Posted on 11/13/2006 1:57:59 PM PST by taylorstreet
There is no one on the Joint Chiefs of Staff who has visited Iraq more often than Gen. Mike Hagee, whose term as Commandant of the United States Marine Corps ends Monday.
Hagee took over the Marine Corps just two months before the invasion of Iraq — and throughout his years as Commandant, he made a point of going there every two months to do a firsthand assessment of the battlefield.
I spoke exclusively with the general about conditions in Iraq. You can listen to an extended portion of that interview here (video).
As Commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force during the lead-up to the war, Hagee was in charge of planning for the Marines' original push to Baghdad. So I asked him about one of the enduring mysteries of the invasion — why there was no real plan for running the country once Saddam Hussein fell from power.
Unfortunately, Hagee's comments only deepen the mystery. He says he was deeply concerned about who would take charge of major Iraqi cities, like Najaf, as the Marines pushed through them on their way to Baghdad.
Hagee says he asked his boss again and again who would take charge of those cities. He wanted to know what the plan was for Phase IV — military terminology for the phase that follows the end of major combat operations. Phase IV is, in other words, what comes after "mission accomplished." Hagee says that he sent his questions up the chain of command, as they say in the military — and never heard back.
Hagee is being succeeded by Gen. James Conway, who has his own history in Iraq. By now, virtually every senior combat arms officer in the Army and the Marines has a history in Iraq. Conway led the Marines into Baghdad and later commanded the first, ill-fated attempt to retake Fallujah from the insurgents.
The way the military is organized, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, as well as all the other service chiefs, does not command any of the troops in the field. That is the job of the so-called "combatant commanders," people like Gen. George Casey in Iraq.
Conway is responsible for recruiting, training and equipping the Marines who go to Iraq or any other battlefield. If the Marines don't have proper body armor or are missing their recruiting goals, that's Conway's problem. If the Marines are unable to suppress the insurgency in al Anbar province, that's Casey's problem. In a war like the one in Iraq, there are more than enough problems to go around.
It's a civil affairs job.
Some one forgot to tell this Democrat Virtual Campaigner the Election is over.
Carefully worded prpoganda. Notice the repeated use of the word "if". He's not saying any of thise situations is real but he sure leads to lead the reader to believe they are.
The article isn't saying that we missed our recruiting goals. It's saying who would be responsible if we didn't. And it would be Conway's problem indeed.
Some one forgot to tell this Democrat Party Virtual Campaigner the Election is over.
Misleading article posted by a troll from du.
It's total GARBAGE!
Any general who would speak "exclusively" with a cBS reporter is pretty unreliable in my view.
Maybe someone with military expertise can chime in,
The Marines are the first forces in generally right? are they even supposed to be concerned at all with what goes on after they have moved on?
In other words, does it even matter if someone told him what was going to happen? did it even concern him really?
The taking of Fallujah by 3rd Marines and, Ibelieve by the Black Watch and 2/7th Cav, was as brilliant a military operation as has been done in the last 1/4 century. Orbat.com points out that given the Russian experience in Grozny we should have sustained hundreds of deaths in the retaking, but we lost about 50 KIA while killing 80 towel heads for every American.
A CBS news article.......Why not just have us divine the truth by studying crap patterns on toilet paper?
I am still waiting on the press to report on the Saddam Hussein sponsored dirty bomb attack that killed 20,000 American Citizens in Times Square on New Years Eve 2005.... Oh thats right George W. Bush connected the dots... He learned the lessons on 911. He imagined the threat, He saw Saddam as a Grave and serious National Security Threat. He tried and succeeded unlike his waggy fingered predecessor who admittedly "Tried but failed". There was a plan and it was being implemented until the Democrats told the terrorists and the Saddamists that if they just keep killing Americans they would win... and well you guessed it we are heading down that path as we speak...
Some one forgot to tell this Democrat Virtual Campaigner the Election is over.
______
Well, since the Dims have no solutions, the MSM has to make it out to be such a big Bush mess, they can't fix it.
Second...the election is never over.
Not so...Rumsfeld was deeply suspicious of the goings-on at State..to the point he reviewed former Gen.Jay Garner's
personnel list for post-Saddam planning and tried to weed out those he thought had questionable leanings.The problem with the post-Saddam planning was the bureaucratic infighting..to the point it was put on the back-burner till the invasion was weeks away...and then according to Chalabi we'd be welcomed as liberators with flowers and kisses...so who needs Phase IV? Garner has gone on record saying he was told by Rumsfeld's people to start planning on a drawdown to 30,000 troops by Aug.'03.
Iran had a better PhaseIV than we did.
If you watch the video only it is great...
The reporter is constantly trying to bait the general with questions that will produce a negative answer... he even tried putting words in the General's mouth at one point. BUT... the General was very poised and thoughtful AND OWNED that fool reporter.
After watching the video I only came away with more admiration for our forces and those running them. CBS tried hard to produce a "we are failing" piece of fluff AND FAILED... story over.
You still haven't responded to the question of "who" they are who are 100%ers. I posted this to you yesterday and you still haven't answered. You are fast being relegated to the used-blowhard lot. Either answer the question or be quiet. We productive people don't have time to move around correcting all your false assertions. Here is what you wrote:
You all screamed "100% or nothing".
I responded:
Can you cite one post where anyone, anywhere said "100% or nothing?"
No, you cannot. But I'm willing to wager no one on here will call you a liar. Why? Because you and some of the other Three-Monkey Republicans are really foaming at the mouth. Seriously. Get some control. It's starting to look like a mental problem, your lashing out at everyone who disagrees, mischaracterizing their points. Perhaps a self-imposed timeout might allow you to regain your dignity and whatever credibility you might possess.
You still here. Given how hard you worked to elect Democrats for the last 3 years I expected you to be partying with your new best buddies.
Want to help the Conservative Movement? Go join the Democrat Party and stab them in the back like you been doing us for the last 3 years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.