This doesn't look good.
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/10/21/obamas_military_problem_is_getting_worse
QuoteObama's military problem is getting worse
Wed, 10/21/2009 - 5:43pm
By Peter Feaver
President Obama is presiding over a slow-motion civil-military crash occasioned by his meandering Afghanistan strategy review. The crash has not yet happened and is avoidable, but it also foreseeable. Of concern, the latest reports out of the White House suggest that Obama's team is not yet fully aware of the dangers. If it happens, it will be a problem entirely of Obama's own making and it could have a lasting impact on the way his administration unfolds.
As Rich Lowry has observed, President Obama rarely misses a chance to blame a challenge he is confronting on his predecessor. This rhetorical tic served Obama well during the campaign and probably still resonates with partisans who post anonymous comments on blogs or who suffer from chronic Bush Derangement Syndrome. But it gives the impression that the Administration never left the campaign bubble and may even encourage self-defeating campaign-like behavior such as picking feuds with news organizations.
And insofar as the Afghan strategy review goes, it is a narrative string that is thoroughly played out because the current civil-military problem confronting the Obama Administration is entirely of its own making. The problem is not that Afghanistan is a difficult combat theater, nor that Karzai is an inconvenient Afghan ally, nor even that President Obama is taking time to review his strategic options. All of that and more is true and, I suppose, some of it can be "blamed" on President Bush. The problem that cannot be blamed on Bush is that the way President Obama is reviewing his strategic options is generating needless civil-military friction and, unless the Obama team gets it under control, could generate a genuine civil-military crisis.
Tom Donnelly produced an extensive tick-tock of the evolving Obama Afghanistan policy that reads like the first draft of a "what went wrong" post-mortem. For my money, the key developments were:
President Obama opts for a misleading straddle in rolling-out the results of his first Afghan strategy review in March. He oversells the extent to which the new strategy is a radical departure from his predecessor's, but more crucially oversells the extent to which he is committed to this strategy. And, like President Johnson in 1965 and unlike President Bush in 2007, he announces the low-ball estimate of new resources expected rather than the high-ball estimate. Military audiences hear what they want to hear -- namely that the President is committed to resourcing the "new" COIN strategy --and do not hear what they do not want to hear -- namely that the President is reserving the option not to resource adequately the new strategy and, indeed, to change his mind about the strategy in a few months time.
Shortly after the roll-out, President Obama and his key White House team take their collective eye off the ball and are largely uninvolved in the firing of General McKiernan and the hiring of General McChrystal. Indeed, President Obama has only one substantive interaction with the battlefield commander of his most important "war of necessity" for the next four months.
The most meaningful senior White House engagement with the Afghanistan theater over the long summer of discontent is a remarkable late June trip that NSA Jim Jones takes and that amounts to an on-the-record politicization of military advice. As reported by Bob Woodward, Jones appears to tell the military commanders to shave their military advice in light of President Obama's reluctance to approve new troop deployments. This episode, I believe, is the key pivot point. Military observers draw two "so that's the way it's going to be" inferences:
(1) The Obama team is fully cooperating with Bob Woodward -- a tried and true Washington strategy because Woodward tends to treat more favorably people who have cooperated (i.e. shared information and access) than people who haven't. Application: it is OK to cooperate with Bob Woodward.
(2) The Obama team is politicizing civil-military relations. Application: play the game or you will get burned.
On 17 August, despite harboring serious misgivings about the Afghan mission -- and despite the accumulating evidence that the Afghan elections, a few days hence, will be riddled with fraud -- President Obama gives his most important speech since the March roll-out focusing on Afghanistan and uses the same rhetoric that he used on the campaign trail: Afghanistan is a war of necessity. Reasonable inference for military audience: The president is committed to fully resourcing this war.
A direct result of Jones's late June trip, I suspect, is that Bob Woodward is put on distribution for the McChrystal report and receives it shortly after McChrystal delivers it to his (McChrystal's) chain of command in late August. However, because Woodward is in the book-writing business, he does not publish the scoop, holding it back for the book. (Many observers believe that Woodward's source was a military officer, but my own hunch is that it was someone from Holbrooke's staff. My conjecture is based largely on the fact that when the story does break, Woodward leaves Holbrooke entirely out of the story, a telling absence of the AfPak czar that makes more sense if one is protecting a source).
Throughout September, after the McChrystal report is delivered but before it is leaked, there start to be stories that indicate growing military frustration with the White House's lack of strategic focus on Afghanistan. The military apparently believe that President Obama is paralyzed with indecision. This is the context for Woodward going to his source and asking for permission to run the report as a news story rather than as a book scoop: the White House is trying to bury the McChrystal report by refusing to act or even debate it. The result is a real civil-military problem.
In response to the leak, the White House kicks into high damage-control mode (after a brief delay occasioned by the unfortunate timing of the UNGA meetings), but even here shows some clumsiness, at least regarding civil-military optics: the 25 hours for the Olympics vs. 25 minutes for McChrystal optic, and the surprisingly prominent participation of the political team in what is supposed to be a national security review. This coupled with numerous anonymous quotes attributed to senior Obama team members aimed at knocking McChrystal down a peg or two do more to roil than smooth the civil-military waters.
And then, most recently, a remarkable (and rare) public disagreement between Chief of Staff Emmanuel and Secretary of Defense Gates about whether the Obama team can wait to decide on the McChrystal request until after the fate of Afghan President Karzai is resolved.
In short, President Obama has been slowly veering off into a civil-military ditch of his own digging. Despite his relative inexperience in national security matters, this was not inevitable; during the campaign President Obama showed himself to be fairly deft rhetorically in regards to civil-military relations and he carried this strong performance through the first several months of his presidency. However, in recent months he has seemed far less at ease with his wartime Commander-in-Chief role.
