[Winstonm]

Quote

by Gareth Porter
CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defense 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' 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 mobilizing public opinion against Obama's decision.

Quote

The opening argument by the Petraeus-Odierno faction against Obama's withdrawal policy was revealed the evening of the Jan. 21 meeting when retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, one of the authors of the Bush troop surge policy and a close political ally and mentor of Gen. Petraeus, appeared on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer to comment on Obama's pledge on Iraq combat troop withdrawal.

Keane, who had certainly been briefed by Petraeus on the outcome of the Oval Office meeting, argued that implementing such a withdrawal of combat troops would "increase the risk rather dramatically over the 16 months." He asserted that it would jeopardize the "stable political situation in Iraq" and called that risk "not acceptable."

The assertion that Obama's withdrawal policy threatens the gains allegedly won by the Bush surge and Petraeus' strategy in Iraq will apparently be the theme of the campaign that military opponents are now planning.

I have a feeling that Patraeus and the Pentagon are grossly underestimating the resolve of President Obama - as a constitutional lawyer he must have a terrific knowledge of American history and be confident in his role as civilian commander of the armed forces.

I admit I do not like the tactics being contemplated for use to try to sway opinion - they sound to me as if there were a propaganda department within the Pentagon.

I am growing concerned about the roles of the military in policy making decisions, especially if the military would resort to political tactics to encourage a military agenda - that, I believe, would be extremely dangerous a Rebuplic.

Anyone else concerned? Comments?

[mike777]

I think it has long been clear he was never never pulling out all troops in 16 months. I predicted long ago in this cooler troops will be in Iraq for a very very long time. At this point it became a matter debating the meaning of words.

Speaking of McArthur keep in mind he wanted to drop 30 Atomic Bombs just north of the Yula River creating a radioactive zone to keep the REDS out.

[jtfanclub]

What's the rule on court-martialling retired officers? They can say what they want to unless they're wearing a uniform? Or is being called and calling themselves by a rank sufficient?

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Feb 3 2009, 11:48 AM, said:

I have a feeling that Patraeus and the Pentagon are grossly underestimating the resolve of President Obama - as a constitutional lawyer he must have a terrific knowledge of American history and be confident in his role as civilian commander of the armed forces.

As a constitutional lawyer, he must have a terrific knowledge of the history of Constitutional law. I don't think that his legal background gives him any sort of inside line or advantage with respect to leading the military, other than with respect to his understanding and use of some tricky legal provisions, such as unlawful enemy combatant issues, material support to terrorist organization laws, etc.

I don't think they're underestimating his resolve; just hoping that it's still subject to flexibility, particularly in response to the opinions of people who are more experienced than he in particular areas (which was hailed as one of his major selling points). Which isn't to say that Patraeus is right per se, but that this is more an area of his expertise than Obama's.

It sounds less like a nuts-and-bolts disagreement than a tough decision involving the weighing of some strategic and/or political gains vs. some tactical losses. Ultimately, as Commander in Chief, Obama will make the final decision of the pros and cons; however, I would expect that if Patraeus believes that Obama is underestimating the cons, he will further try to persuade him of that fact. I would also expect that Obama is wise enough to want him to, whether he ultimately agrees or not.

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Feb 3 2009, 11:48 AM, said:

I am growing concerned about the roles of the military in policy making decisions, especially if the military would resort to political tactics to encourage a military agenda

I understand this position, but there is also a danger in using military tactics for a political agenda (i.e. keeping a campaign promise even if subsequently discovered information reveals it to be the wrong decision).

[Winstonm]

Lobowolf, on Feb 3 2009, 01:11 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 3 2009, 11:48 AM, said:

I am growing concerned about the roles of the military in policy making decisions, especially if the military would resort to political tactics to encourage a military agenda

I understand this position, but there is also a danger in using military tactics for a political agenda (i.e. keeping a campaign promise even if subsequently discovered information reveals it to be the wrong decision).

All true. But when it comes to agenda, the military - no matter how right they believe themselves to be - must take a backseat to the civilian leadership. No doubt MacArthur was sincere in his beliefs - but he ultimately was no match for Truman.

This dispute has a degree of truth-twisting (propagandizing for agenda) about it that is troubling - much (to me) like the fact-distortion build-up to the Iraq invasion.

