpmurphy/

ARMY: http://www.army.mil/medalofhonor/smith/

MEDAL OF HONOR… winners fightin’ on-the ground…!

Two outta three for the Navy; ain’t too bad…!
Olde soldier sends…HooAaah…!

Perfect reason why an Admiral should not be in charge of a Combatant Command in a ground war…Let the boys in blue fight the Air Wars, the Navy can have the sea battles and the Soldiers and Marines can run the ground campaigns. The job is too important for OJT…Would you want an Army guy running an air campaign???

Nozzle on March 11, 2008 at 8:34 PM

Do you know why 5 out of 7 top inter-service posts are Navy?

That was Bush’s idea.

Do you know why?

I think the worst of Bush’s legacy will have been his failure to recognize the extraordinary extent to which the Clintons partisanized virtually all branches of government, and his subsequent failure to purge not only the military commands but the CIA, DoJ, and virtually every other agency of just such operatives.

Blacklake on March 11, 2008 at 4:38 PM

Saddam did a lot of purging of high ranking military and intelligence officers.

How did that work out for him?

Mmmm…
If I only had a rich wife, for evry yarn Ive spun.
And evry time Ive had to speak while people sat there stunned.
You know, Id catch the next private jet back to the mansion where I
live.
Oh ! lord, Im stuck on stupid again.
Oh ! lord, Im stuck on stupid again.
- CCR Sailor Boy

- CCR Soldier Boy

Less dead weight around the ankles of hope for light at the end of the tunnel for the men and women fighting stuck in Lodi again Iraq.

joewm315 on March 11, 2008 at 4:22 PM

I’ve never been too fond of too many Navy types. The Air Force is unacceptably liberal, but they’re nothing compared to the sailors. While many are very competent, too many sailors (like this less-than-professional admiral, if he did say those things about his Army General Patraeus) are nothing more than double-talking, insubordinate liberals that you can count on to undercut authority at every turn. For loyalty and competence, I’d always turn to the Army and the Marine Corps. They’ve got their liberals, too, but not nearly as many.

Support the Troops.
Support most of the Troops.
Support most of the Troops most of the time.
Support many of the Troops.
Support many of the Troops much of the time.
Support some of the Troops.
Support some of the Troops some of the time.

Allegedly he isn’t a big fan of Petraeus is not as competent nor as strategically brilliant as Gen. Patraeus either….

Branch Rickey on March 11, 2008 at 3:51 PM

Bravo Sierra.

Petraeus is concentrating on tactics in Iraq and has thrown strategy out the window. Not that he has much choice.

The official explanation is that it was the Esquire article that led him to leave — namely, the “misperceptions” that he didn’t see eye to eye with the administration on Iran when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Ahem.

I call your ahem and raise you a double ahem.

Hillary’s having no idea of what Bill was up to is more believable.

And so Fallon, the good cop, may soon be unemployed because he’s doing what a generation of young officers in the U. S. military are now openly complaining that their leaders didn’t do on their behalf in the run-up to the war in Iraq: He’s standing up to the commander in chief, whom he thinks is contemplating a strategically unsound war.

West Point cadets are obligated to stay in the Army for five years after graduating. In a typical year, about a quarter to a third of them decide not to sign on for another term. But last year, when the 905 officers from the class of 2001 had to make their choice to stay or leave, 44 percent quit the Army. It was the service’s highest loss rate in three decades.”

McMaster’s nonpromotion has not been widely reported, yet every officer I spoke with knew about it and had pondered its implications. One colonel, who asked not to be identified because he didn’t want to risk his own ambitions, said: “Everyone studies the brigadier-general promotion list like tarot cards — who makes it, who doesn’t. It communicates what qualities are valued and not valued.”

Allegedly he isn’t a big fan of Petraeus either, so bear that angle in mind too as explanations emerge. Stand by.

Not that many at the Pentagon are big surge till they merge, or surge because they are not merging fans.

Apparently rumors have been swirling around for awhile that Fallon was on his way out. Well, today he resigned and the speculation is that it was over a recent interview he did in Esquire, written by Thomas P.M. Barnett (regarding which Josh noted Fal…

Zorro on March 11, 2008 at 10:48 PM

Just a note, it is the Strait of Hormuz (singular)
Sorry, as a Navigator its a pet peeve :)

…unless you think they will initiate some kind of war (which I think is less than unlikely to happen).

I take them at their word, which is that they have publicly stated hundreds of times that they will wipe Israel off the map. Not to mention “Death to America”. Also, with nukes, they would pressure Saudi and the Gulf states to not sell to the west. They could threaten again to restrict passage thru the Straits of Hormuz. The price of oil will spike they day they detonate their first bomb.

I don’t think a nuclear armed Iran would help the price of oil either. We should do the right thing, disable the program and destabilize the government.

Zorro on March 11, 2008 at 10:20 PM

Why would a nuclear Iran make any difference in the price of oil, unless you think they will initiate some kind of war (which I think is less than unlikely to happen).

Wow, it looks like 100 dollars (and more) for oil is not high enough for you! It looks like our tanking economy is not enough!

mycowardice on March 11, 2008 at 7:49 PM

I don’t think a nuclear armed Iran would help the price of oil either. We should do the right thing, disable the program and destabilize the government.

Iran fought an 8 year war with Iraq to a draw.

The U.S. drove Iraq out of Kuwait in about 6 weeks counting the air campaign. The U.S toppled the Saddam regime in two months.

From accounts Fallon was part of a group that FEARED confronting Iran over control over the Gulf and preferred to surrender to Iran defacto control over the Gulf.

What accounts are those? Given my experience with ADM Fallon, I would doubt he feared confrontation with anyone…

He certainly would not propose backing out of the Gulf, no self-respecting Navy man would.

Aggressive acts by the Iranians which under Reagan resulted in the sinking of the Iranian Navy were left … unresponded to.

Part of that is fear over newer and better anti-ship missiles and newer and better anti-aircraft missiles. The exercise that resulted in the sinking of a carrier group by swarming speedboats. Fallon and a number of officers preferred to surrender to Iran than confront them over who controls the Gulf.

THAT is not a surrender the US can afford and runs counter to policy since FDR. More to the point, it seems unpopular among the Air Force, elements of the Navy. Which don’t like being told to surrender to Iran without a shot fired.

Of course, given 30 years of unchecked Iranian aggression and the belief that the US is soft, expect confrontations in the Gulf, and possibly the sinking of US ships. What then?

Well, we bomb Iran into the stone age, seize their oil fields, and pump them DRY.