Generals Move to Obstruct Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Orders: Petraeus' Counter-Offensive

[Better Believe It]

February 2, 2009

Petraeus' Counter-Offensive
Generals Move to Obstruct Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Orders
By GARETH PORTER

CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 18 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn't convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama's decision to override Petraeus's recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilizing public opinion against Obama's decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, "Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama."

Please read the complete article at:

http://www.counterpunch.org/porter02022009.html

[Triana]

1. GOOD for Obama....

..this senseless money pit has GOT to stop.

[Subdivisions]

2. What's the penalty for refusing the orders of your

Commander-in-Chief?

[Jack Rabbit]

3. Ask MacArthur about that.

[SoCalNative]

4. Let's hope

it's death by firing squad :P

[atreides1]

8. Article 88 of the UCMJ

Text.

“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Elements.

(1) That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;

(2) That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;

(3) That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and

(4) That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used. Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature, add the following element

(5) That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned.

Explanation.

The official or legislature against whom the words are used must be occupying one of the offices or be one of the legislatures named in Article 88 at the time of the offense. Neither “Congress” nor “legislature” includes its members individually. “Governor” does not include “lieutenant governor.” It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity. If not personally contemptuous, ad-verse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article.

Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not rdinarily be charged. Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article, or the utterance of contemptuous words of this kind in the presence of military subordinates, aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial.

Maximum punishment.

Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.

[Lars39]

14. ***This needs its own thread***

[NeedleCast]

18. Who has refused orders at this point?

He made his pitch to Obama and lost. He might make more pitches (and lose).

Making a recommendation to the CinC and having him say no is not a refusal of orders.

[Still Sensible]

19. I agree, I think someone wants to make it appear that the CIC

and his generals are at odds. The president said all along that he didn't want to just surround himself with people who agree with him. He invites opposing points of view. In that context, there's nothing wrong with the general giving an opposing opinion. It's not like he is taking any actions that are contradicting the President. I for one am glad that President Obama is running his White House this way, instead of the way Bush surrounded himself with sycophants.

Somebody really wants to drive that wedge between Obama and his troops (a favorite republican tactic to use against a democratic president for decades).

[williesgirl]

5. If foot soldiers can't do MySpace etc so they can't talk out against superiors, how can the Pentagon

launch this offensive against their CIC's orders? This is bullshit. Fire them all without pension for insubordination and do it NOW. Get rid of all the Bush leftovers and start anew. rec'd

[FightingIrish]

6. These are the clowns that rose to the top under Bush

Now that we are no longer living under the Bush Doctrine, they should go. Reasonable commanders like Bill Fallon had to leave when he disagreed with the chimp. Why do these asshats get a pass?

[Wiley50]

7. Insubordination! Courtmartial the lot of them

In this case there is a clear chain of command from the Commander In Chief on down

Any attempt to undermine the President's orders is punishable

[muntrv]

9. We can always leave Petraeus and his boys in Iraq to search for WMDs.

:evilgrin:

[Winterblues]

10. Can anyone expect the Military Leaders to see any other solution than a military one?

Obama has to use his own judgment and that of other Civilian Leaders instead of relying so heavily on Military Leaders. It is preordained how they will view the situation. They have to feel relevant, so of course they are going to tell Obama that we must stay and fight..Obama has to be smarter than that or he is no different than the "Torture pResident"

[leftchick]

11. ah, all of the usual Paid Pentagon Propagandists

and Keane is the worst of them. Expect to see him all over the M$M offering 'advice'.


Keane, the Army Vice-Chief of Staff from 1999 to 2003, has ties to a network of active and retired four-star Army generals, and since Obama's Jan. 21 order on the 16-month withdrawal plan, some of the retired four-star generals in that network have begun discussing a campaign to blame Obama's troop withdrawal from Iraq for the ultimate collapse of the political "stability" that they expect to follow U.S. withdrawal, according to a military source familiar with the network's plans.

<snip>

Ever since he began working on the troop surge, Keane has been the central figure manipulating policy in order to keep as many U.S. troops in Iraq as possible. It was Keane who got Vice President Dick Cheney to push for Petraeus as top commander in Iraq in late 2006 when the existing commander, Gen. George W. Casey, did not support the troop surge.

It was Keane who protected Petraeus's interests in ensuring the maximum number of troops in Iraq against the efforts by other military leaders to accelerate troop withdrawal in 2007 and 2008. As Bob Woodward reported in "The War Within", Keane persuaded President George W. Bush to override the concerns of the Joint Chiefs of Staff about the stress of prolonged U.S. occupation of Iraq on the U.S. Army and Marine Corps as well its impact on the worsening situation in Afghanistan.

