Scapegoat at the Bat

In a true profiles in courage moment, John McCain announces that he'll stand tall against our failed national security policies by raking General George Casey over the coals at the hearings on his forthcoming appointment as Chief of Staff of the United States Army. I have no particular brief for Casey, who obviously did not bring this country fabulous successes in Iraq and who carried more than his share of water for George W. Bush over the years. Nevertheless, this is a raw deal in the extreme.

Highly-ranked career Army officers aren't like you and me and presumably Casey will just stand willingly and let the right scapegoat him in exchange for which he'll serve out his career and retire with little fuss. And if Casey's happy with that well then on some level it's no concern of mine. The larger political game, however, is perfectly clear -- we're supposed to believe that there was nothing wrong with the war except the bungling of the fool Casey and that the Great Leader Petraeus will save us all. It's probably the best play the war's supporters have left, but one did tend to believe that on some level McCain would have more respect for our armed forces and the officers who serve in them than to personally spearhead this sort of tawdry smear.

Comments

Well, I'm not sure what to say except, as a pawn of Bush's Foreign Policy, Casey's fate could have met a much more sinister end.

Posted by A different matt | January 22, 2007 1:29 AM

McCain is desperate to be President. There is nothing he will not say or do to be Prez. And getting shot down does not make him a military expert or a hero.

Posted by merlallen | January 22, 2007 3:04 AM

'While not promising outright to oppose Casey's appointment, he said, "I have hard questions to ask him, and I'm very skeptical about it."'

It's not obvious to me what is objectionable about this. I'm for Congress asking more hard questions of administration officials, military and civilian. Is there something wrong with McCain suggesting that he will decide how to vote after hearing the man?

Posted by David Tomlin | January 22, 2007 4:05 AM

The Weekly Standard article linked to doesn't say "Great Leader Petraeus will save us all", it says to hear what he has to say. This is reasonable. Anyway, most of the article is about dissing H Clinton and not about the generals.

McCain's remarks are political froth in the early stages of the political silly season and Yglesias denouncement of them are likewise political froth. Even politically-motivated opposition doesn't count as a "Smear".

McCain

accused Casey of presiding over "a failed policy" in Iraq.

What, Yglesias disagrees?

Posted by Warren | January 22, 2007 4:48 AM

Uhh, I think Matt meant that The Decider is responsible for the Iraq policy, not the generals who carry it out, and one can hardly blame Gen. Casey for failing in an impossible situation. I do think Matt would have a little more sympathy for Casey if the general made some expression about how doomed the current course in Iraq is rather than absorbing the blame, Powell-like, and allowing the catastrafuck to continue.

Posted by Gabriel | January 22, 2007 5:05 AM

Two points - McCain was in the Navy. Why on earth would he feel any fondness towards the Army brass? They keep losing his lovely little wars.

Second, McCain was an aviator, so he regards anyone other than fellow aviators as knuckle-dragging primitives, and that goes especially for ground troops. In general, aviators should be kept a long, long way away from politics. Donald Rumsfeld. Randy "Duke" Cunningham. George W. Bush. George H.W. Bush. Hafez al-Asad. Tailgunner Joe McCarthy. Reinhard Heydrich. Hermann Goering. B-1 Bob Dornan. Charlie Lindbergh. John (Keating Five) Glenn.

Posted by ajay | January 22, 2007 5:42 AM

Casey, after all, was just doing what Rumsfeld wanted him to do under the constraints Rumsfeld imposed.

Posted by bob h | January 22, 2007 6:43 AM

Actually, there's no way Casey can receive a "raw deal." He deserves whatever repudiation and humiliation comes his way. As Pat Lang observes, confirming Casey "will confirm to the generals and would be generals that it is OK to mislead the Congress of the United States, whitewash the situation to visitors and propagandize the American people on behalf of a political faction's policy." Justice shouldn't be meted out to Casey alone, but a nasty reputation-damaging and/or failed confirmation battle would hardly be unjust in his case.

