Thankless Service Goes Un-Thanked
By haystack Posted in The White House — Comments (51) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Joint Chiefs Chairman, General Peter Pace is being retired. Were this because of an outstanding career which spans forty years, there would be some honorable mention in a handful of news stories, a retirement ceremony, and a bow of thanks for a lifetime spent serving his country.
Sadly, Pace's departure is not such a scenario. No, Pace is being ungraciously sacrificed at the altar of capitulation to the anti-war movement. Given his service record, you would THINK this Administration would be a little quicker to stand by this Soldier's side, but President Bush seems more interested in standing by a struggling Attorney General, and a failed World Bank President, than to stand with the man who has been part and parcel to victories and major military successes in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Pace, beginning one month after the attacks of 9/11, has served as either Vice Chairman or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and has served with honor and distinction in these last 6 years of conflict - conflicts here at home with Congress and the Media, and conflicts overseas.Why, after such a military career does General Pace find no one at his flank, alone in an open field with no cover fire? Because the political expediency of his superiors is of greater concern than standing by a man who has served selflessly his country and his beloved Corps.
More below the fold...
Sec Def Gates had this to say:
Gates said he had originally intended to seek another two-year term for Pace, but concluded that would have resulted in a divisive Senate confirmation focusing on the Iraq War.
"It would be a backward looking and very contentious process," Gates said at a Pentagon news conference.
[...]
But Gates said that after consulting with senators in both parties, he had concluded that "the focus of his conformation process would have been on the past and not on the future."
What strikes me most in this article is what Gates had to say about Pace's replacement:
"he [Adm. Mike Mullen] has the 'vision strategic insight and integrity to lead America's armed forces."
And Pace doesn't? Let's recap this Soldier's career, shall we?
He began his service as a 1967 graduate of the United States Naval Academy.
Throughout a career spanning 40 years, Pace has served this country with honor and distinction. He ultimately became the only Marine to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, an accomplishment that does not come easy and can not be fully appreciated my most. His responsibilities in this role, as defined by the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 include being "the principal military adviser to the President. He may seek the advice of and consult with the other JCS members and combatant commanders. When he presents his advice, he presents the range of advice and opinions he has received, along with any individual comments of the other JCS members."
"Under the DOD Reorganization Act, the Secretaries of the Military Departments assign all forces to combatant commands except those assigned to carry out the mission of the Services, i.e., recruit, organize, supply, equip, train, service, mobilize, demobilize, administer and maintain their respective forces. The chain of command to these combatant commands runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense directly to the commander of the combatant command. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may transmit communications to the commanders of the combatant commands from the President and Secretary of Defense but does not exercise military command over any combatant forces."
I find this last passage of great significance given Sec Def Gates' assertion that the Senate confirmation process will be "a backward looking and very contentious process" given that the actual warfighting has been managed by those who will remain Combatant Commanders. For Gates to suggest the focus of this confirmation process "would have been on the past and not on the future" just doesn't cut the mustard for me. The failures of the President and the Sec Def are their own; Pace was not a Combatant Commander during his tenure in this position, so why is it that the failures of the war will be the focus on Pace's back? I cry foul. Consider this man's life's accomplishments in uniform, from his bio at the Joint Chiefs website:
In 1968, upon completion of The Basic School, Quantico, Va., General Pace was assigned to the 2d Battalion, 5th Marines, 1st Marine Division in the Republic of Vietnam, serving first as a Rifle Platoon Leader and subsequently as Assistant Operations Officer. He was later assigned to Marine Barracks, Washington, DC, where he served in a number of billets, to include Security Detachment Commander, Camp David; White House Social Aide; and Platoon Leader, Special Ceremonial Platoon.
General Pace has held command at virtually every level, and served in overseas billets in Nam Phong, Thailand; Seoul, Korea; and Yokota, Japan. While serving as President, Marine Corps University, then Brigadier General Pace also served as Deputy Commander, Marine Forces, Somalia, from December 1992 - February 1993, and as the Deputy Commander, Joint Task Force - Somalia from October 1993 - March 1994.
After an assignment as the Director for Operations (J-3), Joint Staff, Washington DC, then Lieutenant General Pace served as the Commander, U. S. Marine Corps Forces, Atlantic/Europe/South. He was promoted to General and assumed duties as the Commander in Chief, United States Southern Command in September 2000.
