Old Stuff
More Space Junk
As if the Chinese ASAT test last month wasn't enough, word comes today from SpaceWeather.com that Australia was treated to a spectacular display last night - of a very bright explosion and a resulting cloud of debris which was visible for almost an hour. The explosion was a "major breakup event" of an old Russian Briz-M rocket booster travelling in the wrong orbit since last year after it failed to launch of a communications satellite. When more is known on the amount of debris and orbit we'll post an update.Update 3/27/07: In a somewhat related event, a Lan Chile A340 flying to Aukland, NZ narrowly escaped being destroyed by the apparent early de-orbiting of a Russian satellite with debris raining down within five miles of the flight.
According to a plane spotter, who was tuning into a high frequency radio broadcast at the time, the pilot "reported that the rumbling noise from the space debris could be heard over the noise of the aircraft. "He described he saw a piece of debris lighting up as it re-entered (the earth's atmosphere). He was one very worried pilot, as you would imagine."
Airways New Zealand had been warned by Russian authorities almost two weeks ago that a satellite would be entering the earth's atmosphere sometime today between 10.30am and midday NZ time (6.30-8am WA time). Airways New Zealand then provided that information to airlines and pilots that would be travelling in that region at that time. They could then decide for themselves whether they wished to fly during that period. "But clearly there has been a timing issue," the spokesman said. Source: thewest.com.au
Where We Stand On Iraq
After our tirade earlier today, we thought it important to briefly summarize where we stand vis. Iraq. To this point the post war effort has been repeatedly mismanaged - by many people and for many different reasons. But there is no going back to correct past errors, the situation on the ground is what it is. We do not believe the President's "strategy" of a 20 odd K troop surge will have any measurable effect on its own. Rather, any positives in Iraq will be attributed directly to the new top level management of the war - Secretary of Defense Gates and General Petraeus. Both men are highly competent and are focused on the task at hand - defeating an insurgency. Gates is a realist and not an ideologue and Petraeus had an excellent prior tour in Iraq and has focused his recent efforts solely on getting the Army and Marines updated on how to fight and win an insurgency (see FM 3-24). In the end though we think the hurdles are too great - too few troops and a sectarian situation too far gone to put back in the bottle.So what should we do going forward? First, as we noted earlier, we would give the new commanders on the order of nine months to show quantifiable progress. Should the spectacular happen and the situation improve dramatically, then by all means let these guys call the shots going from there. But if there is no significant improvement on the ground, or perhaps a roll back to one similar to early 2006, alternatives must be pursued - something Secretary Gates has already said he is planning for. Our view would be (as we noted here last fall) to move out of the large population areas, reduce our footprint and focus on three primary areas: border security (hopefully done better than our Mexican border), troop/police training, and foreign jihadists. By focusing on the borders and jihadists we help both ourselves (after all the jihadi are our primary enemy) and the Iraqis. But at some point we must acknowledge we can't force the Iraqi's to solve their political problems at the point of our guns. It hasn't worked so far and there is no reason to expect it will in the future.
This is decidedly not a cut and run strategy nor is it leaving Iraq in a Cambodian situation. No foreign power will be allowed to invade Iraq and commit genocide. Any bloodbath (as if the situation today in the major population areas is not) will be primarily by the Iraqi's own hands. But this 'redeployment' allows us to focus on what is most important to our war on terror. And when the Iraqi's have finally had enough of killing each other and determine how they will move forward politically and economically, we should help with any reconstruction or aid requests they may have. No more throwing good money after bad and no more playing referee for our soldiers.
Australia And The Visible Hand
Seems our Aussie friends have strayed from the path of Adam Smith. News.com.au reports their version of the EPA have enacted legislation designed to force consumers to use compact fluorescent light bulbs, whether they want them or not:"We are introducing new energy efficiency standards and these old lights simply won't comply, they will be phased out and basically over a period of time they will no longer be for sale," Mr Turnbull said.The theory is that compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) are so much more energy efficient than run of the mill incandescents that their wide spread use would result in a large reduction in greenhouse gases.
