Novice In Chief
Reportedly opts to ignore his generals. IPS:
WASHINGTON, Feb 2 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.
But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.
Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.
A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.
Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”
I have no idea how reliable this IPS article is. I hope it isn’t at all. Before we get to the abandonment part, let’s stop and consider how Bush and Rumsfeld got raked over the coals for disagreeing with generals. Looks like Obama’s disagreeing with his own SecDef as well. You’d think he wouldn’t want to argue with success … especially when the Iraqis are begging him not to bail on them. But you know what Obama says. He won. They need to stop listening to that Bush guy.
That bit about senior military officers preparing to fire up a public campaign sounds awfully familiar, too. Sounds like what goes around, comes around. The rest of the article posits a lot of Machiavellian policy manipulation and blame-gaming on an expected post-withdrawal collapse. Whether or not such an outcome is a given, here’s the most telling couple of graph:
If Obama does not change the policy, according to the source, they (senior officers) hope to have planted the seeds of a future political narrative blaming his withdrawal policy for the “collapse” they expect in an Iraq without U.S. troops.
That line seems likely to appeal to reporters covering the Iraq troop withdrawal issue. Ever since Obama’s inauguration, media coverage of the issue has treated Obama’ s 16-month withdrawal proposal as a concession to anti-war sentiment which will have to be adjusted to the “realities” as defined by the advice to Obama from Gates, Petreaus and Odierno.
The pace of an Iraq withdrawal is one of the few campaign promises Obama has power to control unilaterally, and it is probably the only one that no one of any consequence would blame him for reneging on, particularly when he can cite having sensibly taken the advice of his generals. Like he already said he was going to. Especially since the basis for a rapid withdrawal was always, charitably, a bad idea based on a complete misunderstanding of the situation. Or uncharitably, cynical political pandering. Maybe this guy is as dangerous some people say he is, after all.
Sorry I made fun of you, Barack, for adopting Bush’s war policy. If that’s what it was, I promise I won’t do it anymore if you just, you know, adopt Bush’s war policy.
Hinderaker at Powerline with similar thoughts.
Dingdong over at Balloon-Juice naturally is delighted and suddenly interested in blind military obedience to the führer. So much for consensus-building. Here’s another guy who just discovered the concept of commander in chief. Maybe I missed it. I don’t recall much squawking on that side of the aisle when assorted sergeants and captains and colonels and generals were running whispering campaigns and NYT op-eds some time back. Here’s a thought. If Iraq predictably goes (back) to hell, are these guys going to start calling for their guy’s impeachment?
This is like a Sullivan Sullivan parody. The guy who can never quite figure out his own position has fun with other people’s:
… the generals seem to be assuming that Iraq will only be kept from disintegrating if US troops occupy the place indefinitely. Is that now the neocon position? I thought the real position was: we’ve won, so we have to stay for ever. My own position is: we have a window to leave; why on earth would we not leap at the chance?
There’s a snapshot in time for you. But as delightful as the idea of Sullivan leaping out windows is, I think this is technically just a modification of his earlier shout-fire-and-climb-over-the-crowd-jamming-the-exit position.
The Hill meanwhile jumps ahead to 2012 and takes a quick look at the idea of President Petraeus. Never mind all the plotting IPS was talking about. A quick withdrawal by Oabma could turn Iraq into a heck of a campaign issue again.
Then there’s this. Hot Air channeling a report that claims Obama advisors had secret meetings with our nation’s enemies, before he was even elected, let alone in office.
Malkin’s on to something with Post-Traumatic BDS Syndrome … hey, that’s redundant, but so is BDS, most of the time. A lot of people, including the commander in chief, may end up wishing they still had Bush to blame everything on. I know I wish they did. Remember Bush? Man enough to recognize when he had made a mistake, admit it, and do something about it. Toppled tyrants, remade the map of the Middle East, gave Iraq its best chance. New guy wants to see how fast he can mess it up. Maybe Hillary can talk some sense into him.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:26 pm Comments (4) on Monday, February 2, 2009
4 Responses to “Novice In Chief”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:46 am
I thought the real position was: we’ve won, so we have to stay for ever. My own position is: we have a window to leave; why on earth would we not leap at the chance?
I’d love for Sully to explain our presence in Germany and Japan and South Korea, then.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:56 am
[...] The problem here, according to Jules Crittenden, is that Obama is a “novice-in-chief” who is “opt[ing] to ignore his generals.” [...]
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:53 pm
If Democracy in Iraq succeeds, then the liberal left’s foreign policy has miserably failed.
So will the present administration and the Democrats permit an Arab country secure, secular, democratic, pro-west, a model for the rest of the muslim nations, yes of course! But not if President Bush will take the credit for the legacy.
Thus our policy in Iraq as a tribute to President Bush should be a miserable failure.
What will make President Obama great, just look beyond wrongness of Iraq politics and lead zealously what is best for America.
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:11 pm
[...] Found on JulesCrittenden.com [...]