Are War Generals Undermining Obama's Command In Afghanistan?

Politico:

Implicit in the president's decision is an effective cap of about 100,000 for the American force, but top Democrats fear that unless Obama is more assertive, the military chain of command will undermine his July 2011 target to begin some U.S. withdrawal.

Read the whole story: Politico

Comments

[NCAV2]

12:30 AM on 12/08/2009

We need stop acting like Obama is being bullied into this war. Obama WANTS this war. He handpicked McChrystal and had plans all along of escalating this war. This is his war now.

[Ladyrantsalot]

08:16 PM on 12/07/2009

Let's face it, this is not your father's military. This is a very political and partisan group of high-ranking officers. Who can forget Petraeus's utterly ridiculous Op-Ed in WashPo on Sept. 26, 2004, less than 6 weeks before the 2004 election. Virtually every one of his junior officers had been sending him anguished assessments of the downward spiral in Iraq. And what did this party-first general write to the American public? "18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress." "There are reasons for optimism." And, my personal favorite: "Momentum has gathered in recent months." Why didn't he just close with "so vote for your man and mine, George W. Bush." These guys do and say what they want. They are not to be trusted.

[Chilito]

07:10 PM on 12/07/2009

The real problem is a very serious one for the country - the military has no confidence in the intentions, the commitment, the competence, or the direction of its commander-in-chief. That's not good. And the trouble is that there is NOTHING Obama can do about it.

He's a political lightweight. That's one kind of problem when your friends know it. It's another kind of problem when your enemies know it. It is an insurmountable failing when your troops know it. Obama is WAY over his head and his generals aren't going to bail him out for much longer.

[Ladyrantsalot]

08:18 PM on 12/07/2009

Oh really? What are they going to do? Stage a coup? Do you hail from a Banana Republic, Chilito?

[bilmardre]

09:40 PM on 12/07/2009

cheny, of that's you you are not helping your case. Every time you post something like this the first thing people think about is the utter incompetance of you guys.

[leslielkd]

05:01 PM on 12/07/2009

The military has a real PR problem right now. The same soldiers are re-deploying for the 3rd and 4th time -- some more than this. There are protests all across the nation, but we don't see or hear anything about this. So, they send out the brass to legitimize the story.

[dlswriter]

03:03 PM on 12/07/2009

Any general that sends out the most powerful military in the world to walk or drive over $10 IEDs should be court martialed.

[IwantPEACE4All]

03:14 PM on 12/07/2009

or president

[llfutrell]

04:02 PM on 12/07/2009

Didn't the prez. just give the orders to the soldiers? So you meant to say the prez...not the Generals....they just do what the prez. tells them.

[baba2nde]

02:57 PM on 12/07/2009

One more issue the generals may have missed: Arrayed to squelch Al Qaeda and Taliban, on this side of the border, 100,000 ISAF & US troops and counting, from 42 countries, including just 122 troops from 3 majority muslim nations; on that side of the border, troops from Pakistan, a majority muslim nation and a nuclear power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force#Contributing_nations

Of course the war has nothing to do with religion, we know that. But what does that force array say? More importantly, what does the array suggest to a (Muslim) Pakistani commander?

[mergina]

02:56 PM on 12/07/2009

Generals always undermine dems.

[jimme]

03:05 PM on 12/07/2009

They find it harder to personally profiteer.

[llfutrell]

04:04 PM on 12/07/2009

The fact is the majoirty of the military is overwhelmingly conservative.

[Balzac]

02:53 PM on 12/07/2009

No, they are not. If anyone tried to deliberately undermine Obama's command, they'd be relieved of command themselves. The relationship between a president and top brass in the military is what it is. If President Obama were a former general himself, he could really micromanage all things militarily right from the beginning.

There is a very good reason why military service is not a pre-requisite for holding public office in America. President Obama is in command, he is the Commander in Chief. There is no such thing as a 5-star general, but if there were, there would only be one and it would be the President.

President Obama is in command, his generals are not undermining his command, they're executing it, and to the extent that objectives and plans are clear, outcomes are predictable, they will be executed precisely.

