For whomever said Bush could run the war the way he wanted.

[uscitizen]

Senate Committee Approves Lt. Gen. David Petraeus for Command of U.S. Forces in Iraq

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

AP

Jan. 23: Lt. Gen. David Petraeus testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington.

WASHINGTON — The Senate Armed Services Committee sent the nomination to the full Senate, which is expected to approve the nomination on Thursday, including promoting Petraeus to four-star rank for the top military post in Iraq.

Bush named Petraeus to replace Casey as part of a revamping of his top military and diplomatic officials in Iraq and the Middle East. While the president's proposal to add 21,500 more U.S. troops to the roughly 132,000 already in Iraq is being widely criticized in Congress, the choice of Petraeus has not been controversial.

Petraeus, 54, has served two previous yearlong tours in Iraq — as commander of the 101st Airborne Division during the invasion in March 2003 and as commander of the training program for the Iraqi Army in 2004-05.

Casey has been nominated to be the next Army chief of staff.

The committee approved the nomination without opposition at an impromptu meeting in the Capitol, said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a member of the panel.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,246582,00.html

 

[uscitizen]

Hmm, The senate has to approve bush's choice of new commander....

 

[Cypress]

Actually, this Patreus dude is a good choice. I just finished reading the tom ricks book on Iraq, and Patreus was just about the only dude who knows how to run a counter-insurgency.

 

[Cancel5]

Actually, this Patreus dude is a good choice. I just finished reading the tom ricks book on Iraq, and Patreus was just about the only dude who knows how to run a counter-insurgency.

Interesting and he supports the augmentation?

 

[Damocles]

Interesting and he supports the augmentation?

The report spoke of a surge linked to the Iraqi government control of areas... It appears that the Baker Report is being followed.

Page 50 says:

"We could however support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the US Commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective.

We also rejected the immediate withdrawal of our troops, because we believe that so much is at stake"

So, he seems to be following the Baker report...

PDF Link