WP: Myers Denies Doubts on Afghan War Plans (allowed fighters' escape)

[DeepModem Mom]

Myers Denies Doubts on War Plans for Afghanistan
General: Talks Not 'Second Guessing'
Saturday, October 23, 2004; Page A02


Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers objected yesterday to a characterization that he second-guessed or doubted war plans drawn up by Gen. Tommy R. Franks, then chief of the U.S. Central Command, six days before the United States launched the war in Afghanistan against al Qaeda and the Taliban.

The Washington Post reported yesterday that Myers, in his first days as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, urged Franks to open a southern front in Afghanistan to block al Qaeda and Taliban fighters as they fled Kabul. The article said that Franks did not do so and that many of the enemy fighters escaped unscathed in November 2001....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55526-2004Oct22.html

[teryang]

1. Myers like most airdales doesn't have a clue

...about ground warfare. That's why we're in the mess we're in. That's why they fired Shinseki and passed over the top Army brass to bring in a retiree to be Chief of Staff. This is where the folly of full spectrum dominance and careerists conspiring for political gain meets the reality of soldiers dealing with urban and guerilla combat in that thin envelope on the ground where we all have to live and breathe.

In any case, as Seymour Hersh reported, the core of the hardcore fighters in Afghanistan, (which probably included Osama bin Laden and his merry band) were evacuated out by the Pakistani Air Force with US Air Force complicity. It gets published by Hersh but Rumsfeld claims to know nothing about it.

[saigon68]

2. I agree he is an idiot

And a political stooge who would service the Bush Criminals in any fashion.

[TacticalPeek]

3. And he's got company.

So, surprise: we still do not have a Secretary of the Army. But at least the fools gave up on putting an Air Force Secretary in the job. FUBAR is SOP with these jerks.

http://www.army.mil/leaders/Secarmy/Secarmy.htm



The nomination of Harvey for the Army's top position stung many serving officers who want to see Acting Secretary Les Brownlee fill the position. Brownlee, who has been acting secretary for 16 months, is a highly decorated Vietnam veteran with years of experience working in defense issues on Capitol Hill and is widely respected by members and staff of both parties.

Brownlee, by all accounts an extraordinarily hard worker, served for several years on the staff of Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Warner has provoked the ire of some in the White House and Pentagon for his criticism of the administration's handling of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, the subject of a number of hearings this summer. Some Army officers speculate that the nomination of Harvey is payback for those hearings.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1004/100504kp2.htm




http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0104/012604cdpm2.htm

:shrug:

[teryang]

6. Keeping it in the family, I see

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1004/100504kp2.htm

<The Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday morning will consider the nomination of Francis Harvey to be secretary of the Army. The White House nominated Harvey for the position on Sept. 14. Harvey, a longtime defense industry executive, has no military experience.

Harvey currently serves on the boards of three companies backed by the Carlyle Groups, a private equity firm with ties to influential Republicans, including George H.W. Bush.>

Thanks for the info!

[DinahMoeHum]

4. Myers is what retired Col. David Hackworth calls a "Perfumed Prince"

Hackworth's website "Soldiers For The Truth"
www.sftt.org


:evilfrown:

[w4rma]

5. Noone is going to read a story with a vague generic headline like that one

And it's an *extremely* important story, too. This is one of the reasons that I don't consider the Washington Post (or NY Times, which is worse) as trustworthy. Imho, the WP tries very hard to lead it's readers away from important stories with this tactic, among others.

They cover the important stories in halfhearted ways so that they can say "See we covered that story, we're not biased". But when something like criticism of John Kerry's jacket comes around, they have very specific and detailed headlines (as much as that space allows).

[TacticalPeek]

7. Kick.

:kick: