About Face
Major General John Batiste, long touted by the anti-war left as a critic of the war in Iraq (he was) has abruptly switched sides, quit the anti-war Vote Vets group and has joined with Pete Hegseth and Vets for Freedom. An op-ed piece in the Washington Post co-authored by the two men calls for an end to the political posturing in Washington.
Congress has been entangled in a war-funding debate that pits war "supporters" against antiwar "defeatists." With all sides seemingly entrenched, a stalemate looms. The Pentagon, meanwhile, will soon begin stripping money from its training budget to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Our military men and women deserve better than partisan politics; they deserve honest assessments of our nation's performance in fighting the Long War.
We are veterans of the Iraq war with vastly different experiences. Both of us commanded troops in Iraq. We, too, held seemingly entrenched, and incompatible, views upon our return. One of us spoke out against mismanagement of the war — failed leadership, lack of strategy and misdirection. The other championed the cause of successfully completing our mission.
Our perspectives were different, yet not as stark as the "outspoken general" and "stay-the-course supporter" labels we received. Such labels are oversimplified and inaccurate, and we are united behind a greater purpose.
Batiste was outspoken, but according to a few items I posted about at the time, his message was never quite what the far left thought it was. He called the Democrat's efforts to force a withdrawal, "Terribly naive" back in November of last year. It's nice that he finally acknowledged that the situation has turned around and is encouraging the politicians to stop the nonsense.
Michael Goldfarb over at the Worldwide Standard (who gets the H/T on this one) wonders if the left will now turn on Batiste:
The antiwar movement has lost one of its most powerful voices today, and it will be interesting to see whether they turn on one of their own, or come around to the view, supported by a preponderance of evidence, that the surge is working.
Well, you know they can't do the latter. They are emotionally invested in forcing a defeat. So its off to the attack! (Alternatively, they may simply ignore Batiste and pretend he never was with them before he was against them.)
By Snooper, December 8, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
OUTSTANDING!!
By Mwalimu Daudi, December 8, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
I think that we will see more of this in the months ahead.
By Maggie, December 9, 2007 @ 9:45 am
I can honestly say that I have supported this war (and A-stan) from the very beginning(s) … Even through the bloody, ugly and toughest of times …
NOT being of the military myself, I found it my civilian duty to trust that our military would stay committed to the mission(s), stick through the tough times, and never take their eye off the goal post ahead. And all they asked of us was support and patience enough to let them “do their job” …
A damn pity some people failed ‘them’ … most especially in the government.
By Quilly Mammoth, December 9, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
To put this in context Batiste, and scores of generals and colonels, bitterly opposed the reduction of the Legacy Force to make way for the Stryker Brigades (and their new brigade structure) that people like Rummie saw as the future. The early slow efforts in the war, after the successful end of major combat, seemed to justify their position.
The Legacy Force are the heavy infantry and tank formations that were the units which drove through the Iraqis like the proverbial hot knife. Batiste’s answer was to =pour in twice the amount of troops and _subdue_ the populace. I honestly don’t think he ever understood how politically impossible it would have been to mobilize _all_ of our National Guard Separate Brigades to do that.
And I don’t think it would have worked.
We always needed a Civil Affairs approach that required a safe environment. That’s what Petraeus argued for…and eventually got.
By Maggie, December 10, 2007 @ 9:00 am
QM -
Yes, I see what you are saying and I must, in my limited knowledge of things war/military, agree.
In today’s world we could not just go in there and level the place, the people be damned so we pound them into dust (as we did in WWII) … Not in the PC world, and in a world with a vampire news media that lives to put blood on display … especially blood drawn by American forces, combate enemy or innocent civilians … doesn’t matter. If it bleeds and we did it it is/was wrong.
Rummy knew he was straddling the art of war from mid/late 20th century and the modern art of war rife with politics at home and abroad in the beginning of the 21st century that will possibly take us through most of this new century. With an undefined and unrecognizable enemy our forces have to move quicker and more stealthily (if that makes sense). Our forces have to take “lean mean fighting machine” to a new level.
For all his successes and , his perceived missteps, mistakes, short comings, Rummy had/did a job no one in their right mind would have wanted to do. And I would state that he did the best he could … As the Iraq War progressed it morphed into other challenges, styles, problems. And while I hated to see Rummy go, especially having the certain people who could not possibly appreciate what he did spitting and pissing on him, I do agree he had done all he could in this war and someone with new concepts to face the new situations we have created was a right choice. Rummy’s work was done … and if real and honest writers of history are brave enough to write it, they will show Rummy’s successes.