While Gates accompanied Petraeus and his Iraq commander, Gen. Odierno on Feb. 2, 2009 when the two generals met with Obama and tried to pressure him to abandon Iraq troop withdrawals, by Feb. 9, he was clearly following orders from Obama on giving even one third of the troops requested by the Army for Afghanistan. The whole enterprise is in question.
The clarity of Obama's intent is reflected in the Times article. They didn't invent this language.
"Obama promised extra 7,000-10,000 troops during the election campaign but the military has inflated its demands. Leading Democrats fear Afghanistan could become Obama's 'Vietnam quagmire'." TimesOnline, Feb. 8, 2009
Referring to Afghanistan as a "Vietnam" anything is tough talk. Adding "quagmire" is the icing.
How does it end?
The British are signaling that they think that the Afghanistan "surge" is both a bad idea and a dead letter.
"General Sir Richard Dannatt, the army chief who will step down this summer, has insisted that troops need a rest and believes he can send only one battle group, senior defense sources said." TimesOnline, Feb. 8, 2009
After reviewing the evidence, it seems to me that Obama is maneuvering brilliantly in this situation. It is also clear that Gates was the right choice for Defense given the clear disrespect for Constitution shown by these two military officials.
Does that mean that I endorse Tim Geithner or Larry Summers as stewards of the economy? Not at all. They're dreadful choices and Senator Gregg is worse than dreadful. It doesn't mean that I have "hope" or that I now "believe" in Obama.
It simply means that in this very important encounter between rogue military elements and the President of the United States, at this point, I'm convinced that Obama is headed in the right direction.
END
This material may be reproduced in whole or in part with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
