Obama's military problem is getting worse

[KRonn]

I remember when Pres Bush was debating the Surge, or other actions, in Iraq. Didn't that take a while, got debated out and such? Similar to what is going on now for Obama with Afghanistan? I'm wary of political partisan bashing, or even the Dems who disagree on Afghanistan bashing Obama for their own agenda ends. I think for Afghanistan Obama may have more cover from the Repubs as long as he makes what is seen as a good faith effort on the war and strategy.

I think that is the problem, he doesn't seem to be making a good faith effort.

While you may not have agreed with Bush on his war policies, you could not claim that he politicized them.

If he doesn't make that effort then he winds up in the worst of all places. His opponents of course will make a lot of noise over it. And some of his supporters may make a lot of noise anyway if things go badly enough. Almost like he can't win if he doesn't try. Of course, there's risk in trying too. I hope he makes the effort, as the commanders feel the job is doable, including helping the political aspects within Afghanistan which are as important, or more so, as the military actions.

[Berkut]

While you may not have agreed with Bush on his war policies, you could not claim that he politicized them.

Really?

Really really.

OK, you *can* make such a claim. In fact, in the early parts of the war (Mission Accomplished and such) it would be a reasonable (although not accurate, IMO) claim.

But overall he listened to his military and policy advisers rather than his political advisers. Unfortunately, for too long this was Dick Cheney. So it's not like NOT politicizing these kinds of decisions is any guarantee of coming to the right conclusion.

[KRonn]

I think that is the problem, he doesn't seem to be making a good faith effort.

While you may not have agreed with Bush on his war policies, you could not claim that he politicized them.

How is Obama policitizing Afghanistan?

Maybe by blaming Pres Bush for so much of the troubles in Afghanistan, while during the campaign Obama's message was that we should leave Iraq so we could concentrate on Afghanistan. Now he seems to be skittish on making the effort in Afghanistan. Was he just saying his campaign rhetoric for political reasons? As cover for the reasoning for leaving Iraq? He does stand the risk of being seen that way, depending on what he does as President.

However, let's realize that quietly thousands more US troops have gone to Afghanistan. So I'm not really at the point where I find Obama politicizing it so much, but I'm worried that there's significant noise elsewhere now for us to leave Afghanistan. That worries me since I don't feel we really made the strong effort there yet, due to involvement in Iraq. And I'm hoping Obama would reverse that and put the focus on Afghanistan.

[alfred russel]

While you may not have agreed with Bush on his war policies, you could not claim that he politicized them.

Really?

Really really.

OK, you *can* make such a claim. In fact, in the early parts of the war (Mission Accomplished and such) it would be a reasonable (although not accurate, IMO) claim.

But overall he listened to his military and policy advisers rather than his political advisers. Unfortunately, for too long this was Dick Cheney. So it's not like NOT politicizing these kinds of decisions is any guarantee of coming to the right conclusion.

I thought major criticisms of the efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan were using too many foreign contractors (with Republican political connections) and putting unqualified republicans in significant civilian roles.

I also remember major criticisms pre-surge that American troop numbers were not being increased because of the political storm that would cause. And while that did eventually happen, its announcement was timed mysteriously after the mid-term elections.

[Ed Anger]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/does_obama_blame_britain.html

You might think that the NATO defence ministers' meeting today in Slovakia might be a good place to give America's allies a clue. But US defence secretary Robert Gates won't be giving any secrets away. On his way there, he said: "I am moving into my personal decision phase" about troop numbers. He added with a heavy dose of sarcasm:

    "I will probably share with the president and my colleagues in the American government where I come out on this issue before I share it with 27 defence ministers."

[Admiral Yi]

Really?

I think it would be more accurate to say that Bush did not tailor his foreign policy to fit domestic opinion polls.

[alfred russel]

Really?

I think it would be more accurate to say that Bush did not tailor his foreign policy to fit domestic opinion polls.

I don't know--the possible delay of the surge until after the elections is suspicious.

