Greyhawk sent a note a couple of days ago about a post he put up - here's the lead-in from the email:
You should click that link and read his whole post, but I'm going to stick he recap in here, with the 'Hawk's permission:
Later that day, I got an email referencing Greyhawk's post.
So, I thought about it, and sent along a response along these lines:
No, the President would have told Secretary Gates to do it, and probably not gone direct to CENTCOM.
I don't know what happened, any more than Greyhawk does.
Greyhawk just lays the reporting of it out for everybody.
And, not to put too fine a point on it - he *is* the Commander in Chief. He wants to do things like this, he's perfectly within his rights to do so. The authority to do so goes with the job.
I suspect it went something like this - "Get me someone to Afghanistan, STAT." And that message got passed to the Pentagon by LTG Lute, or however President Obama is communicating with the Pentagon on issues like that. I would add that I suspect the Chiefs had some contingencies already lined up, developed in those days after the election, if they hadn't started earlier. Simple due diligence there.
And DoD said, "Who's next in the hopper and closest to ready to go? The Strykers? Okay, ask the commander if he thinks his joes could handle shipping over to Afstan vice Iraq."
Of course he said yes, with whatever caveats. He wasn't going to say "No, my unit absolutely cannot be diverted from what we were training to do." No commander worthy of his green tabs is going to say that. The answer would have been "Sure. Here's the impacts. So, when do we go?"
They said - "Okey-dokey, you're going to Afstan. Have a nice day!" And the negotiations on the details would have been set in motion.
At the same time, they were saying to GEN Odierno - "Hey, what's the impact if we take this Stryker unit from you and send it to Afstan?"
And Odierno said, "Short-term, I can deal. But I'd like someone by "x date" to fill that slot or I'll be hurtin' in the long run."
And they said, "Okey-dokey, we're taking your Stryker now for a unit to be named later. Have a nice day!"
And it was badly reported. And Greyhawk is pointing that out, along with a discussion of the impacts of that sort of thing, which, at least as Greyhawk reads it, the media wasn't all that interested in.
Like I said, President Obama is the CinC. He gets to do stuff like that. We can offer a judgement on how well he's doing in 3.5 years or so. With a little hint in about a year and a half.
Greetings, Greyhawk here.
It's been a while since I've had something this significant to report, but I'm not sure the significance will be obvious to non-milbloggers.
If you take a Brigade sceduled to go to Iraq and schedule it to go to Afghanistan instead, then make headlines for drawing down Iraq and building up Afghanistan, could you pull off substituting another Brigade into the Iraq rotation for the one you diverted without anyone in the media pointing out that your drawdown is a scam, a hoax on the American public?
Of course you can. (Well, you and I can't. And George Bush probably couldn't. But Barack Obama can. After all, "yes we can" is his motto, right?)
And yes he did.
You should click that link and read his whole post, but I'm going to stick he recap in here, with the 'Hawk's permission:
Let's recap the salient points here:
1. In September, 2008, the 5th Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) - after months of preparation - is ordered to Iraq. (One of two SBCTs that were then scheduled to replace the two currently in Iraq)
2. In February, 2009, President Obama announces his Iraq drawdown/Afghanistan surge - the 5th SBCT will be diverted to Afghanistan instead of Iraq.
3. March, 2009, the DoD announces the 4th SBCT will deploy to Iraq this fall, several months ahead of the original schedule replacing the 5th SBCT in the rotation in order to maintain two Stryker Brigades in Iraq.
For the record, I'm in favor of commanders on the ground getting the forces they need to get the job done. I have no doubt that two Stryker Brigades are needed in Iraq, and others in Afghanistan.
I'm deeply concerned when I see troop rotations "adjusted" in what appears to be an effort to fool the American public. But I appreciate that the Obama administration can do that in plain sight, even providing press releases detailing exactly how they're doing it.
I'm even more concerned that those efforts - and the ramifications thereof - are obvious to an American media assumed to be independent of the Executive Branch but apparently unconcerned about reporting its activities. Item two above was headline grabbing/TV news lead story material - item three indicates it was a fraud.
One year ago that would have been a hell of a story, don't you think?
Later that day, I got an email referencing Greyhawk's post.
Just point me in the right direction. I am loaded and ready for bear. I just need a target...
Who is responsible for this decision? Please don't tell me the president reached down into CENTCOM and told them how to direct their BCT deployments. Please...
So, I thought about it, and sent along a response along these lines:
No, the President would have told Secretary Gates to do it, and probably not gone direct to CENTCOM.
I don't know what happened, any more than Greyhawk does.
Greyhawk just lays the reporting of it out for everybody.
And, not to put too fine a point on it - he *is* the Commander in Chief. He wants to do things like this, he's perfectly within his rights to do so. The authority to do so goes with the job.
I suspect it went something like this - "Get me someone to Afghanistan, STAT." And that message got passed to the Pentagon by LTG Lute, or however President Obama is communicating with the Pentagon on issues like that. I would add that I suspect the Chiefs had some contingencies already lined up, developed in those days after the election, if they hadn't started earlier. Simple due diligence there.
And DoD said, "Who's next in the hopper and closest to ready to go? The Strykers? Okay, ask the commander if he thinks his joes could handle shipping over to Afstan vice Iraq."
Of course he said yes, with whatever caveats. He wasn't going to say "No, my unit absolutely cannot be diverted from what we were training to do." No commander worthy of his green tabs is going to say that. The answer would have been "Sure. Here's the impacts. So, when do we go?"
They said - "Okey-dokey, you're going to Afstan. Have a nice day!" And the negotiations on the details would have been set in motion.
At the same time, they were saying to GEN Odierno - "Hey, what's the impact if we take this Stryker unit from you and send it to Afstan?"
And Odierno said, "Short-term, I can deal. But I'd like someone by "x date" to fill that slot or I'll be hurtin' in the long run."
And they said, "Okey-dokey, we're taking your Stryker now for a unit to be named later. Have a nice day!"
And it was badly reported. And Greyhawk is pointing that out, along with a discussion of the impacts of that sort of thing, which, at least as Greyhawk reads it, the media wasn't all that interested in.
Like I said, President Obama is the CinC. He gets to do stuff like that. We can offer a judgement on how well he's doing in 3.5 years or so. With a little hint in about a year and a half.
hoser.
of course, the mil sourcing officer is the one who appears to be the one left holding the bag, but it need not occur if those higher had the intestinal fortitude to damn well ensure that a valid plan with a valid sequencing of valid units with specific capabilities is all lined up.
granted, plans change. deal with it. (but why the need to change the plan just for the sake of changing the plan??)
I've been told that, if brought up, this topic may not be answered by the guest, as it is out of his hands. I understand that, but I still think it warrants an official answer from either the DoD or the Army.
And no, I won't be bringing it up myself (I've completely lost my voice and am operating as a deaf person right now. very interesting... annoying, but interesting), but I personally believe it will come up. We shall see.
Battle skills tend to be transferable from one AO to another with any needful fine adjustments picked up on the job. But the "who to know", map studies, logistics preload, and language study tend to be AO specific.
I suspect that some of the mullahs will speak Arabic, since Arabic is the religious language of islam, but no clue how much of the general population speaks it.
www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp
But, what this is about is disingenuous slight of handing. Another indicator that this current admin has no intention of being forthright or honest about anything it does. Image uber alles. Substance be damned.