While we applaud efforts to educate people about cost-savings and environmental benefits of CFLs not to mention how they now give off very natural light (compared to early models) - we draw the line at forcing people to switch, especially when there are disadvantages:
Compact fluorescent light bulbs work best if they are left on for over 15 minutes each time they are turned on. These types of lamps can take up to 3 minutes to warm-up. Warm-up will probably not be noticeable from a user stand point, but the lamp needs to warm-up in order to reach the point of most efficient operation. Frequently switching them on and off will shorten the life of the product. If the life of the lamp is shortened significantly, you will not reap the financial benefits. Source: GElighting.comIn addition, special models are required for use with a dimmer switch and colors may not be true until the bulb is suitably warmed up. But probably more important to some consumers are issues of safety -
Fluorescent lamps contain mercury. Mercury at atmospheric pressure is a silver colored liquid that tends to form balls. Mercury is a hazardous substance. When one lamp is broken, the best thing to do is to wear chemical resistant glove to clean it up. The gloves can be vinyl, rubber, PVC, or neoprene. The gloves you buy in the supermarket for household cleaning are sufficient. The gloves protect your skin from absorbing mercury and from getting cut by the glass. The remains of one lamp can be disposed as normal waste since the amount of mercury is small. Source: GElighting.comThese details show once again why it is usually very undesirable for government to meddle in consumer decisions. When a better product is truly available for wide spread use, it will replace its predecessor by consumer demand.
A "Republican" Disgrace
After watching Tucker Carlson's show on MSNBC last night we are steaming mad - more so than we can remember in quite some time. The source of our irritation? Frank Gaffney and his "Victory Caucus" and their attempts to demonize any Republican who is not still dancing lock step with President Bush and his neocon orchestra. This post is a complete disgrace. While we have already expressed our dismay at the pointlessness of non-binding resolutions, to accuse those in the Republican party who do not agree with the "troop surge" and/or are seeking other alternatives in the face of a continued failing effort in Iraq of being defeatists is as close to McCarthyism as you can get. Now they are taking aim at anyone, even in their own party, who dares oppose them. They like to throw around the word "treasonous" in describing those who argue for other alternatives. In fact, it is Gaffney and his ilk who are acting treasonously by continuing to pigheadedly persue failed policies which have given aid and comfort to our al Qaeda enemies through the resulting increased chaos in Iraq.Here is one excerpt of the interview:
What getting out means, as a practical matter, is defeat. It is retreat in the face of the enemy, the enemy in Iraq will be emboldened, the enemy that has tried to defeat us in Iraq will be emboldened and people elsewhere around the world, allies and enemies alike, will take from this that the United States is unfortunately a waning power. Now, will we be able to regroup and fight on other battle fronts? Quite possibly but alas some of them will certainly be here in the United States.The enemy in Iraq will be emboldened. Which enemy is that? The very few thousand (if that many) foreign jihadists? Or the tens of thousands of Sunni insurgents who have no interest in the US outside of Iraq? Will Iran or Syria be emboldened? Is Gaffney claiming the leadership in those two countries have forgotten it took the US only two weeks to destroy the Iraqi military and remove the existing government? And that we undertook the operation with specific orders to cause as little damage to infrastructure and civilians as possible? What would Iraq look like had we operated under a WWII model and just left the rubble behind? Yes Iran and Syria could look like Dresden if we wanted them to. The US is not weak. Incompetent? Perhaps. Weak, absolutely not.
Gaffney and his neocon brethren have had four years to utterly screw up what was an amazingly fast victory over the Iraqi Army in 2003 and subsequent occupation of the country. At this point what is 'win'? Standing up a new Iraqi army? Political reconciliation? If our intensive efforts for the past four years have been unable to stand up a half way capable Iraqi army that is willing to fight at all times for their country nor bring Sunni, Kurd and Shi'a together, what makes Gaffney think this will happen now or the near future? Will he send in a brigade of neocons to wave a magic wand to make it all better? How, as some have proposed, is targeting just the foreign jihadists primarily in al Anbar province retreat in the face of the enemy? Iraq has no WMD. Saddam is gone. The country is de-Baathified. They have a constitution and have had elections. If the only way they are able to work out their political differences is by killing each other in brutal fashion that is their business not ours. Our only remaining 'duty' at this stage is killing the jihadists and preventing them from establishing bases of operation and training camps. We can do this with less troops and without sitting in the crossfire of domestic sectarian warfare. Eventually all civil wars end. That the majority of Iraq will be dominated by Shi'a policies and politics was an inevitable outcome and if this was so undesirable to the US we should never have invaded in the first place.
