Consulter In Chief
The president is bringing in Congressional leaders, both parties, to talk about Afghanistan this afternoon. In the long, slow march to deciding whether to fight or not, it’s a key moment which may provide important clues about which way he’s leaning or whether, as has been the case with other major agenda items, he intends to let Congress lead for him.
Afghanistan Update: President Barack Obama is hosting a bipartisan, bicameral meeting at the White House today with congressional leaders to discuss Afghanistan—the first meeting of its kind since Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal warned of failure if more troops are not sent to the region. Members attending including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry and ranking Republican Richard Lugar, as well as Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin and ranking Republican John McCain.
Points for bi-partisanship. But it goes downhill from there.
USA Today reports White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says Obama will be soliciting a “wide range of advice,” which suggests he wants to test the mood, let everyone feel like they are involved. Which is fine, thouh it suggests we’re no closer to a decision, and he doesn’t intend to tell them this afternoon how it’s going to be:
President Obama is soliciting a wide array of advice as he considers the way forward, Gibbs said, and “certainly Congress plays a big role.”
That session precedes another high-level meeting Wednesday with Obama and members of his national security staff. Another key White House meeting takes place on Friday.
“We’re going through a series of decisions,” Gibbs said. “We ought to take the time to get this right.”
This, via Xinhua, is even little less encouraging:
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said at a regular briefing Monday.
“There’s no doubt that, particularly on (Afghan war) funding, it is not going to happen until Congress signs off,” he said.
I know the Dems aren’t big on taking lessons from George Bush, but one that Obama would do well to learn is that he is president of the United States, commander in chief of American troops engaged in combat in furtherance of vital national and global security interests. I’d refer him to the critical 2006-08 period, when Bush faced a hostile opposition Congress and managed to successfully prosecute the war in Iraq in spite of their best efforts to undermine it, abandon American interests in the region to Iran, and precipitate a genocide.
Meanwhile, re consultation, it’s too bad the people who actually have to prosecute the war have to fight for the kind of respect the pols are getting.
O’Hanlon at WPost: McChrystal has a right to speak up. (Ironically enough, what O’Hanlon is basically saying is, don’t do what Bush did … do what Bush did!)
Marine Corps U. Prof Mark Moyar at WSJ: Afghanistan and Leadership: McChrystal needs more troops now precisely so that Afghans can take over the war effort later.
Pincus at WPost reads between the blunt-talking general’s lines.
NYT: Gates re McChrystal, STFU already …
Goldfarb at Weekly Standard: Gates backs McChrystal, plus more handicapping.
Commentary roundup at Memeorandum.
Different, related. Malkin: “Rough men who stand ready. Wounded troops refused to leave Afghan firefight.”
Different, not unrelated. Gateway: Harry “This War Is Lost” Reid lectures Republicans on patriotism. It’s a health care thing.
In accordance with FTC regulations re blogger conflict of interest, I’d like to report that I did not vote for President Barack Obama or any Democratic members of Congress, though I’m open to the concept if they start making sense. Don’t worry, it’s a lot more sense than they are likely to make any time soon. Wait a minute. What am I saying. After the way they tried to abandon Iraq? After … OK, moving on. I’d also like to report that being part of the vast right-wing conspiracy is not very lucrative.
(Care to comment? Registration is shut down, due to persistent spammers. Use the “contact” link above to assure me you are a real human being interested in commenting on the topics at hand, include the screenname and temporary password of your choice, and I’ll create a logon for you. Lefty Kumbayah singers, moderate handwringers, mean-spirited rightwingers all welcome. No litmus test, this is a free speech zone as long as you keep it clean and make an effort to be accurate.)
Topics: Afghanistan, Obama, pols
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:18 am on Tuesday, October 6, 2009
7 Responses to “Consulter In Chief”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
October 6th, 2009 at 11:19 am
The Chosen One got Himself in a huge box over Afghanistan. After excoriating the Bush administration for missing the ‘real war’ in Afghanistan, Obama positioned Himself during the campaign as the candidate who could and would win the war there. Now He doesn’t want to.
Obama has a huge dilema now - and it is one of his own making: ( http://www.conservativeblog.thewebinfocenter.com/conservative-blog/obama%E2%80%99s-afghanistan-dilema ) Does he cut and run like He wants? Or does he stand on a campaign promise to fight bad guys there so they don’t try to kill us in our homeland?
October 6th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
I would refer the President to one Lewis W. “Chesty” Puller, Major General, USMC for advice on how to prosecute a counter-insurgency.
Except he’s dead, and the First Mook wouldn’t listen anyway.
October 6th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Worst. President. Ever.
October 6th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
RebeccaH, you forgot Carter.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
No, saveliberty. It took Carter an entire term to accomplish the clusterfark that Obama has managed in nine months.
October 7th, 2009 at 7:41 am
Good point.
October 9th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
mojo, from Chesty,
“All right, they’re on our left, they’re on our right, they’re in front of
us, they’re behind us…they can’t get away this time”
- Lewis B. “Chesty” Puller, USMC
Uuh Rah!