Tag(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 5   Valuable 5   Supported 4   View Ratings | Rate It

Promoted to Primary Headline on 9/25/10:     Permalink
View Article Stats      (24 comments)

Petraeus Cons Obama on Afghan War

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend

Become a Fan
Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)

Become a Fan Become a Fan  (87 fans)   -- Page 1 of 5 page(s)

opednews.com

One thing that comes through clearly in Bob Woodward's new book, Obama's Wars, is the contempt felt by Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, toward President Barack Obama.

One of Woodward's more telling vignettes has Petraeus, after quaffing a glass of wine during a flight in May, telling some of his staff that the administration was "[expletive] with the wrong guy."

No need to divine precisely what may be the "expletive deleted." Petraeus's Douglas-MacArthur-style contempt for the commander-in-chief comes through clearly enough. But Obama is no Harry Truman, facing down a popular general who may fancy himself a future president.

Pity poor Obama. Journalists favored with an advance peek at Woodward's new book, like Peter Baker of the New York Times, report that Obama last year pressed his advisers to come up with ways to avoid a major escalation in Afghanistan.

Baker notes that at one meeting the President "implored" them. "I want an exit strategy," Obama said.

Obama implored in vain. Petraeus, then the head of Central Command, and the other generals refused to come up with an exit strategy from Afghanistan. What does that tell you? Among other things that Barack Obama is "no Jack Kennedy," either.

This Time: No Profile in Courage

The young Kennedy faced very similar pressures from an even more unreconstructed military brass. Then, as now, senior military officers were experts at "slow-rolling" politicians who favored a course of action that the Pentagon didn't like. When in May 1962 Kennedy ordered preparation of an exit plan from Vietnam, it took more than a year for the brass to draw one up.

But Kennedy knew where the buck stopped and was above "imploring." Rather, he concluded that there was no responsible course other than to order a phased withdrawal from Vietnam, despite strong opposition from the Joint Chiefs and others. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Obama's Profile in Courage Moment."] Kennedy showed he had the courage and the cleverness to outmaneuver them.

Then-Defense Secretary Robert McNamara later wrote that there was "a total lack of consensus" regarding Kennedy's plan to pull out 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and the bulk of the rest by 1965. Yet, Kennedy had the courage to step up to the plate; he issued an executive order anyway, bypassing the majority of his advisers who remained strongly opposed.

McNamara summed up the situation in terms that seem eerily applicable to Afghanistan today:

"The President nonetheless authorized the beginning of withdrawal, believing that either our training and logistical support led to the progress claimed or, if it had not, additional training would not change the situation and, in either, case, we should plan to withdraw."

Of course, Kennedy's Vietnam withdrawal plan did not survive his assassination. Soon after his death on Nov. 22, 1963, the Joint Chiefs convinced President Lyndon Johnson to escalate the war in Vietnam.

"Bristling,' Then Caving

Drawing from Woodward's book, Peter Baker reports that Obama "bristled" at what he saw as attempts by the senior military to force him into a decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan.

However, in the end, Obama tilted toward the position of Petraeus and the other generals in a too-smart-by-half, hybrid decision. He ordered 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, while setting a "condition-based" date for beginning a withdrawal next July. As if anyone really thought then, or thinks now, that "conditions" are going to allow a significant withdrawal next summer!

Obama's critics are right about one thing. Setting that kind of deadline was worse than feckless from a military point of view -- for reasons that have been adduced time and time again. Cynics are correct in describing the compromise decision as transparently political and, in the end, utterly naïve.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5

 

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army infantry/intelligence officer and then a CIA analyst for 27 years, and is now on the Steering Group of (more...)
 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
24 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Things are NOT Always What They Seem . . . = Propaganda by Casey Reed on Saturday, Sep 25, 2010 at 1:37:33 PM
Agent McGovern has no clothes by Ethan Allen on Saturday, Sep 25, 2010 at 2:09:40 PM
That is disingenious by Vaikunthanath Kaviraj on Saturday, Sep 25, 2010 at 5:07:20 PM
Swimming in Mud Makes Movement and Cleanliness Impossible by Casey Reed on Sunday, Sep 26, 2010 at 2:11:00 PM
Way to go, Obama! by Terry Adcock on Saturday, Sep 25, 2010 at 2:26:08 PM
Visionless stooge? by BFalcon on Friday, Oct 1, 2010 at 7:27:18 AM
"no political alternative........." by Robert P. Philipps on Saturday, Sep 25, 2010 at 3:33:11 PM
The question is, is Obama in charge? by Christopher Rushlau on Saturday, Sep 25, 2010 at 3:52:59 PM
If the Answer to "...is Obama in charge?" is "Yes"... by Terry Adcock on Saturday, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:57:17 PM
Collateral damage......... by Robert P. Philipps on Saturday, Sep 25, 2010 at 7:52:44 PM
Is Obama in Charge? by Samson on Monday, Sep 27, 2010 at 3:32:34 AM
Is Obama in Charge? by Samson on Monday, Sep 27, 2010 at 3:43:29 AM
Obama, Petraeus, and Afghansitan by Ned A. Delaney on Saturday, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:35:36 PM
??? by Richard Pietrasz on Monday, Sep 27, 2010 at 2:05:45 AM
jfk and the generals by Ray McGovern on Monday, Sep 27, 2010 at 2:13:26 AM
The generals know by BFalcon on Friday, Oct 1, 2010 at 7:35:43 AM
Don't get fooled again. by Samson on Monday, Sep 27, 2010 at 3:13:49 AM
The "innocent" Ray McGovern by BFalcon on Friday, Oct 1, 2010 at 7:42:13 AM
No moral compass by Marika on Monday, Sep 27, 2010 at 3:19:59 AM
Profile in Courage? by Maxwell on Monday, Sep 27, 2010 at 4:00:12 PM
Because... by Maxwell on Monday, Sep 27, 2010 at 4:04:31 PM
Yes, Mr McGovern, I read Douglass' book by Margaret Bassett on Monday, Sep 27, 2010 at 5:30:27 PM
A theory of elites is not enough by Christopher Rushlau on Monday, Sep 27, 2010 at 6:01:54 PM
Petraeus by Nick van Nes on Friday, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:22:42 AM