To this point we have been ambivalent about the troop "surge". There are too few extra troops to have a significant impact and past surges have failed. The only reason we do not oppose it outright is the US now has two competent commanders - Gates as Sec. Defense and Petraeus on the ground in Iraq. To our thinking, success will be attained if they are able to dial the situation on the ground back to late 2005/early 2006 levels of violence. At that point, hopefully late in 2007, we can focus solely on foreign jihadists and the continued training of the new Iraqi army and police forces.
We will say it bluntly: the neocons have been the ruin of the Republican party. They try to claim Reagan would have been on their side. Sorry, he would not. Reagan offered moral support and limited aid to help those who wanted democracy achieve it on their own terms. The battle of the Cold War was primarily one of US national interest against the USSR. These neocons and those Republicans they have converted are not a majority of the party, but they are the loudest. To continue down the path they are on now will not only result in a very public fracturing of the overall Republican party, but almost certainly assure its status as a minority party. Even McCain and Giuliani will be hard pressed in 2008 to unite a torn up Republican party and also gain enough independent and Democratic support to win. And the Democrats will come closer to the magic total of 60 in the Senate as well as increase their majority in the House. Impossible? Recall only the "realists" in the Republican party saw the loss of the Senate in 2006 as not only possible, but likely. Unfortunately, it is those same realists who are now tarred and feathered as defeatists (or too scared to speak up) that are trying to find the best way to consolidate our gains while minimizing our losses so as to move forward in Iraq on terms most favorable to the US.
When Will It Be Over?
Please, somebody please, please make this meaningless drivel of a debate on a non-binding Iraq war resolution OVER. What is the point? To show that the House and Senate are incapable of doing anything in a timely manner? That they are irrelevant to anything requiring a real firm decision?For five or six weeks now all we hear out of Washington is chatter over the proposed (and partially enacted) Baghdad/Anbar troop surge. They don't like it, they don't like the Iraq war and in the case of the Democrats, they hate Bush too. Wonderful. Why does this take weeks and why is the end result a piece of paper with absolutely no force of law? For what both the House and Senate are doing, an open mic with a television camera could have been set up in the Capitol rotunda and every member could have walked up, said yea or nay on the troop surge, the war and Bush. And we would have been done with this pointless exercise in a day.
As the legislative branch, they have one way to end a war - cut off the money. It would be next to impossible to cut funding just for the limited number of troops involved in this troop surge but Congress could certainly consult with the President and tell him they are reducing funding by 50% or 75% or even 100% effective as of some future date of reasonable duration. If they are not willing to do that then they must fund the current operations.
We have no problem with critics of the war saying its time to move on. But if that is the case, mean it. Stop hiding from your shadow. Its painful to listen too and just shows the al Qaeda's of the world that the US legislative branch is incapable of making tough decisions.
A Merger Herd Rally
What a silly day in the stock market. At this moment the DJIA is higher by about 92 points with the primary explanation on offer the rumor that Alcoa may be on the block. Elsewhere are stories on GM and MMM, also DJIA stocks. Yet the broad market (SPX, NYA) have equaled or exceeded the rise in the DJIA.Consider: While M&A activity has been booming the past two years, only about 6% of market cap. is involved (total market cap vs deal size for US targets). Not all companies will command a large premium and many companies will under perform post merger. Consequently it is possible if your shares in the target are under water that you will end up locking in a loss unless you hold the merged shares.
Looking at Alcoa, we don't see much of anything to be excited about. It would need a further increase of 15% to just equal its prior highs seen in 2003 and 2004 based on a price of 34.75, itself a 5+% premium to yesterday's closing price. And while it is true this rumor could have legitimate spill over effects on other primary metals companies, we don't see another commodity based merger spurring increased or unplanned activity in say health care or financial services. Lastly - and we think importantly - the potential acquirers are all foreign owned, a result of the increasingly large negative net foreign direct investment position of the US. We may wake up one day as minority owners of foreign owned companies in our own land. A prolonged negative net foreign direct investment position is not good.
As to GM - have we not learned to distrust brokers on Wall Street? Not only did Merrill upgrade GM, they went from SELL to BUY, completely skipping HOLD. After the turmoil of the past two years one would expect more caution from brokers who only went to SELL at the most dire moment. Note too GM just added zero rate financing and cash back on selected models through Feb. 20 ... yes, lots has changed in the auto industry right?