A little more from the article:

Quote

Keane, the Army vice-chief of staff from 1999 to 2003, has ties to a network of active and retired four-star Army generals, and since Obama's Jan. 21 order on the 16-month withdrawal plan, some of the retired four-star generals in that network have begun discussing a campaign to blame Obama's troop withdrawal from Iraq for the ultimate collapse of the political "stability" that they expect to follow U.S. withdrawal, according to a military source familiar with the network's plans.

The source says the network, which includes senior active duty officers in the Pentagon, will begin making the argument to journalists covering the Pentagon that Obama's withdrawal policy risks an eventual collapse in Iraq. That would raise the political cost to Obama of sticking to his withdrawal policy.

If Obama does not change the policy, according to the source, they 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.

This makes the military's decision-making sound extremely political to me - and if attempted would be a blatant attempt by the military to alter the political agenda.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I think it has long been clear he was never never pulling out all troops in 16 months. I predicted long ago in this cooler troops will be in Iraq for a very very long time. At this point it became a matter debating the meaning of words.

Mike,

If you haven't done so you might want to Google this article and read the whole thing - the author brings out this "debating the meaning of words" issue as something Obama rejected, which led to Patraeus being upset - supposedly the ex-administration had come up with a plan to simply rename the fighting forces some other kind of forces and that way bypass the deal they signed with Maliki's government.

Obama supposedly nixed this idea.

[kenberg]

There are, I suppose, some similarities with the issues of the fifties. MacArthur and Petraeus both can claim considerable knowledge and success in military matters, in both cases they are serving a president who sees things differently.

I don't think it is at all wrong for Petraeus to aggressively state his case. Eventually it will be for Obama, as the Commander in Chief, to decide. If Petraeus thinks that withdrawing troops on a fixed schedule announced during the campaign would lead to disastrous results I see no reason he should not say so. In fact, he should. It's an extremely important decision and we need to get it right. He will, in the end, have to accept Obama's decision of course. As far as campaign promises are concerned, I would say that "Change we can believe in" has already bit the dust with his support for Tom Daschle. The country will survive with a more flexible schedule of withdrawal.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I don't think it is at all wrong for Petraeus to aggressively state his case.

Me, either, and maybe I am reading too much into this, but after the NYT's article about how the entaglements of the "military experts" that dominated news shows and Rumsfeld's creation of his own intelligence apparatus within the DoD that to utilize a similar-type group to create what sounds like a propaganda campaign is over the top and not just aggressively stating an opinion.

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on Feb 3 2009, 01:22 PM, said:

Quote

Keane, the Army vice-chief of staff from 1999 to 2003, has ties to a network of active and retired four-star Army generals, and since Obama's Jan. 21 order on the 16-month withdrawal plan, some of the retired four-star generals in that network have begun discussing a campaign to blame Obama's troop withdrawal from Iraq for the ultimate collapse of the political "stability" that they expect to follow U.S. withdrawal, according to a military source familiar with the network's plans.

The source says the network, which includes senior active duty officers in the Pentagon, will begin making the argument to journalists covering the Pentagon that Obama's withdrawal policy risks an eventual collapse in Iraq. That would raise the political cost to Obama of sticking to his withdrawal policy.

If Obama does not change the policy, according to the source, they 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.

Ever since the US attacked and occupied Iraq, it was clear that eventually:

• US forces will withdraw.
  
• Opponents of the US will declare victory.
  
• Iraqis will fight it out for power.
  
• The occupation government will be replaced.
  
• Bush and his apologists will blame someone else for the failure.

The idea behind the surge was to delay the inevitable so that Bush would not face the consequences of his own stupidity. I'm sure Obama is prepared to take political heat personally, if necessary, instead of sacrificing more lives to delay the inevitable.

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on Feb 3 2009, 02:50 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 3 2009, 01:22 PM, said:

Quote

Keane, the Army vice-chief of staff from 1999 to 2003, has ties to a network of active and retired four-star Army generals, and since Obama's Jan. 21 order on the 16-month withdrawal plan, some of the retired four-star generals in that network have begun discussing a campaign to blame Obama's troop withdrawal from Iraq for the ultimate collapse of the political "stability" that they expect to follow U.S. withdrawal, according to a military source familiar with the network's plans.

The source says the network, which includes senior active duty officers in the Pentagon, will begin making the argument to journalists covering the Pentagon that Obama's withdrawal policy risks an eventual collapse in Iraq. That would raise the political cost to Obama of sticking to his withdrawal policy.

If Obama does not change the policy, according to the source, they 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.

