http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3260752&page=1

Washington insiders and military experts were caught by surprise today with the announcement that Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, would be let go after President Bush had planned to nominate him for another term at the post.

Pace is closely identified with the way the Iraq War has been fought, and his reconfirmation hearing on Capitol Hill promised to be a tough one.

Senate Democrats and Republicans on the Armed Services Committee warned Defense Secretary Robert Gates that reappointing Pace would bring a contentious hearing with a focus on years of failures in Iraq, right around the same time Gen. David Petraeus is scheduled to report back on the progress of the surge strategy.

Gates said while he wanted Pace to continue as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he decided a bruising confirmation battle was not worth it. "The focus of his confirmation process would have been on the past rather than the future," Gates said. "There was the very real prospect the process would be quite contentious."

In May, Gates first alerted the president that his consultations with Congress about the renominating pace were going poorly.

This morning, Bush was informed that the new nominee for his senior military adviser would be Adm. Michael Mullin, the current chief of naval operations.

"I am disappointed that circumstances make this kind of a decision necessary. I wish that that were not the case," Gates said.

Foiled by His Own Politics?

Pace was first appointed vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs in October 2001, and four years later he would become the first Marine named to the top job of chairman of that group.

He was later nicknamed "Perfect Peter" at the Pentagon and was criticized for being a "yes" man to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

"There was no doubt that many folks felt that Gen. Pace was too compliant with the directives of Secretary Rumsfeld and he should have spoken up more forcefully," said Gen. William Nash of the Council on Foreign Relations and an ABC News consultant. "At the same time it's an obligation of the chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff to serve loyally both the defense secretary and the president."

He was also assailed for painting overly rosy pictures of the situation in Iraq.

Just last year Pace insisted, for instance, that sectarian violence had been quelled, and appeared on the Fox News Channel on March 5, 2006, to say, "The Iraqi people, Kurds, Shia, Sunni, walked up to the abyss, took the look in. Didn't like what they saw, have pulled together, have pulled back from violence," Pace said.

Pace was also quite political in a job traditionally removed from politics. He went so far as to write a letter of support for former White House aide "Scooter" Libby who was sentenced to prison this week for his role in the CIA leak case, in hopes he might receive a lighter sentence.

"Obviously the job was not good enough to warrant confirmation for a second tour," Nash added.

Bush issued a paper statement today to say he appreciates Pace's long and distinguished service to the country. But given Bush willingness to fight with Congress over any number of issues his unwillingness to do so for Pace speaks volumes about his confidence in the man, and his desire to revisit the last six years of Iraq policy in a contentious hearing.

---------------------------

Yeah, that's the commander-in-chief I'd want to serve.

Muth's Truths
June 9, 2007



THROWING GEN. PACE UNDER THE TANK

Back in July 2003, President Bush, in response to a question about stepped up attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, famously and defiantly declared, "Bring 'em on!" Oh, how that tune has changed.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates - using the old tactic of releasing controversial news just before the weekend in the hope of minimizing press coverage - announced Friday afternoon that "he will advise President Bush to replace Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (this fall), fearing that a contentious renomination hearing in the Senate would focus too heavily on six years of war."

Apparently, President Bush has accepted the advice.

So let me get this straight, and borrow a famous scene from the movie "Animal House." The Bush administration's old attitude toward mass-murdering tyrants and terrorists around the world has been akin to this: "Hussein. He's a dead man. Bin Laden? Dead. Kim Jung ll? Dead. AHMADINEJAD!!!"

But when it comes to standing up to pasty-faced Harry Reid and the Democrats in the Senate?

"I have decided that at this moment in our history, the nation, our men and women in uniform, and Gen. Pace himself would not be well-served by a divisive ordeal in selecting the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff," said Gates.

What a crock.

Pace was/is eminently qualified to run the nation's joint military operations. Which is not to say Pace's replacement isn't an eminently qualified military professional, as well. He is. But the success or failure of the U.S. effort in Iraq will ultimately be determined by what happens over the next year or so following the "surge." Why change horses midstream?

As CBS News reports, "Pace's departure will put nearly an entirely new slate of leaders and military commanders in charge of the war." Why oust Pace at this critical juncture and bring in a whole new team? It makes no sense.

And it's a first-degree insult for Gates to suggest that he's trying to save this Marine general from "a divisive ordeal" before Congress, as though Gen. Pace might not be able handle such a traumatic experience. Get real.

We're talking about a guy with military decorations up the wazoo, including the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, with two oak leaf clusters; Defense Superior Service Medal; the Legion of Merit; Bronze Star Medal with Combat V; the Defense Meritorious Service Medal; Meritorious Service Medal with gold star; Navy Commendation Medal with Combat "V"; Navy Achievement Medal with gold star; and the Combat Action Ribbon.

I'm pretty sure Gen. Pace didn't earn all those medals for baking cookies.

A lot of us have been losing faith in this administration's ability to wage this war for some time now, fearing that political considerations were taking precedence over military ones. If President "Bring 'em On!" Bush is willing to throw Gen. Pace under the tank for the sole reason of avoiding a political fight with Senate Majority Leader Harry "The War is Lost" Reid and his band of cheese-eating surrender monkeys, then maybe it IS time to bring the troops home immediately.

Semper fi.

General "Sacrificed" to Clear Decks on Iraq
By Suzanne Goldenberg
The Guardian UK

Saturday 09 June 2007

Chairman of joint chiefs of staff to stand down. Senate hearings would have been controversial.

The Bush administration yesterday attempted to wipe the slate clean on the Iraq war and chart a new way forward with the surprise announcement that it was replacing General Peter Pace as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.

The defence chief, Robert Gates, said he had reluctantly decided on the reshuffle - despite his initial support for Gen Pace - to avoid a "divisive ordeal" at the Senate which would have had to approve an extension of the general's term.

"The focus of this confirmation process would have been on the past rather than on the future," Mr Gates told the press conference. "There was a very real prospect that the process would be quite contentious."

He said he had nominated Admiral Mike Mullen, who is currently chief of naval operations, to replace Gen Pace. In another house cleaning move, the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Admiral Edmund Gambastiani, also announced his retirement yesterday.

A career marine, Gen Pace has been at the centre of military decision-making by the Bush administration on Afghanistan and Iraq for the last six years. As vice chairman and then chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, he was a key architect of the 2003 invasion to remove Saddam Hussein, as well as the post-war planning.

The decision not to fight for Gen Pace was seen as a sign of the administration's eagerness to open a new chapter in the Iraq war, and so help rebuild wavering Republican support for the troops increase. Mr Gates denied any doubts about Gen Pace's performance. "I am disappointed that the circumstances make this kind of decision necessary," Mr Gates told reporters. "I wish that were not the case."

The secretary said the political figures he had conferred with were unanimous in their respect for Gen Pace - and unanimous in their feeling that a change in Pentagon leadership was needed.

It was also seen as an extraordinary retreat for an administration which had earlier prided itself on its resolve in pursuing policy matters, as well as loyalty to personnel. Mr Gates told the press conference that conversations in recent weeks with both Republican and Democratic senators had convinced him that a confirmation process would have shone the spotlight on the prosecution of the war.

That spectacle could have proved devastating at a time when the White House is fighting hard to maintain Republican support for additional troops in Iraq. Republican leaders have warned the White House repeatedly that they need to see concrete results from the surge by September if they are to continue to justify their support to a war-weary public.

That task grew even more difficult in recent days as the death toll among US troops serving in Iraq reached a grim milestone of 3,500.

Yesterday's announcement by Mr Gates came on a day of house cleaning at the Pentagon. A military spokesman said that the Pentagon had asked two military judges at Guantánamo to reconsider their decisions to dismiss all charges against two detainees on the grounds that the military tribunals convened by the Bush administration lacked proper jurisdiction to hear the cases.

The detainees, Omar Khadr, a Canadian arrested as a teenager who is accused of lobbing a grenade at an army medic, and Yasser Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni accused of being Osama bin Laden's driver, remained in detention.

It is indeed a sad commentary when a man is described as "eminently qualified to run the nation's joint military operations" and "Sacrificed" when the reason for his leaving is because democrats threatened a "divisive ordeal" in response to him doing his duty.

Democrats are strong on defense? Patooey

I'm a Democrat - so blame me.
I didn't bail on him. I would have given
him respect for his service (as I do you for yours)
in the hearings - but Sec. Gates did it for Bush.
That's how I see it. But then, I've seen this before.

When the presidential policies fail - soldiers are blamed -
and then presidential politics blames the opposition.
It's the pretzel-logic of political patriotism.

He still is who he was, is, and will be. That's the purity
of service, you determine your own history. My bet is
he would not have backed down from a hearing - only Bush
would have...why am I not surprised? Been there - seen that.

I'd fight for him...why didn't Bush?