3M announced a stock buyback program to take place over two years which will reduce (in theory) float by 12.5%. They do not have all the cash for this program, buy backs rarely retire the expected number of shares (as many new shares are issued to executives and employees in compensation programs) and the buy back may ultimately leave them in a worse position to make acquisitions down the road. And once again we are hit by Wall Street analyst over-hype: one individual raised the target price $6 (to $86) claiming each $1B of buyback raises EPS by 0.03-0.04. Using a prior target of $80, a consensus FY 08 EPS of $5.22 and being kind and using $7B x 0.04=0.28 additional in EPS shows not only did this analyst raise their target price, they raised their implied multiple from 15.3x to 15.6x for no positive change in the underlying business.
So enjoy the little rally while it lasts as those dreams don't usually come true after you wake up!
German Soccer Team May Walk Off Field
So claims an AP headline of a story relating the state of soccer in Germany. "We have the right to leave the field if we see these rioters again in the stadium. We want to send out a signal," Leipzig captain Holger Krauss said concerning their next match after 800 fans of a team in Saxony rioted this past weekend - injuring 39 police, 6 fans and quite a few police cars.Soccer officials and police believe the Leipzig hooligans were inspired by the Feb. 2 rioting in Italy that led to the death of a police officer. At the match between Catania and Palermo, 100 people were injured. All professional soccer games were suspended for a week. Source: APDon't you love that word? Hooligans!
We have an easy solution to this problem - stop pretending that soccer is 'football' and play the real thing! Perhaps the fans won't turn into hooligans if the game they are watching doesn't bore them to tears. With American sports, the violence, if any, is on the field where it belongs. Yes, there are the odd fist fights but involvement by more than three or four fans is a rarity. European soccer hooliganism seems to be more the rule than exception and almost always involves hundreds.
Of course, we could be completely off base. Maybe soccer isn't boring. It could just be that European sports fans are barbarians!
Iran Providing EFP's To Sadrites? Shocking!
Much has been made over the weekend of official US DOD reports of evidence that Iran is providing Iraqi militia's (most likely splinter groups from the Mahdi Army) an advanced IED containing an EFP (explosively formed penetrator). EFP's are similar to shaped charges but differ in that while they are less 'concentrated', they maintain a fairly constant penetration distance over a much larger distance than conventional shaped charges. Should the US be outraged and shocked that Iran would provide such weapons to a group in Iraq who then uses them to attack US troops? Well perhaps we can be outraged, to a degree, but shocked? Hardly. And not because its Iran sourcing the weapons.From the White House came comments by spokesman Tony Snow:
This is providing — presenting evidence to the effect that there's been the shipment of weaponry, lethal weaponry into Iraq, some of it of Iranian providence, and this is something that we think if the president of Iran wants to put a stop to it, we wish him luck and hope he'll do it real soon."Contrast to this:
n one early-moning raid, the Communists sent 14 Russian-made 140-mm. rockets slamming into the U.S. airbase at Danang, damaging two planes and injuring 16 troops. Northwest of Saigon, Viet Cong mortars and recoilless rifles opened up on the 25th Infantry Division base at Cu Chi, wounding another seven Americans. Elsewhere around the country, enemy mortar shells and rockets were whistling through the air. Quietly but unmistakably, the quality, quantity and firepower of Viet Cong weapons have risen in recent months until in many cases they constitute a fresh and bothersome threat to U.S. units.There were Soviet weapons and advisors too. Both China and the USSR were more than happy to provide assistance as the US was their enemy as well. By using the Viet Cong as proxies they made things more dangerous and difficult for our troops, just as Iran is doing today. But we did not invade or bomb either Red China or the USSR in retaliation.
[...]
Thanks mainly to Red China, which supplies 80% of their weapons, the Viet Cong are now equipped with flamethrowers, rifle grenades, 12.7-mm. antiaircraft machine guns and 120-mm. mortars, in addition to the Russian rockets. The Viet Cong have nothing approaching big U.S. artillery. But they know that no American commander has enough troops to man a defense perimeter extending out to the range of a rocket (five miles) or even of a mortar (3.5 miles). Furthermore, a flak vest—the only real protection against mortar fragments, short of a deep trench—is an intolerable burden for U.S. troops in Viet Nam's stifling heat. Souce: Time Magazine (online archive) 3/24/1967
We do wonder however who in Iran permitted the transfer of these devices, if at all, to Iraq. While we do not doubt the Pentagon's assertion they are of Iranian origin, we wonder if perhaps they might be coming, second hand, from Hezbollah? At this late stage and with the political situation supporting the war effort in the US deteriorating by the day, it would seem misguided for Iran to escalate efforts against the US so directly. If anything has been proven so far it is that Bush is less likely to remove troops under fire than were the situation to quiet down a degree. Even a short period of relative quiet would open the door for Bush to exit stage right and we have no doubt he would take it.