Posted by Frances | January 22, 2007 7:53 AM

1) mccain really, really, really wants to be prez

2) mccain tied bush's iraq policies around his neck like a porkchop hoping the voters would follow

3) unfortunately for mccain, it appears the voters have awakened

4) "...there must be some way out of here, said the joker to the thief..."

Posted by supersaurus | January 22, 2007 7:55 AM

"It's not obvious to me what is objectionable about this. I'm for Congress asking more hard questions of administration officials, military and civilian. Is there something wrong with McCain suggesting that he will decide how to vote after hearing the man?"

Posted by: David Tomlin

Yes, because McCain has already decided how he's going to vote, and is just playing. Another episode from the anthology of fiction titled 'Straight Talk Express'.

Posted by Barry | January 22, 2007 9:02 AM

Well McCain is about as authentic as the Cracker Barrel, so I'm not sure what anyone would expect of him. However, I'm all in favor of tough questions. McCain's a stopped-clock conservative; maybe this is one of those twice-daily times when he's right about something.

Posted by Jalmari | January 22, 2007 9:20 AM

However, I'm all in favor of tough questions. McCain's a stopped-clock conservative; maybe this is one of those twice-daily times when he's right about something.

And I'm sure many of those tough questions will lay blame at the actual top of the command structure, not merely upon the Cossacks, who work for the Czar. Of course, in order to ask those sorts of tough questions without sounding muffled, McCain will have to remove Bush's genitals from his mouth.

Is there something wrong with McCain suggesting that he will decide how to vote after hearing the man?

Indeed, because General Casey is such a cipher. McCain has never even seen the man before. Who knows anything at all about his record, closed book that it is? Please. This is another announcement that McCain is going to grandstand for the microphones, then do whatever the White House wants. Again. Boy, he sure asked some tough questions before allowing his anti-torture bill to be gutted, didn't he? The only way Casey gets a "No" vote from McCain is if crashing and burning at a confirmation hearing is how the administration wants the lamb sacrificed.

Actually, there's no way Casey can receive a "raw deal." He deserves whatever repudiation and humiliation comes his way.

From faithfully enacting the stupid, destructive military policies of the commander-in-chief, the very policies that McCain has been cheerleading for.

Posted by mds | January 22, 2007 9:34 AM

Matthew is wrong, and McCain is right.

If Casey believed that making progress in Iraq was an impossible task, then he had a responsibility to stand up and say it could not be done. Casey did not do so.

If Casey believe that making progress in Iraq was possible, then, as the person in charge, he is responsible when no progress was made.

Either way, Casey failed.

What does Matthew have against accountability?

Posted by Al | January 22, 2007 9:41 AM

"but one did tend to believe that on some level McCain would have more respect for our armed forces and the officers who serve in them than to personally spearhead this sort of tawdry smear."

Really? Where has one been the past 6 years?

Posted by aleks | January 22, 2007 10:11 AM

If Casey believe that making progress in Iraq was possible, then, as the person in charge, he is responsible when no progress was made.

Classic.

Posted by DivGuy | January 22, 2007 10:30 AM

Re McCain, to paraphrase Joseph Welch the guy just doesn't have any sense of decency left.

Posted by JP | January 22, 2007 10:31 AM

It's sad to think of how many people's careers have been ruined by supporting this President and his policies. Colin Powell is the most obvious example.

Of course, if you DON'T support him and his policies then he gives you the boot with jeering on the sidelines from pundits. Eric Shinseki is the most obvious example of this.

Just sad.

Posted by jf | January 22, 2007 10:39 AM

If he honored his country, then he would help save it from this disaster that bush is subjecting the uS and Iraq to.

What good are these expert's assessments if they are given after the fact?

Why have we allowed the repubs to dictate how true American's should act when it is in the best interest of their own country?

Posted by Diane | January 22, 2007 10:40 AM

actually, matthew is wrong, but mccain is wronger.

i've written this before, but an entire generation of military leadership (starting with colin powell) who supposedly internalized the lessons of vietnam as the most significant experience of their young careers, failed their country and their forces by going along with this little piece of adventurism and not resigning. so i have no sympathy for them.

but john frickin' mccain has had 3 years to notice failure, and has had 3 years to insist on congressional oversight, and has had 3 years to not enable this little adventure, and has had 3 years in which he has supported the Decider. For him to now blame Casey for the failure, rather than for Casey's failure to resign on principle is - while consistent with mccain's actual, rather than reputational, character - bullshit of a bushist variety.

Posted by howard | January 22, 2007 11:05 AM

Petraeus will inevitably fail, and then the right will blame him too.

Posted by Chris M. | January 22, 2007 12:09 PM

McCain may have (and I stress "may") heard something from the Army brass that Casey's not a good candidate for the job. It used to be that the Secretary of the Army nominated a four-star for the job, not the White House, not the SecDef. The political interferrence in this issue should rightly be questioned. And for those of you that say "McCain is a Navy guy," for all his faults, he's still focused on the big picture.

Casey's not the right guy for the Chief of Staff job. He's not representative of the good guys, he's getting this job as a payoff for doing Bush's work. Abizaid should have gotten the Chief's job. All these reasons are rationale for why Casey's nomination should be challenged.

Posted by J. | January 22, 2007 2:35 PM

McCain may have (and I stress "may") heard something from the Army brass that Casey's not a good candidate for the job.

Well, a lot of us have heard from the Army brass that the surge is not a good idea, and yet McCain has already spit on them for that.

He's not representative of the good guys, he's getting this job as a payoff for doing Bush's work.[...]All these reasons are rationale for why Casey's nomination should be challenged.

Yes, but not being representative of the "good guys" and receiving a payoff for doing Bush's work are also descriptive of McCain, and hence poor (or at least hypocritical) reasons for McCain to oppose Casey. Perhaps this nomination should be opposed, and perhaps the Democratic majority will do so. But Senator McCain has no legitimate grounds for complaint at this late date, which is the primary point.

Posted by mds | January 22, 2007 3:06 PM

Following on J's comment - Abizaid took the Centcom job rather than take the CSA position - it's the better job.

Regarding Casey as CSA - reminds me of Westmoreland getting the job after failing in Vietnam - why should somebody get promoted when they failed in the previous job?

Somebody in the White House didn't think this nomination through. Imagine the hearings that the Senate Armed Services Committee will hold on this issue...there were other 4-stars who could have gotten the job (Scott Wallace at TRADOC for starters).

Posted by Mellon | January 22, 2007 3:13 PM

Widening the credibility gap

Criticizing Casey for advocating de-escalation, with escalation already a disaster politically, and set to be proven ineffective in the field, is not going to redound to anyone's discredit but McCain's. He's setting up Casey to be the next Shinseki, and himself Wolfowitz or Rumsfeld. It seems so incredibly stupid of McCain, it makes you wonder whether he knows something we don't about events shortly to occur that will make tough talk of escalation seem bold and prescient, Churchillian, rather than just the foolish and clueless that they now appear. The only thing I can imagine that would do that would be another spectacular attack on Americans, ideally (from their point of view!) on civilians, but Pearl Harbor was an attack on clearly legitimate military targets, and that rallied people around the flag for its "infamy" all the same. The Iranians would seem the best candidates for an ability to do something sufficiently infamous to rescue the escalators, thus we have to wonder if they do not plan to prod Iran into some act of infamy.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | January 22, 2007 9:46 PM

McCain may have (and I stress "may") heard something from the Army brass that Casey's not a good candidate for the job.

True. He may have heard that Casey is a drunk. Or a wifebeater. Or an Iranian agent. Or that he shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die. How the balloon of our imagination soars when we cut loose the hampering ballast of fact!

And for those of you that say "McCain is a Navy guy," for all his faults, he's still focused on the big picture.

Do you have any evidence at all to support this belief?

Posted by ajay | January 23, 2007 5:35 AM

Instead of sending more troops and spending more money on the Iraq War our government needs to be taking more initiative on a promise it made in 2000 with other countries. This promise is known as the Millennium Goals. The first of the eight Millennium Goals is to end global poverty by 2025. According to the Borgen Project, only $60 billion is needed to attain all goals by 2015.

Posted by marie2 | January 23, 2007 12:16 PM