The NY Times got an advance copy of the latest Woodward investigative book, "Obama's Wars" and gives us a sneak peek.
"As for Mr. Obama himself, the book describes a professorial president who assigned “homework” to advisers but bristled at what he saw as military commanders’ attempts to force him into a decision he was not yet comfortable with. Even after he agreed to send another 30,000 troops last winter, the Pentagon asked for another 4,500 “enablers” to support them.
"The president lost his poise, according to the book. “I’m done doing this!” he erupted.
To ensure that the Pentagon did not reinterpret his decision, Mr. Obama dictated a six-page, single-space “terms sheet” explicitly laying out his troop order and its objectives, a document included in the book’s appendix."
Er...uh.....Mr. President.
Um......sir....YOU are the Commander-in-Chief.
FAIL.
WEAK.
DISASTER.
When I was in college, one of my Pol Sci instructors (in the public administration emphasis) kept blabbing on and on about how city planners needed to "hire a couple of professors to consult" for projects.
ReplyDeleteI took issue to his "couple of professors" comment, and told him so. My Dad was a city manager and had overseen BRAC at Ft. Ord during his tenure. I told the instructor that I was pretty sure there were consultants out there with ACTUAL EXPERIENCE that might know a little more than the professors who got their experience solely out of books and theories, rather than through practical applications.
That instructor really didn't like me. And I really should not have risked my grade in that way.
My point is that reading this gives me Deja Vu.
I thought the lesson of Vietnam was that micro management of the military doesn't work out so well.
ReplyDeleteI don't see how Obama comes off as anything but cynical here, fighting a war he doesn't believe in.
You say cynical, I say assholish.
ReplyDeleteBravo, afw! You are so courageous. I have to know, did it make a difference in your grade? Hopefully, he was ethical enough not to do that.
ReplyDeletelewy - My problem with this is the image of a President pleading with the U.S. Army for options he can accept and then complaining of being boxed in.
ReplyDeleteThe Commander in Chief cannot, by definition, be boxed in by the United States military.
"General, you are relieved of command."
"Admiral, your resignation is to be on my desk by close of business"
"Gentlemen, the order of the day is as follows. Any deviation will find people in Ft Leavenworth."
Etc, etc.
The older I get the more appreciation I have for President Eisenhower, who tried to warn us where the Natl Security State would lead us, and whose predictions have all been borne out, but feel on deaf ears.
Jourdan, I've read some of the other reviews and excerpts - he comes off as quite craven; whittling down the troop numbers and setting withdrawal deadlines for no other reason than politics - not wanting to lose his "base".
ReplyDeleteIf I were a commander listening to that I'd try do box him in, too. Or resign. McChrystal's career limiting mouthrunning was probably at least partially intentional. Perhaps Petraus' sense of honor is too large by half.
Effective war fighting only happens when everybody is on the same page, and the military has the trust of the civilian leaders that they have internalized the objectives - then get what they need to get the job done.
Not one damned line of that six page memo will protect Obama politically, on the left or the right. The only thing that it "memo"rializes is the lack of trust in the military.
Personally I'm more inclined to agree with Biden on this (sic) and go for a more pure counter-terrorism approach as opposed to counter-insurgency. But whatever. Obama's choice seems to be driven by politics. Leadership is more than command and control; he's failed at that. It doesn't look like he ever tried.
Nah, florrie. I got an A. I knew my stuff and I was a bit of a staff favorite since I was always involved in volunteering for the department. Plus, my uncle was the Dean of one of the other schools at the university, so I didn't really risk anything. That wasn't me being principled, it was me being a spoiled brat.
ReplyDeletePersonally I'm more inclined to agree with Biden on this (sic) and go for a more pure counter-terrorism approach as opposed to counter-insurgency.
Honestly, I think that the majority of troops we have there can be pulled out and we can limit to what amounts to Terrorist Whack a Mole in Afghanistan and come out on top. There's more to it, of course, but that's just my non-professional opinion.
The problem would be selling the public on the understanding that we'll be whacking terrorists for the next 50 years before we really see a pay off. And I don't think the President would be able to get the public to see the necessity of this. THIS president, in particular.
The thing is, flag officers are full of themselves, but they have also spent a lifetime in the military. They can be led, if the leader is competent and capable of leading. In the end, they can end up on the same page because that is the default function of the military.
It's not an impossible task. And, someone may have forgotten to give the President this memo, life isn't supposed to be easy and nothing worth doing ever is.
Reading this thread and the other one questioning Obie's motivations, it occurs to me that from Obie's viewpoint, nothing is ever his responsibility, some other guy or group does things to him.
ReplyDeletePOTUS impotent.
I think the public could get behind the strategy you talk about, afw. I would very much like to see that happen. As to what we should do, I kept vacillating between supporting total troop withdrawal and keeping our policy as is; much better to do this:
ReplyDelete"Honestly, I think that the majority of troops we have there can be pulled out and we can limit to what amounts to Terrorist Whack a Mole in Afghanistan and come out on top. There's more to it, of course, but that's just my non-professional opinion.
The problem would be selling the public on the understanding that we'll be whacking terrorists for the next 50 years before we really see a pay off. And I don't think the President would be able to get the public to see the necessity of this"
I think the public would get behind this. Not the nut far left contingent, but who really cares what they think anyway? Afghanistan is a much knottier problem than Iraq, I absolutely don't want to see us go back to square one there.
Er, as far as the topic goes (and trying to put my personal feeling for BO aside), I think he is an incompetent CiC as he appears to have no strong convictions regarding Afghanistan that aren't mired in political consequences. I think that does our military a disservice.