Friday, March 12, 2010 - 12:25 PM

Here's the story in which Maj. Gen. Tony Cucolo, the U.S. commander for northern Iraq, discusses the need to keep a combat brigade up there beyond President Obama's August deadline to get all combat troops out of Iraq. As reported here about two weeks ago, I might add.
What say you now, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell?
discretion.
Yeah, well, I liked the SOFA better over by the door...
I'd say, once again, discretion and a refresher on the concept of chain of command is needed.
Is this guy on routing for policy statements by his Commander in Chief?
-Their's not to make reply,
(Officers execute orders not question them)
-Their's not to reason why,
(Officers need to do the job at hand not the one they would prefer)
-Their's but to do and die:
(Officers can resign their commissions and run for office)
-Into the valley of Death
(Officers might find that politics in its own way is as deadly as the battlefield)
The general said he only wanted about 800 troops to stay past the deadline and those would mostly act as trainers or be part of joint patrols. That's nowhere near the tens of thousands that Ricks has talked about.
Plus the joint U.S.-Iraqi-peshmerga patrols that just started in Ninewa where the general is based have run into a lot of problems recently. See:
http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2010/03/us-iraqi-peshmerga-joint-patrols-get.html
The joint patrols can maintain the status quo, but they won't help resolve the deep division within the province that developed after the 2009 election. There's basically two independent administration's in Ninewa now, one run by the provincial council that won in 2009 and won by the Kurds.
"My guess: 28,895. Not "combat" troops, of course!" on how many troops he thought would stay in Iraq past the withdrawal deadline.
Jwing, you are confusing two things
One issue is how many troops will stay past the deadline, and what sort. That is what this item is about.
Another issue is how many troops will be there several years from now. That is what my estimate was about.
Thanks,
Tom
did MG Cucolo really discuss "the need to keep a combat brigade up there beyond President Obama's August deadline to get all combat troops out of Iraq"
or
did he discuss a series of what ifs and possible COAs involving FAR LESS than a BDE, before making a series of contradictory statements.
what's your point in this Tom? -- other than Morrell hurt your feelings because he won't confirm your scoop. This is the blogosphere so you can get away with some liberties in the post -- but citing this story on Cucolo is thin gruel to fit your favored narrative.
Pitiful work sir.
He should be fired. We're hearing way too much from active duty officers about their innermost thoughts about national policy and it's got to stop.
Do we care about what he says? No. This guy is a major general. Maybe Ricks and other civilians think that's a big deal, but the fact is he's just another cog in the wheel, just another dude with an opinion. Unfortunately, because Ricks and others don't know guys like this aren't that important, their opinions are going to get a lot of play in the public sphere.
Generals got comfortable with shooting their mouths off under the last president. Bush tolerated it because he either didn't know any better or—more likely—because what they said supported his world view, which has, unfortunately for him and his place in history, been pretty much exposed for the fantasy that it was.
The unfortunate reality is that far too many generals have a crude and simplistic view of history and of geopolitics, along with an exaggerated sense of their own importance. Even more unfortunately, too many people find their opinions important. President Obama needs to set the record straight by telling the American people where generals fit into the grand scheme of things by firing some of them. This loose cannon would be a good start.
The SECDEF has clearly stated several times that if there is significant changes to the security structure in country that the US has drawn up contingencies that may alter the President's stated policy. He's made those statements in press and to the Congress.
Even through your wacko leftist goggles you should be able to read Cucolo's quotes (not the added analysis and filler added by the reporter which make them seem more insubordinate) and see they are in line with such contingency planning.
I'm not sure this Cucolo is a decent commander and all that smart for even going on record with this issue --- but he's a good distance from Doug MacArthur. Our republic and civil military relations are not so frail that they are endangered by a general talking about what ifs....if you think they are, I suggest you try a stint in Venezuela and compare.
SecDef is in the policy chain. Field flag officers are in the operational chain. They do talk policy issues in private, but the flags who pontificate to the press about policy changes in advance of these changes are off the reservation.
This ain't rocket science. Hey, I live right next to the Cape and worked there for years: even rocket science ain't rocket science. But this really isn't rocket science: Cucolo's seemingly innocuous comment puts him at odds with his Commander in Chief and he should be called on it.
RD, your right it is not rocket science its actually very simple it's called insubordination.
So Venezuela is the standard you have selected that we should use to judge the propriety of the public utterances of an active duty officer?
no simpleton --
I simply noted that by exaggerating the threat of Cucolo's comments to insubordination to the president, that some of you are following the well worn path that Chavez takes with his officer corps.
Well my rude friend, this simpleton can see an effort by a serving officer to less than subtly undermine a ‘political policy’ prerogative of a pay grade substantially higher than his own. It is a big deal when an officer, particularly serving in theater, demonstrates such confusion as to his position in the chain of command. Cucolo’s free to engage privately in any political discourse he may desire but not for public consumption. Personally, I would terminate his command and place him on ice for a spell; it would be a good instruction for the rest.
Concerning Mac Arthur gentleman- he was wrong in his assessment of China and thousands of GI's died. Or was frozen Chosen a strategic plan? We(civilian non-experts )decided which president we wanted and which policy we wanted in Iraq. We the people are the ultimate sovereign in america, not the press or the generals,. It is also our sons and daughters who hump the rucks and take the pain which we their parents share and who tell us what they see and experience-it is their voice we hear when we decide issues at the polls. Yes my eldest is one of them and has been for seven years now.Bottom line? You follow our direction via the elected authority or our shoe leather in your Mark-1 seat as you fly out the door.
Gents,
I take just about any report as suspect. The Army teaches that much "the first report is always wrong." Thus goes this 'interview.' I don't know what MG Cucolo said, I read it as a little more innocuous than most of you do. Similar to Odierno he seems to say [my paraphrase] "Whatever is required of us, we have a plan to fuflill it."
Having said all that. I have served with Tony Cucolo and he is one (of 4) of the finest, smartest, and best officers I have ever worked with or for. He's also an enormously caring and conscientous guy, which is why I give him the benefit of the doubt over Reporter X from aswataliraq.info (whatever that is).
Qualification: I will say the baby bump thing was perhaps well meaning but ultimately really ludicrous (what were you thinking boss?). I don't know, it has been a long time, maybe he actually reported for the mandatory flag officer lobotomy...but it ain't the Tony Cucs I knew.
(18)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE