03.13.08
What were they thinking (Army Division)?
Just out: the hot new list of general-officer assignments. Who’s getting what, General Casey?
The Army chief of staff announces the assignment of the following officers:
Maj. Gen. Jay W. Hood, commanding general, First Army Division East, Fort Meade, Md., to chief, Office of the Defense Representative, Pakistan.
*Smacks forehead.* Seriously? We’re going to send a former commanding general of the indefinite-detention complex at Guantanamo Bay to Pakistan? A walking symbol of injustice and, rightly or wrongly, disrespect to Islam? Just so we can tick off as many Pakistanis as possible? So we can come one step closer to a Teheran-Embassy-in-1979-style crisis? So we can give a corrupt dictator advice on how to imprison people forever and torture them while we’re at it, just for a change of pace?
Zach said,
13 March 2008 at 1:51 pm
A little harsh here, no, Washington Independent? This guy is a soldier of the United States Army, that means, as Americans, he’s on OUR team. I’m sure he didn’t piss on a Koran, or even choose his assignment in Cuba, he likely did as he was told.
It seems as though this article is imposing upon us some sort of political correctness regarding the feelings of Muslims, and that’s more important than military command decisions whose basis we don’t have the foggiest notion of. This is not news, it just sounds like news, because somebody chose an angle (political correctness) and spun it into a story. We have no facts, we have a blurb, and we’re creating news. This happens all too often.
As intelligent people, all we know is what is presented to us. That means we really don’t know a lot, especially when we rely on extreme right leaning or left leaning sites. The Washington Independent rents space from Media Matters; nuff said I think.
LeisureGuy said,
13 March 2008 at 2:33 pm
Interesting. I think the article is written trying to judge the impact the assignment is likely to have on Pakistan-US relations. Over the past, say, 7 years, the regard in which the US has held has deteriorated seriously—so much so that the State Department actually created an office to try to improve the view in which the US is held. Karen Hughes held that office for a while. In particular, the attempt was to improve relations with Muslim countries.
I’m sure that General Hood probably did not volunteer for service at Guantánamo, and doubtless did his best there. Nevertheless, Guantánamo does represent certain things, well reported in a range of media, including indefinite imprisonment with no charges, unfair “trials” (military commissions, which are tasked to find a guilty penalty or retry until they do), torture, and so on—and the prisoners are predominantly and perhaps exclusively Muslim. Thus the assignment of Gen. Hood to Pakistan seems tone-deaf at best, as did Bush’s unwavering support for General Musharraf.
I have to say that the Washington Independent’s landlord seems relevant.
Zach said,
13 March 2008 at 3:36 pm
I think the point of the article was more along the lines of weaving some facts into a “I can’t believe how stupid the government is” piece, like everyone has to take a turn making that point at this place, earning their keep. Also, they assume that they are more intelligent than the policy makers when they don’t have any facts behind the decision. And we all know what happens when we assume.
Respectfully submitted for your approval!
LeisureGuy said,
13 March 2008 at 4:13 pm
The problem is that the current Administration’s track record, including the track record of decisions made by DoD, do not give one confidence in their judgment. Eventually it’s only natural that people begin to question the wisdom of the current Administration and the course it’s taken. This posting provides an example of something that, on the surface, looks like a bad decision, all things considered. Of course, we don’t know what facts the policy makers had or believed, but we’ve seen MANY results of the decisions of these policy makers. Who would not question when a decision looks bad? I think they have long since forfeited their ability to have us simply trust them. They’ve lost the benefit of the doubt based on the outcomes of their decisions over the past several years. YMMV, of course. A certain percentage (dwindling) do continue to trust the Administration.
Zach said,
13 March 2008 at 5:20 pm
Thanks for cleaning up that double post, I was online with the blackberry on the way home. I don’t trust the administration either, I am not a fan of George Bush or Robert Gates. Some people however make a living out of hating the administration, and in the course of making a living, they need to produce a steady stream of deliverables, and they make news sometimes when none exists. Think Fox News and the need to fill a 24 hour day; some people think they’re leading us to war with Iran just to make news; this is what I’m talking about, this is how I see it. I do agree with all your points, it’s just that my message has nothing to do with the administration, per se.
LeisureGuy said,
13 March 2008 at 5:47 pm
Okay. I do think, though, that in the context of this Administration and recent history, Ackerman isn’t simply trying to fill dead air: he’s making a point about how the impact of an appointment on a wavering ally doesn’t seem to have been considered before making the appointment. In the first months of the Administration, I think we all trusted (or gave the benefit of the doubt to) the Administration’s appointments. But now, after all that’s happened, we can’t. And that’s the context in which Ackerman is writing.
Much of the flak Bush is now enduring is well-earned, it seems to me. It wasn’t always like that. I can recall when he was praised (e.g., immediately after 9/11) and people—more or less all of us—went to bat for him. But he wasted that opportunity, and many later opportunities.