cart, meet horse
Recognizing the apparently overblown nature of the the recent stories about Generals Petraeus and Odierno meetin' Obama in the street with their shootin' irons, I still keep seeing stories that make me wonder if we all remember how this show is supposed to be scripted. Here's the beginning of a new story from Politico:President Barack Obama is refusing to be rushed into his first decision to send troops into combat, an early sign he may be more independent-minded than U.S. military leaders expected.The president of the United States is independent-minded because he's not instantly giving military leaders the things they tell him they want. Why, I tell ya, Clevis, it's almost like that dang-fool president thinks he's the boss o' them military folks!
The new president's methodical decision-making offers an early insight into how the new commander in chief will approach the war in Afghanistan and has surprised some Pentagon officials, who had predicted repeatedly in the past two weeks that Obama would decide within days on additional forces, only to find the White House taking more time.
Rather than sign off quickly on all or part of a long-standing Pentagon request for three Army combat brigades and Marine units, totaling over 10,000 troops, Obama and his aides are questioning the timetable, the mission and even the composition of the new forces, officials familiar with the deliberations said.
The timetable and the mission are political decisions, and don't belong in the hands of generals. (The composition of forces, yeah.) This is ordinary behavior in a functioning government, and it's being greeted with man-bites-dog stories about how the president is "questioning the mission." We can argue over the scope and dimensions of the insanity, but it seems clear enough that we've wandered off into crazyland.
posted by Chris Bray @ 9:32 AM
8 Comments:
I'm going to say this is yet another example of hype ... let's not forget that without "conflict," (or sex and blood) the media has no story.
To me, the Politico story is hyping conflict where there is very little or none.
These Generals are not dumb; they're very smart and so is Obama. The smartest thing Obama did was to retain Gates, given his own lack of experience in his new job as Commander-in-Chief.
The Generals know who the boss is, believe me. They also are cognizant of the statements made during the campaign --- "Unlike my predecessor, I'll listen to the commanders" juxtaposed with "We need to withdraw troops from Iraq."
What is happening now is to me, quite normal and predictable given a new administration trying a different approach.
The military had 8 years of experience with Bush and has now a few months with Obama. So, the pace "has surprised some Pentagon officials"? Bullshit. Maybe those ever-elusive "pentagon officials" who are always available to cite in order to prove a pet narrative.
To paraphrase Rummy, the Pentagon is a fucking building --- give me some names!
And, perish the thought that our "independent" media might dare give mom and dad the idea that "Yessir, Clevis, that-there new president is standin' up to them war-mongerin' Generals."
I'll concede that it's very difficult to determine how much of a story is driven by "this is happening," and how much is driven by, "the reporter doesn't understand." We'll see. It still wouldn't shock me at all to see something like the revolt of the colonels during the Eisenhower administration -- smart people can get a little crazy when you threaten their rice bowl.
"It still wouldn't shock me at all to see something like the revolt of the colonels during the Eisenhower administration -- smart people can get a little crazy when you threaten their rice bowl."
And, I'm with you on all of that, Chris ... but, thank (insert your favorite imaginary friend's name here), Generals are not tenured.
To some extent, I think the contrast isn't with Bush, but with Clinton. He was so spooked by the "Democrats don't get Defense/don't understand the Military" crap that it took him a while to get even moderately aggressive on budget issues, and I don't think he ever really took the lead on operational ones.
AH, I think that's a fair comment.
I might suggest that his being "spooked" had more to do with the fact that he was our first president, post WWII, who was not a veteran and because, during his first campaign, there were charges leveled by others that he had "dodged the draft," which, if you look at the record, had some merit.
Of course, others might have been inclined to support him precisely because he did dodge the draft.
But, to me, being "aggressive on budget issues" vis a vis defense spending and being the CIC and focusing on "operational" issues are two entirely different matters.
Many in Clinton's party, Ted Kennedy and Murtha most notably, have never voted against any defense budget issue, given the amount of defense spending that benefits their respective States or districts.
Clinton did make substantial cuts in the military, per se; some say, too deep. But I do not recall that he was even "moderately aggressive" in cutting defense spending for military hardware manufactured in districts that were represented by his Democrat colleagues.
Clinton certainly wasn't timid when he made a decision without Congressional approval to order US Fighter planes to bomb Bosnia in 1995 and ordered US Army troops into that country, which troops remain to this day.
Obama OKs about 17,000 more troops for Afghanistan
Much ado about nothing ... I think Ricks is promoting his book.
Hi, I am a new fan of your blog. Hope you can join my free horse lovers club RiderMate.com. It is very active now.
Great story you got here. It would be great to read more concerning this matter. Thanx for sharing this data.
Sexy Lady
English escort
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home