Ever since the US attacked and occupied Iraq, it was clear that eventually:

• US forces will withdraw.
  
  
• Opponents of the US will declare victory.
  
  
• Iraqis will fight it out for power.
  
  
• The occupation government will be replaced.
  
  
• Bush and his apologists will blame someone else for the failure.

The idea behind the surge was to delay the inevitable so that Bush would not face the consequences of his own stupidity. I'm sure Obama is prepared to take political heat personally, if necessary, instead of sacrificing more lives to delay the inevitable.

The driving motivation of a first-term President is to get re-elected to a second term.

[Lobowolf]

PassedOut, on Feb 3 2009, 02:50 PM, said:

I'm sure Obama is prepared to take political heat personally, if necessary, instead of sacrificing more lives to delay the inevitable.

The natural result will be that Obama will get the credit, if credit is given, and Bush will get the blame, if blame is given. I'd be surprised if Obama goes out of his way to create a different public perception.

This is not to suggest that what I call the "natural result" is erroneous.

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Feb 3 2009, 03:00 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Feb 3 2009, 02:50 PM, said:

I'm sure Obama is prepared to take political heat personally, if necessary, instead of sacrificing more lives to delay the inevitable.

The natural result will be that Obama will get the credit, if credit is given, and Bush will get the blame, if blame is given. I'd be surprised if Obama goes out of his way to create a different public perception.

This is not to suggest that what I call the "natural result" is erroneous.

Really? I think if Obama orders the troops withdrawn against the suggestions of military command, and the public ends up judging that it worked out badly, he will shoulder virtually the entire blame. In fact I think completely opposite of you, much of the blame that would have been earned by Bush in that instance would probably go to Obama.

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Feb 3 2009, 03:16 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Feb 3 2009, 03:00 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Feb 3 2009, 02:50 PM, said:

I'm sure Obama is prepared to take political heat personally, if necessary, instead of sacrificing more lives to delay the inevitable.

The natural result will be that Obama will get the credit, if credit is given, and Bush will get the blame, if blame is given. I'd be surprised if Obama goes out of his way to create a different public perception.

This is not to suggest that what I call the "natural result" is erroneous.

Really? I think if Obama orders the troops withdrawn against the suggestions of military command, and the public ends up judging that it worked out badly, he will shoulder virtually the entire blame. In fact I think completely opposite of you, much of the blame that would have been earned by Bush in that instance would probably go to Obama.

Josh,

I agree with you, and furthermore if previously there had been a concerted effort to use the media to paint a political picure of the failure being Obama's fault then it would certainly be viewed as such.

We cannot underestimate the power of propaganda - keep in mind that simply using the word propaganda does not mean a falsehood, but a falsehood (or less that complete truth) is often the case when propaganda it utilized.

I find this idea truly disturbing if it shows a partisan prejudice within the military itself.

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Feb 3 2009, 03:16 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Feb 3 2009, 03:00 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Feb 3 2009, 02:50 PM, said:

I'm sure Obama is prepared to take political heat personally, if necessary, instead of sacrificing more lives to delay the inevitable.

The natural result will be that Obama will get the credit, if credit is given, and Bush will get the blame, if blame is given. I'd be surprised if Obama goes out of his way to create a different public perception.

This is not to suggest that what I call the "natural result" is erroneous.

Really? I think if Obama orders the troops withdrawn against the suggestions of military command, and the public ends up judging that it worked out badly, he will shoulder virtually the entire blame. In fact I think completely opposite of you, much of the blame that would have been earned by Bush in that instance would probably go to Obama.

Hopefully, whatever course of action Obama decides upon will be successful and recognized as such, and this will remain an interesting(?) exercise in speculation.

[mike777]

He will never never order all troops withdrawn in 16 months, I would not be surprised if we have a military presence in 8 years in Iraq, the goal will just be redefined. The President is a lawyer, he knows the meaning of words are debated all the time.

His actual orders will have enough room to mean almost anything he wants it to mean. Example,,,We will withdraw troops as soon as possible in conjuction with the advice I receive. We will send the military back in if that is in the best interest/defense of the country.



"Speaking at the State Department on Jan. 22, Obama told his diplomatic corps, "We are confronted by extraordinary, complex and interconnected global challenges: war on terror, sectarian division and the spread of deadly technology. We did not ask for the burden that history has asked us to bear, but Americans will bear it. We must bear it.""

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28959574/