As the Vice Chairman from October 2001 to August 2005, General Pace served as the Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, Vice Chairman of the Defense Acquisition Board, and as a member of the National Security Council Deputies Committee and the Nuclear Weapons Council.
Consider his decorations for service:
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.
General Pace deserves our honor and respect. The President and the Secretary of Defense owe him THEIR honor and respect. Throwing yet another faithful servant under the bus for political expediency is NO WAY to honor and respect this Soldier, Warfighter, and American Patriot.
Semper Fi General Pace. We honor and respect you and your service, and we thank you for such a tremendous sacrifice to have given so much of your life to your country and your beloved Corps.
Godspeed.
« McClellan Originally Wanted to Attack Media, Defend Bush — Comments (5) | Be Careful What You Wish For — Comments (19) »
Thankless Service Goes Un-Thanked 51 Comments (0 topical, 51 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Gen. Pace has been an honorable public servant. I can see why that doesn't sit well with the D.C. elite these days.
I agree 100% with one minor exception. General Pace is not a soldier-he is a Marine. Semper Fi General - thanks for your service.
Yet another tragic sacrifice of a distinguished career to the maw of this mismanaged mission. Watch your back, Gen. Lute.
How to vent my frustration over this administration's selective cowardice? And that of the GOP caucus in Congress?
Don't know the whole answer, but one thing I do know. I am evaluating our 10 + Fred candidates more and more on uncompromising personal courage than I am on every nuance of every policy position.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
Keeping in mind that one can't TOTALLY ignore all the other factors, here's what I got.
--Giuliali
--Duncan Hunter
--Fred Thompson
There are a couple of other guys who have demonstrated the courage of their convictions -- Ron Paul, Tancredo, Brownback, McCain -- but I have other objections to them which make them unpalatable to me.
One might fairly ask how I put Fred on the list. Here's why. For months now he's been putting himself on the record, 3 times a week on Townhall, and in his folksy way is telling you what is in his mind and heart. Nobody else, and I mean NOBODY, has been willing to put out so much material -- ammo for opposition (in both primary and general) to search for flaws, inconsistencies, contradictions, and foolishness.
But Fred has said, here I am, baby, take your shots. He has said, on the record, that he would:
--shove something red and hot up Iran's butt.
--pardon Scooter Libby.
--boost in every way the Iraq surge, and the GWOT in general.
--build the wall, and beef up and support Border patrol before talking about any other aspect of immigration reform.
--tell the Dems where they could stick that entire US Attorney flap.
--cut spending, make permanent all those Bush tax cuts.
--appoint SCOTUS justices who would overturn Roe.
I'm impressed. And when it's all said and done, I'm a Fred guy, although I'm good with all 3 I named, in spite of Giuliani's well-documented downside.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
Thank you General Pace for 40 years of selfless, honorable and accomplished service, Godspeed.
"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974
The reality is that the Democrats control congress. The only thing they have to say about Iraq is that it's "Bush's War," we shouldn't have initiated it, and were preparing to say Pace should have opposed it. They live in Recrimination World---eat, sleep & breathe it.
By taking Pace off the table, the administration takes the Democrat carping off the table.
Onward, and hopefully upward.
"By taking Pace off the table, the administration takes the Democrat carping off the table."
And that is the most important thing of all, right, Tom? What a great "leader" our President is.
Note that in public, at least, Pace has been just as loyal to the President as Fredo Gonzales, yet Pace is the one who gets the boot. Does this suggest that the Marine general tells the CinC things he doesn't want to hear, and the Attorney General doesn't?
No, it suggests that Democrats who would gladly PREVENT the confirmation of Gonzales' replacement for the rest of Bush's term are probobly too cowardly to do the same for Pace's replacement.
This is what happens when you vote for (or stay home and cast half a vote for) traitors in order to teach patriots a lesson.
Have we learned anything yet?
At this juncture, do we really expect more from our "Commander and Chief" and his political lackeys?
They send them off to fight and die in THEIR WARS, and if they survive, they throw them under the bus for political expediency. Tell me one and all: Do you really think that it is just the Democrats who are anti-military?
I find it interesting you say "OUR" commander in chief, but then say "THEIR" wars...hmmm...
This is OUR war, and we fight to win or generations to come will share in suffering the consequences.
I don't think you see it quite that way, now do you vg626?
And, speaking for "one and all" ummm no-it's NOT just the Democrats although they make up a vast percentage of the people that are against what the military DOES for us.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
He may think he's a little too old to go through another hazing ritual. And I doubt that he thinks he's indispensable. What's the evidence that Pace is so eager to stay?