If Obama regains a deft touch, the crash can be averted. To avert it he needs to do more than simply endorse the McChrystal request, though that would surely help. He needs to show that he respects the civil-military process, and he needs to rein in his advisors who have been stumbling about. If he is going to over-rule McChrystal, which is his right as a Commander-in-Chief, he will have a much steeper climb out of his civil-military hole. At a minimum, he will need to forthrightly take ownership of the war and all of its consequences and spend the political capital he has hitherto avoided spending on national security issues to explain his decision to the American people and the American military. Of course, while President Obama and his team bear the lion's share of the responsibility for the current civil-military friction, they cannot by themselves get out of the hole they have dug. The military will have to help by rigorously sticking to proper norms of civil-military relations. That means they must not counter-leak, not even to defend themselves from scurrilous attacks from unnamed White House staffers; seek redress quietly, within the system, and within the chain of command. They must avoid threatening President Obama with resignations in protest if he overrules their advice; such threats subvert the principle of civilian control which implies that civilians have a right to be wrong. And they must be prepared to do their utmost to implement Obama's chosen strategy as effectively as they can with whatever resources he puts at their disposal. If President Obama errs, it is up to the electorate to judge him, not the military.
Pete Souza/The White House via Getty Images
Obama was happy to use Iraq and Afghanistan as a political bludgeon, but has no idea how to handle either of them outside the strictly political sphere.
I am worried that he might not even understand that there is such a thing as "outside the political sphere".
Has anyone figured out how to handle Afghanistan?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 22, 2009, 08:05:47 PM
Has anyone figured out how to handle Afghanistan?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fa%2Fab%2FAlexander_The_Greate_and_Roxane_by_Rotari_1756.jpg%2F496px-Alexander_The_Greate_and_Roxane_by_Rotari_1756.jpg&hash=25501d4087b9012454cddfa13b5b6eb40c22b23e)
Community Organizers = superb military leaders :D
:yawn: This stuff is so old hat. There hasn't been an Afghan strategy for eight years now. Another eight weeks won't be decisive. Judge the strategy by the results, not the partisan bickering that precedes it.
Hard to take the article seriously - lots of gossipy inside baseball stuff. Whenever you see a topic sentence of a paragraph begin "A direct result of Jones's late June trip, I suspect, is that Bob Woodward . . ." it is unlikely that what comes next is going to be that enlightening.
The serious point that is buried in the gossip is this: Obama picked McCrystal to formulate the strategy in Afghanistan, but doesn't seem to want to follow his advice. At the same time, rather than admit he has changed in mind and announce a change in approach - he is doing the worst of both worlds and trying to muddle through speaking out of both sides of his mouth. We played this kind of game before in SE Asia and it doesn't work.
Personally, I think there were good reasons to hire McCrystal - and Obama would be well-counseled to give the man what he asks for and let him do his job. But if he doesn't want to do it, he should make a clean policy break and do it now.
Could a coup be coming?
Quote from: Jaron on October 23, 2009, 07:22:18 AM
Could a coup be coming?
General BetrayUs is right now bringing the armies of the east home. Hide your guns and twinkies!
Quote from: citizen k on October 22, 2009, 08:44:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 22, 2009, 08:05:47 PM
Has anyone figured out how to handle Afghanistan?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fa%2Fab%2FAlexander_The_Greate_and_Roxane_by_Rotari_1756.jpg%2F496px-Alexander_The_Greate_and_Roxane_by_Rotari_1756.jpg&hash=25501d4087b9012454cddfa13b5b6eb40c22b23e)
I never new Alexander was a woman.
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.
Quote from: KRonn on October 23, 2009, 08:46:39 AM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on October 23, 2009, 08:52:00 AM
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?
Quote from: Berkut on October 23, 2009, 08:52:00 AM
While you may not have agreed with Bush on his war policies, you could not claim that he politicized them.
Really?
At least he kept state and church separate.
"This is a crusade."
Quote from: Berkut on October 23, 2009, 08:52:00 AM
Quote from: KRonn on October 23, 2009, 08:46:39 AM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 23, 2009, 09:04:14 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 23, 2009, 08:52:00 AM
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.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 23, 2009, 08:57:03 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 23, 2009, 08:52:00 AM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on October 23, 2009, 09:08:38 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 23, 2009, 09:04:14 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 23, 2009, 08:52:00 AM
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.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/10/does_obama_blame_britain.html
QuoteYou 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."
:D
Quote from: alfred russel on October 23, 2009, 09:04:14 AM
Really?
I think it would be more accurate to say that Bush did not tailor his foreign policy to fit domestic opinion polls.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2009, 10:17:17 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 23, 2009, 09:04:14 AM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 23, 2009, 10:38:59 AM
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.
QuoteBut 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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2009, 11:05:24 AM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 23, 2009, 11:12:51 AM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on October 23, 2009, 09:08:38 AM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2009, 10:17:17 AM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2009, 11:23:34 AM
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.
Though as a minor quibble it was mostly Wolfowitz who was selling the cheap 'n' quick victory.
Fixed it back.
Quote from: grumbler on October 23, 2009, 01:07:34 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 23, 2009, 09:08:38 AM
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.
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 23, 2009, 05:05:37 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 23, 2009, 01:07:34 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 23, 2009, 09:08:38 AM
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.
Hans, is there any talk in the military about a coup?
Quote from: Jaron on October 23, 2009, 05:16:21 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 23, 2009, 05:05:37 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 23, 2009, 01:07:34 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 23, 2009, 09:08:38 AM
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.
Hans, is there any talk in the military about a coup?
We're drafting the list of people to be proscribed right now. What's your address?
Quote
We're drafting the list of people to be proscribed right now. What's your address?
305 W 3rd St, Oxnard, CA