Bush agreed in September 2007 to guarantee that Petraeus would have as many troops as he needed for as long as wanted, according to Woodward's account.

Keane had also prevailed on Gates in April 2008 to make Petraeus the new commander of CENTCOM. Keane argued that keeping Petraeus in the field was the best insurance against a Democratic administration reversing the Bush policy toward Iraq.

[seafan]

12. Gareth Porter warned of this in December.

Gareth Porter: US military 'to defy' Iraqi pact, December 20, 2008


From today:

Generals Move to Obstruct Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Orders, February 2, 2009



There are many individuals still in positions of power who are steeped in BushCheneyThink, who are trying to tie Obama's hands.



They must be removed and replaced, Mr. President.

[Kolesar]

20. "a long-term residual presence" of as many as 40,000 US troops in Iraq

We have to get the large-scale-war-fighting troops out of there first. Then we can see how and when we pull out the last 40,000

[wroberts189]

13. Time to remove a star or two from Betraeus.

start setting an example ..just like junior did

[hootinholler]

15. How apropos!

That would hurt more than simply firing him. It would hurt his retirement income as well.

-Hoot

[Kolesar]

16. dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4961969

[blueclown]

17. Arrest them all and try them for treason.

[bottomtheweaver]

27. He just might have to.

These guys don't give up easily. Too much money behind them. They haven't taken no for an answer in 35 years, 45 if you don't count Nixon calling it quits in Vietnam.

[backscatter712]

21. Obama's pretty much telling Betray-Us "Do it, or I'll replace you with someone who will."

Orders are not optional!

[jtrockville]

22. Isn't that pretty much how Petraeus got the position in the first place?

Bush kept firing Generals who told him things he didn't want to hear. Petraeus was willing to tell Bush what he wanted to hear. Maybe Patraeus believed his own lies? And now he can't tell a good plan from a bad one?

Frankly, I think we'd be better off replacing the Generals in charge. They're nothing but Bush's "yes men".

[bottomtheweaver]

24. Betrayus takes orders from the shadow MIC.

He needs to be relieved of his command immediately. Ditto Gates. Dumb decision to rehire him in the first place, but he did it and now he's stuck with replacing him. But that's what we elected him to do.

[bottomtheweaver]

23. Going public with a coordinated campaign to contravene the President's express wishes?

Treason. We got your back on this Barack; now do what we elected you to do. DO NOT CAVE. Root out the cancer, every trace. They'll destroy you otherwise.

[Radical Activist]

25. So that's what the superbowl coin toss was about.

I thought it was the usual militarism that goes along with football.

[bottomtheweaver]

26. They never miss a trick.

And if Obama doesn't squash this it's going to squash him, Bay of Pigs style.

[Horse with no Name]

28. Wasn't there an issue at least once before in history

I seem to recall a couple of Kennedy's and the Joint Chiefs getting their panties in wads...
and look what happened to them....:scared:

[bottomtheweaver]

29. Yes, and coincidentally it was happening a lot in South America at the same time

and backed by the same cabal. The thing is, the guys who play ball with the CIA-MIC don't do any better than the guys who tell them to fack off; they just live a longer before they get the Saddam-Nixon-LBJ treatment.

[ima_sinnic]

30. and whose bright idea was it to keep any bush boot-lickers at all?

this "bipartisan" thing is working out so well . . .

[cynatnite]

31. I see Counterpunch is still doing it's 'sources say' schtick n/t

[DCKit]

32. Only because "sources" is far more credible than "some people". n/t

[DearAbby]

33. Then there are

the sources "INSIDE the white house"who are more credible than "sources' and 'some people"

[bottomtheweaver]

34. It's from Inter Press Service, also posted on Huffpo, 1555 comments so far.

Generals Seek To Reverse Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Decision

Inter Press Service | Gareth Porter | February 2, 2009 09:26 AM

Comments 1555

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/02/generals-seek-to-reverse_n_163070.html
..........

I think people are taking this very seriously.

[bottomtheweaver]

35. Petraeus versus the President?

Interview with author Gareth Porter on this story
TheRealNews, February 03, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojesepMW6lM&eurl=http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45640

[47of74]

36. What should be done...

Obama should tell these generals that he expects to have their resignations on his desk by the following morning. Anyone who refuses to resign is then court martialed and if found guilty stripped of rank and pay and confined to a military prison.

[orleans]

37. why won't obama just get rid of these assholes? n/t