Gates himself had put Pace's name to Bush to renew the term, THEN he pulled it and explained himself in a press conference by suggesting it would be contentious.
Had Pace wanted out, I am sure his name would never have gone to the WH in the first place.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
Rather than falling back into "Bush Betrayal complex," why don't we ask ourselves if there isn't a big part of this story that you're missing. PY wrote a similar diary on this topic a couple of hours ago. I'm re-posting my comment on his diary here in the hopes that it might provide some necessary insight. As you read, keep in mind that in Washington firings and resignations are rarely just what they appear to be:
Remember, this is a President that has risked the wrath of his own party over the Harriet Myers Supreme Court nomination, and has publically defied the Democrats in Congress over the nomination of John Bolton as the UN ambassador. This is also a President who, as haystack points out, simply refuses to terminate Alberto Gonzales's tenure even when almost everybody in Washington, right, center, and left, thinks that would be a good idea.
In short, this is not a President who willingly allows others to make decisions about key personnel for him, and that fact more than anything else calls Gates's statement on General Pace into question. Moreover, has anyone here actually heard that the Democrats in Congress were going to try to kill General Pace's renomination as Chairman? Can anybody point to something Carl Levin or any other top Dem has said which indicates they were ready to block Pace? The closest thing to that I have found is this article from MSNBC which indicates that Levin had privately advised the Bush Administration against confirmation.[1] But that's a far cry from throwing down the gauntlet, as Senate Democrats have repeatedly done over high profile presidential nominations they intend to block (re: Ashcroft, Bolton, Alito).
So, if the Bush administration didn't dump Pace because the Democrats forced their hand, it follows that they wanted to get rid of him. Why might they want to do that? Perhaps, they have fired him because they did not think they could count on him as a reliable ally in some planned military operation they might need to carry out in the future. Like ... oh I don't know, a preemptive strike against certain facilities in a certain middle eastern country that might be trying to develope nuclear power for reasons not altogether innocent in nature?[2] Just spitballing.
[1] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/191
[2] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
The other question that needs to be asked, is "Why an Admiral?". Yes, the last 5 (non-acting) CoJCS have been 3 Army General, one Air Force General and one Marine Corps General , but "rotations" in the Pentagon among the services have tended to be among three choices with the Marines viewed as a part of the Navy.
Yes, there have been US Navy contributions to Iraq and I believe a few to Afghanistan, but the US Navy would play a significantly more significant role in any action against Iran than it did against either Iraq or Afghanistan. Also, a Navy Admiral would have considerably less understanding on the concept of keeping troops posted in a hostile place (like we are in Iraq and Afghanistan) than either a Marine General or an Army General.
Randolph Finder
I think you're right on. Good thing (naval & airstrikes on Iran) or bad thing?
Now if he were to buck Teddy Kennedy - that would be news.
when he nominated Bolton for the UN job, or Ashcroft for AG, or Alito for the Supreme Court, and on, and on, and on.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
Has he done so since November 2006, though? When it matters?
Run like Reagan!
Although I can see where that might or might not count.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
really...and it's not a big quibble...is that I am not suffering from Bush Betrayal Complex at all-I have said and will continue to say I support him as long as he is POTUS and C in C...that said, this would all be a different discussion had Gates not said he gave Pace's name to the President only to withdraw it days later...
I fully GET the whole "serve at the pleasure of the President bit...this just stinks of poor management and poor communication-two of the curses of this last several years up on PA Ave.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
Since I'm not a psychiatrist I won't insist on the accuracy of my diagnosis. Good news for you: no electroshock therapy. (just kidding!) But if I'm right about why they dumped Pace then I don't agree that this episode was mismanaged. If their objective was to get rid of him quietly, then they succeeded in doing so. Heck, they even managed to pin the blame for his dismissal on somebody else. That takes real talent (not to mention flexible morals, but that's another story).
We should ask ourselves a simple question. What makes more sense? Does it make more sense that Bush fired Pace because Senator Levin whispered something in his ear? Or is it more probable that Bush fired Pace because he simply wanted another guy in that position? When you factor in Pace's very public disputes with the Administration over the Iran question, I think the answer is pretty clear. Of course, as always, I admit that there may be something I'm overlooking.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
Bush didn't exactly go to the mat for Wolfowitz when the hyenas came a-calling, either.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
well, he did for a while, but someone got to him in time (President Bush) before he lost skin over defending him too long...