A Fluid Situation In And Around Iran
The pace of events related to Iran, both domestically and internationally, has picked up in the past few days on a number of fronts. While Ahmadinejad speaks of a 'celebration' next week for their nuclear program, he is under heavy domestic pressure in large part due to the Iranian economy. At the same time the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are holding defensive exercises, they have new tensions to deal with in Iraq. The West, US in particular, has the difficult task of walking a very fine line in its dealings with Iran as even small words or deeds could send the situation careening down a cliff or lead to a reduction in tensions and a moderation in Iranian actions.On the military front, the IRG are conducting a two day defensive war game in the Sea of Oman and Persian Gulf using air and naval assets to test Iran's missile defenses. On the first day, the IRG made sure to test their new toy - the Russian made Tor-M1 system whose delivery is now complete. A more detailed description of the Russian deal and the Tor-M1 can be found in our comments of May, 2005. In short, the Tor-M1 is a system with short range capabilities against air craft and cruise missiles and the ability to counter electronic warfare. Perfect for defending valuable state assets such as Natanz and Arak. The IRG have been planning and training for a US attack for quite some time, and unlike Iraq, Iran does have a reasonably capable defense - perhaps not sufficient to survive a prolonged onslaught by the US, but one when combined with some difficult geography assures a degree of damage being inflicted on any attacker. And while Iraq fell back on asymmetric warfare post US occupation, Iran appears to have plans for both asymmetric and symmetric defense.
In Iraq, the situation for Iran has destabilized since the turn of the year. First there was the US led operation against an Iranian 'diplomatic' outpost and now yesterday the abduction of the Iranian second secretary of its principal Baghdad embassy. Iran has accused the US of orchestrating his seizure, either directly or by Sunni proxies. And they are quite possibly correct in their allegations. The US is determined to stir the pot for Iran inside of Iraq in the hope of making them second guess their assessment of the weakness of the US position. Capturing a probable intelligence operative on the sly for interrogation should definitely turn heads in Tehran as the normal procedure is to declare such a 'diplomat' non-gratis and expelled from the country. That the US would first try to break the intelligence officer to gain insight into Iranian operations and strategic plans shows Tehran the US does not consider any Iranian out of their reach in Iraq. The US will be careful not to actually kill a diplomat but instead show them a short vacation in hell. And even if the US had nothing to do with the abduction (al Qaeda after all also views the Iranian's as targets) - they think that the US did which is just as valuable.
On the domestic front it becomes clearer every day there is a campaign to cut President Ahmadinejad down to size - and that can only happen with the acquiescence of the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Ahmadinejad was first rebuked late last year (more)→
Chirac on Iran: Realistic Insight Or Le Sabot Dans La Bouche
Yesterday French President Chirac made some comments on the Iranian nuclear program which he believed were off the record. Ooops!"I would say that what is dangerous about this situation is not the fact of having a nuclear bomb - having one, maybe a second one a little later, well, that's not very dangerous. But what is very dangerous is proliferation. This means that if Iran continues in the direction it has taken and totally masters nuclear generated electricity, the danger does not lie in the bomb it will have, and which will be of no use to it. Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel? It would not have gone 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed."In fact, we find his view on Iran to be realistic, though perhaps less so on Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Certainly there is a risk they would seek their own weapons as a deterrent to Iran, but we think in the longer analysis they will realize their money is better directed to a more modern conventional military and economy. But we won't discount it and leave it for discussion at another time.
"What is dangerous is proliferation. It is really very tempting for other countries in the region that have large financial resources, to say: 'Well, we too, we're going to do it. We're going to help out others to do it.' Why wouldn't Saudi Arabia do it? Why wouldn't it help Egypt to do so as well? That is the danger."
