Joint Chiefs' Chairman Pace Gets Walking Papers

[Dr Dave]

June 8, 2007
The New York Times
General Pace to Retire as Joint Chiefs Chairman
By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON, June 8 — Gen. Peter Pace is being replaced as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a move that reflects a feeling among top civilian officials at the Pentagon and in the White House that the American military needs new leadership after years of being strained by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

General Pace is to be succeeded by Adm. Michael G. Mullen, who has been chief of naval operations since the summer of 2005, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced today.

Mr. Gates said that re-nominating General Pace would be an intolerable “divisive ordeal” for the military and the general himself.

General Pace, who has been chairman for just less than two years, is known to have wanted to be nominated for a second term as chairman, and his re-nomination by President Bush had been rumored to be in the works.

Mr. Gates, who took over from Donald H. Rumsfeld last fall, said he had wanted since early in his term to nominate General Pace for another two-year term. But after talking with Republican and Democratic senators over the past several weeks, Mr. Gates said, he concluded that confirmation hearings would have focused “on the past, rather than the future, and further, that there was the very real prospect the process would be quite contentious.”

President Bush “reluctantly agreed because he has the highest regard for General Pace,” said Dana Perino, the deputy White House press secretary.

Mr. Gates said he was honored to nominate Admiral Mullen. “He has the vision, strategic insight and integrity to lead America’s military,” Mr. Gates said.

The secretary said his decision to replace General Pace had “absolutely nothing to do” with the general’s performance as chairman. The general “has served our country with great distinction and deserves the deepest thanks of the American people,” Mr. Gates said.“I am disappointed that the circumstances make this kind of decision necessary,” Mr. Gates said. “I wish that were not the case. I wish it were not necessary to make a decision like this.”

The secretary said the political figures he had conferred with were unanimous in their respect for General Pace — and unanimous in their feeling that a change in Pentagon leadership was needed.

When he was asked whether the necessity of replacing General Pace signaled waning Congressional support for the Iraq war, Mr. Gates replied, “No, I don’t think it says that.”

In his time as chairman, General Pace rarely showed any sign of disagreement with civilian leaders. In public, at least, he backed Secretary Rumsfeld’s preference for holding down trooop levels in Iraq, until that policy was re-examined by the White House late in 2006. In March, he caused a stir when he said he believed homosexual conduct to be immoral; soon afterward, he said he should not have said that.

General Pace was the first officer from the Marine Corps to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Before that, he was the first from the Marines to serve as vice chairman.

Mr. Gates said he valued General Pace’s “candor and willingness to speak his mind,” that he would work closely with the general until his retirement on Sept. 30 and that he anticipated “a continuing friendship” after that.

But there was nothing cheerful about the brief Pentagon announcement, which was attended by neither General Pace nor his presumed successor. The announcement came while President Bush was in Europe.

Asked what Admiral Mullen would bring to the post, Mr. Gates replied in part that the admiral is “a very smart strategic thinker.”

The admiral has been overseeing the Navy’s expansion to a fleet of more than 300 ships by 2020. But Mr. Gates said one indicator of the admiral’s broad strategic vision is that he is most concerned about upgrading the Army. If confirmed, the admiral will be the first Navy man to be chairman since Adm. William J. Crowe, who served from 1985 to 1989.

Mr. Gates said he would recommend to President Bush that he nominate Gen. James E. Cartwright of the Marines, the commander of the Strategic Command, as the next vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, to succeed Adm. Edmund G. Giambastiani Jr., whose retirement has already been announced. Mr. Gates said a new chief of naval operations had not yet been selected.

Sheryl Gay Stolberg contributed reporting from Gdansk, Poland.

-30-

[Monte Smith]

The third Head Bastard in Charge to go under Bush's leadership. I just hope they don't grab some militaristic service careerist to replace him. Oh wait.

[patricia]

Heckuva job, Pete!!

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

The third Head Bastard in Charge to go under Bush's leadership. I just hope they don't grab some militaristic service careerist to replace him. Oh wait.

The problem, Monte, is that Rummy and Dick never seemed to hear the militaristic service careerists when they had anything to say other than "Yes, sir." Pace was a fucking yes-man and Gates is right to press for his retirement. We could use a little input from the militaristic service careerists right about now.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

The problem, Monte, is that Rummy and Dick never seemed to hear the militaristic service careerists when they had anything to say other than "Yes, sir." Pace was a fucking yes-man and Gates is right to press for his retirement. We could use a little input from the militaristic service careerists right about now.

Good luck with the Admiral, then.

[Gary Sisco]

Well, I don't know about that slant. The Joint Chiefs Of Staff unanimously opposed the Iraq invasion.

The Joint Chiefs of Lon Cheney, Draftdodgers, Inc., did not. Junior went with Draftdodgers, Inc.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

The problem, Monte, is that Rummy and Dick never seemed to hear the militaristic service careerists when they had anything to say other than "Yes, sir." Pace was a fucking yes-man and Gates is right to press for his retirement. We could use a little input from the militaristic service careerists right about now.

Which of the Presidential candidates do you think is most likely not to surround him or herself with "yes" men and women and will take the counsel of advisors, military leaders and cabinet members speaking their minds before he or she come to a decision regarding policy?

[Gary Sisco]

Clinton didn't have much choice about it. The officer corps insulted him up and down when he first took office. I remember thinking, reading the press, that I'd have fired a couple of generals to remind everyone else that the American military by regulation doesn't allow political stands in uniform.

And, please, let's not sound off about it. Truman fired McArthur out of hand, while he was, at the time, arguably the most popular general of modern times, at least among the civilian populace. Fired, anyway, and during war time.

It's called cojones. Truman had a couple.

It's not usual to have nothing but yes men around. There is, to use another example, the meeting of JFK with a whole roomful of brass, there to give him their takes on Vietnam and what was happening there. After they'd all sounded off -- often at 180 degree odds with each other -- Kennedy's reply was, "You did all visit the same country, right?"

This has been the most yes-yes-yes-expectant admin in modern times.

[Gary Sisco]

This style of management must be fashionable today, though. The repubicrat governor of VT, who replaced Dean and has since been reelected every two years, continuously replaces and moves around his secretaries, apparently as a management technique in itself (or a lack of mgt technique in itself) though clearly not a very effective one. One day when I was looking for something on the state's website, one guy's name was up in lights as secretary of whatever the fuck. The next day when I returned to the site to finish reading, there was another guy's name up in lights in the same job. Not a word about the previous guy. Who needs an airbrush today? Delete and replace. Ta da.

He's also in the habit of appointing "czars" for this or that.

People who work for him bitch that it's impossible to get much of anything done because the leadership exists in a state of flux. You hardly get to know one boss and his priorities when he's (or she's) replaced, moved to a different position (where the same thing occurs), with another.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

Which of the Presidential candidates do you think is most likely not to surround him or herself with "yes" men and women and will take the counsel of advisors, military leaders and cabinet members speaking their minds before he or she come to a decision regarding policy?

Bill Richardson.

Since you asked.

[Gary Sisco]

Ron Paul, ditto