The process of making those specific plans involves information requested from the military and plans made collaboratively sometimes at the tactical level, but mainly at the strategic level, delivered as commands.

However, this is not command by consensus, the chain of command is strictly hierarchical. For example, if President Obama said "We're withdrawing from Afganistan starting January 2010", it would be done and he'd accept the political fall-out if the public said he had just "lost a war" and embarrassed our nation. So, being aware of the political forces at work, it makes no sense to be paranoid about the generals who loyally serve under the President's command.

[Balzac]

02:58 PM on 12/07/2009

I was mistaken about 5-star generals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_star_rank

Military business is not my forte and I write from a place of general ignorance. I always try to correct my errors. Still, I'm happy to give my opinions. :0)

[Sam 32]

02:51 PM on 12/07/2009

Does anyone think Obama can devise and execute a battle plan? HAHAHA!!! This I've got to see!
The only thing the President should decide is if we are in Afghanistan to win. If we arent there to win, GET OUT NOW!!! If we are there to win, give the generals what they need, get out of their way and let them win the war!!!

[Balzac]

03:04 PM on 12/07/2009

Hello, are you interested in military service?

[dlswriter]

03:05 PM on 12/07/2009

Then sit back and watch Obama clean-up Bush's failures.

[Sam 32]

03:31 PM on 12/07/2009

What exactly is Obama doing differently than Bush in Afghanistan?

[llfutrell]

04:06 PM on 12/07/2009

Obama does not draft military strageic war fighting, that is a fact. The Generals and their staff are trained and educated in the strategic art of war planning, the Prez. just decides if we stay or go. Dont give credit to someone who doesnt draft the plan and dont take credit away from those that did.

[ongomania]

02:45 PM on 12/07/2009

Keep your ambassador close and your generals closer. Obama
will do well to keep Ambassador Eikenberry close by his
side (he represents the truth). Given that Petraeus is a ReThug
top prospect for 2012 -- McChrystal has joined himself to the
General's hip to safeguard his own possible political future--the
Prez will keep these two 'very close' via a short leash.

[blue53]

02:29 PM on 12/07/2009

McCrystals report leaked itself? McCrystal was forced to give that speech in England? Who was passing out bibles in Iraq? I suspect the christian nationalist movement in the military is at work here.

[Ceregene]

02:51 PM on 12/07/2009

I don't quite understand how that worked.

[Balzac]

03:15 PM on 12/07/2009

Non-sequitors.

[bilmardre]

02:18 PM on 12/07/2009

It's sad the GOP let this Afghanistan thing drag on under resourced for 7 years. Well, all that money and those lives will not be wasted. We have a new sheriff in town who will finish the job and bring the troops home.
Apparently it takes a Democrat now when it comes to issues of National Security.

[chrisberge72]

02:59 PM on 12/07/2009

The notion that Republicans were strong on national security was always a falsehood.

[Dredd]

02:17 PM on 12/07/2009

Military resistance to civil command is a form of coup and should be nipped in the bud.

Unless of course the bud formed decades ago.

What do we do in that case?

http://powertoxins.blogspot.com/2009/11/greatest-source-of-power-toxins.html

[One If By Land]

02:01 PM on 12/07/2009

If you listen to Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Clinton, it's not the generals that are undermining the commitment to "pull out" in 2011!

[nirek]

02:34 PM on 12/07/2009

I do NOT trust Gates or the generals , they are in the business of WAR.
It was a mistake for Obama to keep Gates on! He is a bush holdover .

Nirek

[davemilk32]

01:50 PM on 12/07/2009

You may dislike Bush but when he say he is going to do something he meant it and didn't care who
didn't like it. Obama needs his swagger or he will be a one term President and that will be a change you can believe in

[liberalNmoderation]

02:19 PM on 12/07/2009

blah blah motherf*ckin blah.

[Ceregene]

02:37 PM on 12/07/2009

liberalNmoderation,

davemilk32 is correct in his assumptions. He did not say anything mean, he just wrote the truth. You and I may not like what he said but it's true.

[llfutrell]

04:09 PM on 12/07/2009

You are correct. Whether you liked his policies or not, you knew he was going to do what he said he was going to do.