
“Commander Guy” vs. Reality
First, Commander Guy:
“That didn’t make any sense to me, to impose the will of politicians over the recommendations of our military commanders. . . .
we ought to rely upon our military commanders . . . to give us advice. . . .
And as you know, my position is clear — I‘m a commander guy.” George Bush, May 3, 2007
Now, Reality:
Here is the account of Secretary of the Army General Thomas White about what happened to General Shinseki when he answered Congressional Committee questions about Iraq:
The working assumptions were that the Iraqi people would behave themselves. There will be a few dead-enders and former Baathists that will have to be dealt with, but by and large, they assumed away the problem. … Now, mind you, Gen. Rick Shinseki was the only guy in the whole senior structure who had actually had hands-on, on-the-ground experience in running a stabilization force. In his case, it was Bosnia. So you would think that his views on the subject would have carried some weight, and unfortunately, they did not.
Wolfowitz says to a congressional committee that he can’t conceive of a situation where the forces required for the stabilization phase would be greater than the forces required for the military operation. All of us in the Army felt just the opposite, that there was a long history of that being absolutely true; that the defeat of the Iraqi military would be a relatively straightforward operation of fairly short duration for all the reasons Doug Macgregor had to say. That was all true. … But the securing of the peace and the security of a country of 25 million people spread out over an enormous geographic area would be a tremendous challenge that would take a lot of people, a lot of labor, to be done right. And nobody wanted to hear that. And we are dealing with the consequences of that to this day.
What happens to Gen. Shinskei when he is called to testify before Congress, and tells the truth? First the question, then the answer:
When Gen. Shinseki testifies, he’s uncomfortable answering the question, “What’s the number? How many do we need?” He doesn’t want to answer it, and then he kind of does a math problem, and then he answers it. I think it’s two days later Wolfowitz comes in.
Oh, yeah. First of all, it’s the Senate Armed Services Committee, and it’s Sen. Carl Levin. And Levin wants a number, which is not an unreasonable thing for Sen. Levin to be asking for — “What’s going to happen when the war’s over? How many people?” — right? That’s a reasonable question to ask.
And so Shinseki tells him, “Maybe as many as 200,000,” or some words to that effect. But the number 200,000 was out there. I thought that was perfectly reasonable. So the next morning, I get a call from Wolfowitz, who is upset that Shinseki would give this number. And I forget exactly what I said, but I said: “Well, he’s an expert. He was asked. He has a fundamental responsibility to answer the questions and offer his professional opinion, which he did. And there was some basis to the opinion because he is a relative expert on the subject .”… They go public shortly thereafter to discredit Shinseki. And [Wolfowitz] says “wildly off the mark,” and he gives this little speech about he “couldn’t conceive of how you would have a case where it takes more people to secure the peace than it does to win the war.” Well, you can look over the past 50 years in stability operations, and it’s quite clear that that’s precisely how the equation normally comes out, that Shinseki has a basis for this view. And Rumsfeld says something about it as well at the time.
So they discredit Shinseki. Then a week later, I get in front of the same committee. I see Sen. Levin before the hearing starts, and he says, “I’m going to ask you the same question.” I said: “Good. You’re going to get the same answer.”
At that point, Shinseki and White are not on the team, right? We don’t get it. We don’t understand this thing, and we are not on the team. And therefore, actions are going to be taken.
What then happens to General White?
And on the 26th of April, I was called in late on a Friday afternoon and told by Rumsfeld, with Wolfowitz standing there, that I was going to be replaced. And that was it. …
He’s a “commander guy,” all right, as long as those commanders say exactly what he wants to hear, and nothing else.



[...] Commander Guy continues to support commanders — well, sort of — American troops continue to get killed off by his “surge” plan: Eight American [...]
[...] is going to continue to be a beard for “Commander Guy” Bush on Iraq, pure and simple. You can make a comment below or link a trackback from your [...]
[...] guess is that this will severely test Bush’s putative commitment to be a “Commander Guy” and listen to his generals rather than have politicians make military decisions. In the [...]
[...] issued the edict that it is “Commanders on the Ground,” that he was a so-called “Commander Guy” whose decisions would supposedly no longer be based on Neocons, Chalabis, and other frauds [...]
[...] Perhaps understandable, given the administration’s eagerness to sweep General Taguba under the rug, along with all the implications and consequences of Bush’s own condoning and implementation of torture regimes in its overseas prisons and secret Gulags. Moreover, Bush is known for cashiering officers who fail to rubber stamp poor bad decision-making, or implement his flawed plans. Just ask General Shinseki. [...]