Pace out
What's more important? Some old guy being pushed out of the Military, or some vapid heiress in trouble with the law?
The head of the Joint Chiefs just rolled by .. but General Peter Pace and his replacement seem to be inconsequential .. CNN/Fox apparently think that Paris Hilton's hearing is the bigger story ever .. one that REALLY affects all of our lives.
So a lot of us almost missed this --> Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of our military, will be stepping down. He's not going to re-nominate him.
If all goes according to plan, Pace will be replaced by Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chief of NAVAL operations, when the former leaves office on September 30. Vice Chairman Adm. Edmund P. Giambastiani Jr., will also be replaced.
Gates's press conference and statement were unusual because the defense secretary gave no good reason about letting Pace go. No excuses about "spending time with his family."
Pace will be the first Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff not to be renominated for a second term since the military formed the joint chiefs position 21 years ago. And they sure did like him while he spooned with Rummy.
From nytimes.com: "Gates said he intended to re-nominate Pace and Giambastiani but after consulting with senators of both parties came to the conclusions "that because General Pace has served as chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the last six years, the focus of his confirmation process would have been on the past rather than the future."
He said the confirmation process would have the possibility of being quite contentious. "I am no stranger to contentious confirmations, and I do not shrink from them," Gates said. "However, I have decided at this moment in our history, the nation, our men and women in uniform, and General Pace himself would not be well-served by a divisive ordeal in selecting the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."[..]
Let's see .. in the last few months we've already seen the departure of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Hadley, Casey, Abizaid, and Zalmay Khalilzad .. and Pace is now the latest to go.
Bush probably likes turnover because it gives him a reason to be optimistic. Petraeus is in charge, so now we'll start winning. Gates is in charge, so now we'll start winning. War Czar Lute is in charge, so now we'll start winning. Pace's replacement is in charge, so now we'll start winning.....
"A divisive ordeal" huh? I'll show him a divisive ordeal -- America is divided on the further prosecution of this war by something like 72 percent AGAINST to 28 percent FOR.
Also, "past rather than future" sounds like they're worried that Pace's reconfirmation hearings will turn into a hearing on Iraq. The White House probably told Gates they wanted to avoid that.
Well, Pace did stick his foot in his mouth about gays in the military, and there was that time he didn't know the number of casualties when they asked him .. and he wrote that love-letter to a judge for Libby.
But I doubt those are the reasons. All the Pentagon and White House will say is the US military "needs a new direction after years of being strained by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan."
So next a NAVY man huh? Wait a minute .. there may be a method to their madness. Could that new direction be straight to the Straits of Hormuz?
Because it's interesting that both the combatant commander for US Central Command, William J. Fallon, and the guy chosen to replace Pace, Michael G. Mullen, are Navy admirals.
Navy admirals leading a battle in the sand.
Mullen is a proponent of the 'Long War' theory, "...This war is going to go on for a long time. It's a generational war." He believes the eternal occupation of the ME is a good and necessary thing. So a big middle finger to all of you who thought there was any chance of drawing ourselves out of this impossible mess.
Scuttlebutt sez that Fallon is dovish on Iran .. so who is surprised that our military's two highest profile jobs will soon be held by guys who know a thing or two about protecting sea lanes such as .. the Straits of Hormuz.
Hello? Am I the only one worried about this shift from a 'land war' focus to that of a 'sea-based' operation? An air war fought from carriers with sea-launched missiles?
The Navy has to keep the shipping lanes open to assure the continued flow of oil to the Western world.
It always comes back to the oil. Our kids' lives soak into the bloody sand every day, not to bring democracy to Arab tribes like they told us, but to keep our oil teat open.
