The Bush administration has had more than its share of disastrous personnel moves. You might call it “Brownie Syndrome,” after Michael Brown, the FEMA chief who had to resign after Hurricane Katrina. A number of these missteps–the short-lived appointment of Admiral Fox Fallon to head Central Command and the long-lived appointment of Donald Rumsfeld to head the Department of Defense–have concerned the armed forces. So it was with some surprise (and a big gulp of relief) that I read the news that General David Petraeus is being sent to Central Command and General Ray Odierno is heading to Baghdad as his replacement at the head of Multi-National Forces-Iraq (MNFI).
Odierno spent the year from early 2007 to early 2008 working closely with Petraeus to supervise the implementation of the surge. They were by far the most successful team of commanders we have had in Iraq–potentially the Grant/Sherman or Eisenhower/Patton of this long conflict. Yet there was a strong impetus back in DC to break up the winning combination–as seen in Odierno’s rotation home earlier this year and in persistent rumors that Petraeus would be sent to NATO. That is something I warned against in a January post, in which I suggested that a better move would be to send Petraeus to Centcom and Odierno to MNFI. But, based on his track record, I knew I could not necessarily count on the President doing the right thing. Now he has. That gives us a chance to build on the initial success of the surge in the challenging months that lie ahead.
Of course, whether or not Petraeus and Odierno will have a free hand to implement their best military advice will depend on the outcome of the November election. The Democratic candidates seem determined to pull troops out of the country based more on domestic political considerations than on the long-term prospects of success in the war effort.
Dammit, I wish someone quoting that report would read the damned thing. It has ONE PARAGRAPH that mentioned Mexico as an example of a state that MIGHT fail in the next TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, and so should be considered to make sure we aren’t thinking too much inside the box. You, and people back to and including the reporter at the El Paso Times who started this, are just taking this WAY out of context.
Most annoying, the same paper did the same thing with a CSIS study a few weeks ago. I wrote about that in my “Apocalypse Not” piece on Pajamas Media.
Gordon, any opinion re whether their emigration problem (and our immigration one) has helped to destabilize either or both countries?
Thanks, Carlitos el Rojo. A bit of sense is indispensable, and neither publicly-advertised position on “immigration” has any of it.
Mexico’s democratic institutions surely enjoy more legitimacy than the unstable ones in Pakistan. For all Mexico’s troubles, it’s not going to become a set of warlord fiefdoms like Somalia.
Charlie (Colorado), Mexico is mentioned a number of places in the report. Please note that, regardless of the number of references in that study, the violence in Mexico is indeed serious, as daily reports indicate.
SteelyTom, you wrote: “For all Mexico’s troubles, it’s not going to become a set of warlord fiefdoms like Somalia.” Mexico already has fiefdoms in the northern part of the country. The disintegration of federal authority over the last three or four years has been alarming.
Seth Halpern, immigration complicates relations between Mexico and the United States at this moment. Yet these complications could be solved with sensible legislation here. The current situation, where we have little control of the border, is untenable.
Federal authority in Mexico has never resembled its counterpart in the U.S. The regional factionalism there is something that Americans seem to have little knowledge of. Americans might do well to aquire a little more knowledge of our southern neighbor.
Dear Mexican Government Leaders:
Don’t give up the chips! and salsa.
There is no clearer indication that Mexico is a failed state than the fact that they are compelled to send government spokes-flunkies out to claim that they are not.
Maybe we can use left over TARP funds to buy Mexico.
Dickens, okay, but what would we do with it?
Chuck Martel, you wrote: “Federal authority in Mexico has never resembled its counterpart in the U.S.” Okay, you’re right. But the almost complete failure of governmental authority in important parts of the country is worrisome, is it not?
I have a feeling we are going to learn a lot more about Mexico in the next few years.
Well, they won’t let us practice bombing Vieques in Puerto Rico anymore, maybe we can practice on Tijuana. Just kidding. We can put always Starbucks there.
R Dittmar, you’re right. You know Mexico is in trouble when its senior officials have to make statements of that sort. Thanks.
Dickens, Starbucks for sure, but I’m not sure Mexicans are ready for Taco Bells.
Gordon at #12 — there’s always a land run, like the great Run of 1889 in Oklahoma Territory (purchased from France in 1803 by Thomas Jefferson).
A modern land run would surely involve Hummers outfitted with front-fender artillery, and close air support. It would be amazing to see how quickly modern settlers could build fences. Much faster than the US federal government on the California border.
Nixon administration declared War on Cancer and War on Drug 40 years ago, the cancer one made a lot of progress in diagnosis and treatment to some degree in some cancers it become manageable. The drug war doesn’t look like a winnable one.
“There are many international challenges for the United States, but perhaps the most pressing is the one closest to home.”
Gordon – I agree. I’m perhaps a I’m bit biased in defense of Mexico since I used to live in central part of this country and was a volunteer English teacher in a little pueblo in the state of Guerrero. I won’t travel in Mexico at this time since it’s pointless to take a vacation or visit friends when the country is collapsing due to long-standing corruption, political feuding and the brutal narco-trafficante criminal activity that you just described.
For Obama and liberal minded people to comphrehend this situation, they need to recognize rather fast that there is no talking or dealing with some of these harsh elements in Mexican society. The general population of Mexico are great people. A bit simple and rural and sadly uneducated, but good-hearted people that are being terrorized by these unsavory elements.
Fixing the Mexican situation is a US priority – even greater than Afghanistan or Iraq. I know it sucks to have to clean up the backyard when there are so many pressing problems around the globe, but the Mexicans need law enforcement and military assistance from the US as added muscle to assist those elements of the Mexican military and governmental bureacracies that still have a code of honor and have not completely sold their souls to the corrupt politicians and drug traffickers (in many cases, these two groups are one in the same). This will not be an easy task and the US public needs to be prepared for some unpleasant business ahead. Anyway, thanks for bringing this issue to light via your blog.
J.E. Dyer, ahh, the strength of the private sector, demonstrated once again.
JLiu, I suppose you’re right, but my sense is that drug use is down in the United States. And whether I’m right or wrong, a long economic crisis will undoubtedly put a big dent into drug usage. The binge years are definitely over.
A Kill-Lease Heal, thanks for your perspective. Yes, the Mexicans can do it, and we can help. Mexico should definitely be at the top of the Obama to-do list.