But the follow-up statements by Chirac were a little disheartening in that he tries to explain away what he said, including reiterating the official 'no Iranian nukes' policy. And he once again makes Frenchmen look like wishy washy wimps. But did (more)→
Weaker Payrolls, Factory Orders, NAPM and Inflation
GDP is old news already. Payrolls came in at a light +111K vs expectations of +155K and an upwardly revised December +206K (was 167K) and November +196K (was 154K). This is a significant shortfall, though with the sizable prior month revisions who is to say that this figure won't also be revised up (or down) by 25%? The Nov. and Dec. revisions added a net 81K jobs and provides another reason for the somewhat stronger Q4 GDP advance from yesterday. But perhaps lost in the headline story will be that weekly earnings actually declined! This came about because the hourly earnings increase of $0.02 (price) could not overcome the decreased hours worked (volume) and reduced overtime (mix). Less money in the pocket books this month. Also unlikely to be mentioned were apparent trend reversals in the household survey - there was a significant increase in those unemployed (trend was down) as well as a large increase in those 'not in labor force' (trend was down). One can have endless debates about whether the establishment or household survey is 'better' but at the least the household survey sometimes points to developing trends sooner.The ECI and ECRI both showed a lessening of inflationary pressures and in their report, the ECRI notes the drop in the index was led mainly by disinflationary moves in measures of jobs, home loans, interest rates and vendor performance in part offset by higher commodity prices. We remain cautious on inflation gauges as we feel they do not correctly capture the true cost of living. Yesterday we also heard that the savings rate for December was negative and that for all of 2006 was -1%, worst showing since the Depression and a continuation and acceleration of the dissaving trend. Eventually bills must be paid and plasma TV's left on the shelf.
The Chicago ISM fell below 50 again, the second time in three months. We will see if this is reflected nationally next week or if the auto industry has had an excess effect on this measure. The factory orders data released today seem to indicate it will not, having come in ahead of expectations at +2.4% (vs 2.0%). Non-defense capital goods advanced a strong 9.6% but this figure is very volatile while separately December durable goods were revised down to a +2.9% gain from 3.1%.
Kind of a mixed bag, no? Were it not for the factory orders we might be inclined to read more into the payrolls and ISM data; perhaps it is best to say Q4 may have borrowed from Q1. (more)→
General Casey: Time To Move On
One of the most significant failings of the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war aftermath has been the failure to hold both civilian and military officials responsible when things go wrong. Especially at the highest levels. Certainly nobody can expect all elements of a war or occupation to go perfectly as planned - mistakes will be made and the situation on the ground can invalidate previous assumptions. However, at some point there must be an accountability for repeated failure to recognize failed plans, changed circumstances and not making the necessary and sometimes difficult changes required to put the operation back on track.In the case of Iraq, General Casey is auditioning at the Senate today for a promotion to Army Chief of Staff after over 30 months in charge of the Army in Iraq. As very disillusioned supporters of the decision to go to war in Iraq, we have a very hard time understanding not only the submission of Casey's name for this job but also the Senate's likely approval. Senator McCain today captured our sentiment best:
"While I don't in any way question your honor, your patriotism or your service to our country, I do question some of the decisions, the judgments you've made over the past two and a half years," McCain said. "During that time things have gotten markedly and progressively worse."In regards Casey's performance we are left with these choices:
Where does this leave us? Either Casey failed miserably at his job or his performance was hindered by others at higher levels of government. If the former, under no circumstances should he be rewarded with a promotion to Army Chief of Staff. If the latter, under no circumstances should he be rewarded with a promotion to Army Chief of Staff as he failed to disclose in public or to the various congressional oversight committees that the situation on the ground was deteriorating rapidly and that while he had plans, those above him somehow were preventing the implementation in a material way. At Casey's level it is not insubordination to make his concerns known to the White House and/or Congress. That he apparently did not, in our opinion, disqualifies him from any other high ranking position in the military.Casey himself failed to develop and implement successful strategies to reverse the decline in security in Iraq; Casey had good plans but was unable gain approval to implement them from the Pentagon; Casey had good plans which were approved by the Pentagon but was not given the necessary resources to implement those plans; Casey (and perhaps the Pentagon) had good plans but they were denied or not given adequate resources by the White House
General Casey may be a good man, a patriot and a hard worker - yet many good men and women are fired everyday for poor job performance even though they may possess those same traits. It is past time for accountability in Iraq.