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
... women problems are entirely different from policy disputes or performance reviews.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
Wolfowitz only quit because otherwise the governing board would have fired him. One of them (I think the Dutch board member) was quoted admitting that the "women problems" wouldn't have really been a problem if Wolfowitz had been better liked by the World Bank's business-as-usual establishment.
Despite the victory of the defenders of World Bank corruption and government controlled economies in ousting Wolfowitz, I'm hopeful that his replacement Zoellick will displease them as much as Wolfowitz did.
That's an interesting piece of information. I hadn't read that before. Link?
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
I wasn't up to Googling at the time I posted the earlier comment, but better late than never. Here's a May 21 AP story:
Paul Wolfowitz's shortcomings as an effective manager of the World Bank were the primary reason for his ouster, not the pay hike he approved for his girlfriend, said two Dutch politicians who helped engineer his resignation.
During his two years at the helm, Wolfowitz "had not developed any coherent strategy for the World Bank," said Herman Wijffels in an interview published Monday.
"I attempted to talk to him about it, but he wasn't interested," Wijffels told the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant.
Wijffels is the executive director who chaired the special panel that blasted Wolfowitz for mixing bank business with his personal relationship with bank employee Shaha Riza. His report was widely seen as making Wolfowitz's position untenable.
"If he had otherwise been a good leader, this may not have come so far," he said.
Normally when a major offensive is being planned the Commander will put in place those personell that will be carrying the load, from this viewpoint it may be a naval offensive against a unamed (can you spell Iran) beligerant.
We have Combatant Commanders who run the wars.
Iraq and Afghanistan have been Commander, Central Commnd's shows from day one. The JCS supports the requirements he levies and holds the hands of the Washington civilians.
This is why a Naval Aviator has already taken over Central Command. If we do Iran, it will primarily be a Navy, Naval Air, Air Force deal.
That is one reason that Gates' lame explanation is so maddening.
I am not happy to have Gates as SecDef; and I hate to see General Pace leave.
"By taking Pace off the table, the administration takes the Democrat carping off the table."
And that is the most important thing of all, right, Tom? What a great "leader" our President is.
"Takes defeatism and recriminations off the table" would have been a better locution, vg. Sorry.
For your service to our country. You SIR are an honorable person who is to be congratulated. I salute you.
Bush doing what he does best, abandoning his people, sticking it to his supporters. How nice to know who Bush really is.
General Pace is a Marine NOT a soilder.
Soilders are in the Army.
If you knew anything, you'd know that you chicken-hawk.
Nice brown-nose though.
you blithering moron.
Goodbye.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Good job!!
You know, if you had balls enough to ever come to one of the libtard sites, they'd eat you alive.
I see you folks don't tolerate dissent well.
Typical frightwing chicken-hawking.
Ban me again you [althoo2]. I'll come back.
You know, if you had balls enough to ever come to one of the libtard sites, they'd eat you alive.
I see you folks don't tolerate dissent well.
The resolution of internal conflict via hysteria, doctor?
[1] Foul language - 90% of the Left's vocabulary.
[2] Name calling - The Left's major method of argumentation.
[3] False bravado - Calling names from behind a keyboard.
[4] Victim complex - Crying about being banned - woe is thee.
[5] Hypocrisy - Demanding tolerance you do not exhibit.
[6] Rudeness - Barging in to where you're not invited.
Well done.
You are a perfect example of the modern liberal. Thank you for another look behind the curtain to see ugliness within.
You have a nice day.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
He refers to liberal sites as libtard. Does he make common cause with people he feels are idiots ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Lib - as in liberal
tard - as in - oh you know....
"Wubbies World" aka: Brian; MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.
someone's mom left the laptop unlocked again.
Aren't you in summer school? Better go eat your Coco Puffs and get ready for the bus....
It wasn't too long ago that the Chairman of the JCS spent only two years in post. Two years is all an incumbent expected.
you mean Maxwell Taylor between 1962 and 1964 then you are right.
For a lot of us 45 years is a long time ago
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
to the greatest country on this earth. I would say to you that I personally thought you were the best for this job and I am sorry that the President did not go to bat for you. I believe that as hard as you and your men are fighting for us the least the President could have done is fight for you. Thank you again and enjoy your retirement you sir have earned it.