But Bush had a different dynamic. They were his wars, and the domestic opinion polls were tied to the public's perception of whether we were succeeding. He needed to win in a way Obama doesn't.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't know--the possible delay of the surge until after the elections is suspicious.

Maybe.  I wasn't paying that much attention to the electoral implications and timing of the surge.

But Bush had a different dynamic. They were his wars, and the domestic opinion polls were tied to the public's perception of whether we were succeeding. He needed to win in a way Obama doesn't.

To say Bush needed to win suggests there was some sort of upside in winning, which I think we've already seen was not true. 

Obama may not need to win, but I think it still hurts him if he loses.

[alfred russel]

To say Bush needed to win suggests there was some sort of upside in winning, which I think we've already seen was not true. 

Obama may not need to win, but I think it still hurts him if he loses.

Actual history shows us the results of not winning, which were negative for Bush and the Republicans. You can argue that we have either won in Iraq or are going to win, but the perception is that our efforts there were some combination of not worth the cost or poorly managed. This isn't the outcome that Bush was selling before the war.

I agree with you on Obama.

[Admiral Yi]

Actual history shows us the results of not winning, which were negative for Bush and the Republicans. You can argue that we have either won in Iraq or are going to win, but the perception is that our efforts there were some combination of not worth the cost or poorly managed. This isn't the outcome that Bush was selling before the war.

OK, if you're saying Bush needed to win quickly at minimal cost I agree.

Though as a minor quibble it was mostly Wolfowitz who was selling the cheap 'n' quick victory.

[grumbler]

But overall he listened to his military and policy advisers rather than his political advisers. Unfortunately, for too long this was Dick Cheney. So it's not like NOT politicizing these kinds of decisions is any guarantee of coming to the right conclusion.

Dick Cheney ws 100% about politics, and 0% about military or policy except insofar as they enabled the administration to send the right political signals.

Not politicizing the war would have involved listening to his generals even when they said things that were unwelcome or politically uncomfortable.  Bush and Cheney failed spectacularly at that until McCain (who, like the generals, was in favor from the beginning of what later became known as "the Surge") forced it upon them.

[grumbler]

I think it would be more accurate to say that Bush did not tailor his foreign policy to fit domestic opinion polls.

Disagree.  Bush/Cheney was all about the triumph of form over substance.  It is true that Bush and Cheney were aiming for approval from specific voting blocs rather than the population at large, but they were at least as political in their foreign policies as Clinton or Carter, and far more so than Bush I or Ronald Reagan.

[grumbler]

Though as a minor quibble it was mostly Wolfowitz Cheney who was selling the cheap 'n' quick victory.

Fixed.  You are correct that Wolf was the biggest seller of the kool-aid before the decision to go to war was made, but Cheney was chugging it by the time he got around to the "flowers in the guns" speech and the "let the looters blow off some steam" decision.

[Admiral Yi]

Though as a minor quibble it was mostly Wolfowitz who was selling the cheap 'n' quick victory.

Fixed it back.

[Hansmeister]

But overall he listened to his military and policy advisers rather than his political advisers. Unfortunately, for too long this was Dick Cheney. So it's not like NOT politicizing these kinds of decisions is any guarantee of coming to the right conclusion.

Dick Cheney ws 100% about politics, and 0% about military or policy except insofar as they enabled the administration to send the right political signals.

Not politicizing the war would have involved listening to his generals even when they said things that were unwelcome or politically uncomfortable.  Bush and Cheney failed spectacularly at that until McCain (who, like the generals, was in favor from the beginning of what later became known as "the Surge") forced it upon them.

the problem was that the generals were originally mostly wrong.  indeed, it took a few year for Bush to find his Grant.  A peacetime Army leads to the advancement of mediocre, bureaucratic generals who rise to the top because they were skilled at avoiding to offend anyone.  It is quite telling that most generals opposed the surge, luckily bush ignored them because they had lost credibility.  Listening to bad military advisors got Bush in this mess, he needed to first find some good ones to listen to.  When you blame Cheney, don't confuse the argument for going to war with the management of the war, the generals were able to fuck that up all by themselves.  It was the deferrence to the generals wich created so much of the problems.