<p>HMM- “the entire adhoc Bush… chain was wrong”. So then would Bush be guilty of that same treason? Or could he direct something for which he wasn’t guilty of treason, but anyone actually carrying out his request would be guilty of treason?
I listened to an interview with Woodward on Tuesday (NPR FreshAir)where he quite clearly states that there were 4 elements of relatively equal importance that drove things in Iraq to whatever degree of success currently enjoyed -those 4 elements includes the surge- (which is what your quote says as well: “three other factors were as important as…)”. Woodwards point- which he also states above is that the other 3 are relatively unknown- not that he would or does denigrate the surge as a major factor in bringing the success.
Ought to bone up on your chain of command - The service chiefs - including the the Army Cof S-are not in any chain of command- their legal responsibility is to train and provide supporting forces. The Unified CINC to the SecDef is the Chain with the CJCS as military adviser. The Goldwater Nichols act clearly does not preclude the president from asking for advice from other sources and in fact the President has routinely utilized both adhoc and formal outside reviews and information gatherers. </p>
<p>Beyond the whole question of necessity for the war to begin with is the sheer incompetence under which it was manged for a long time. What is sad here is that Casey was bumped up to Army CoS to begin with when he should have been relieved as the Cdr Ground Forces; Adm Fallon was appointed to be a combatant commander of a ground war of which he had zero experience or understanding (because he been successful as a diplomat in Pacom as if Iraq was primarily a diplomatic problem) and Rumsfeld should have been fired by January of 2006 for utterly failing to comprehend the changed nature of the war he was in. That Bush found himself getting conflicting information from his NSC (things are going to hell fast) and the CinC and military advisors (rosey picture don’t need to do anything different) is the issue here. Bush (and Cheney) utilized Gen Keane because he legally could do so and because they wanted to get a different view.<br>
As for Gen Keane- interesting thing- he declined the assignment as Army CofS replacing Gen Shinseki under Rumsfeld and retired because he couldn’t stomach the mismanagement- which is what got him on Bush’s radar screen to begin with.
But I suppose that if USNA69 thinks that the president and Gen Keane were engaged in traitorous activity - it must be so.</p>