Obama and His Commanders
General David Petraeus greeting Barack Obama when he arrived in Iraq last summer, in this AP raw footage from the tarmac.
Now we're into one of the most fascinating parts of the new Obama Administration, President Barack Obama's relationship with America's military commanders. How successful will he be in working with these people, and in carrying out the shift away from the old Bush/Cheney priorities?
Next week, Obama goes to the Pentagon, for a a meeting in the highly secure "Tank" with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. While he's keeping Defense Secretary Bob Gates on, we don't yet know how many, if any, of the individual service chiefs -- Navy, Marines, Army, Air Force -- Obama intends to retain after their terms end. Nor do we know what his plans are for the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Navy Admiral Mike Mullen. Nor do we yet know what he wants to do with the current chiefs of the US Armed Forces' international commands.
Barack Obama questioning General David Petraeus last April on what can be considered a successful outcome in Iraq.
We do know that Obama already met, on Wednesday, with one general whose job looks secure for now, Central Command chief David Petraeus, as well as JCS chief Admiral Mullen, Defense Secretary Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Obama's national security advisor, former Marine Corps commandant and NATO commander Jim Jones.
After that meeting, Obama said: "I asked the military leadership to engage in additional planning necessary to execute a responsible military drawdown from Iraq."
If things hold together in Iraq -- and that's a big if, dependent on factional factors inside the country and America's ability to engage Iran -- Obama's goal of withdrawing combat troops from the country in 16 months is very do-able.
Of course, Obama is planning a surge in troubled Afghanistan to coincide with the Iraq drawdown.
Petraeus, subject of a memorable MoveOn.org ad as "General Betray-us" (done by a one-time colleague of mine), appears key to all of this. The Iraq commander during the surge is now the head of US Central Command, which covers both the Iraq and Afghan Wars, and has in its "area of responsibility" Afghanistan, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, and Yemen. In other words, a lot of the hot spots in the news. Although Central Command's official headquarters is in Florida, its regional headquarters is in Qatar, just like Al Jazeera, the powerful Arab TV network.
A top Republican operator, a John McCain man who admires Petraeus, told me this the week before Obama's inauguration: "Now America's smartest general and America's smartest politician get to work together."
For all the blood-and-guts hero worship of Petraeus on the far right, he's actually a very political general. At the dawn of his career, upon his graduation from West Point, he married the daughter of the Military Academy's commanding general. His approach around the Iraq surge was at least as political as it was military, playing the various Iraqi factions against one another and for the US and even engaging with Iran on its interests in quelling the violence.
Petraeus arrived in Washington on the night of Obama's inauguration, having just concluded a lengthy tour of the Middle East, Central Asia, and South Asia, during which he consulted with the leaders of the various former Soviet republics and with top Russian figures.
For all the single-minded nature of conventional media focus, Iraq and Afghanistan are part of multiplex challenges involving Pakistan, India, the overall Middle East, and Russia.
And for all the surrounding complexity, what is needed is clarity. Iraq became a spiraling obsession for the Bush/Cheney Administration. Afghanistan, where the objectives should have been clear (to thoroughly disrupt Al Qaeda and deny it that base of operations), became the latest unfinished Attention Deficit Disorder operation for a White House pursuing the illusory glitter of its own dark dream.
Barack Obama visiting Afghanistan in July, in this Al Jazeera report.
Now Afghanistan -- the "good, neglected war," as Democrats have typed it -- requires clarity and realism. Lacking that invites quagmire. What is the overall goal in Afghanistan? Nation-building in a far-flung failed state which has successfully resisted outsiders for centuries, not least the British and Soviet empires? Or the original post-9/11 objectives?
That's something that Obama, with various civilian and military leaders, including Petraeus, needs to be very clear about.
In the meantime, Obama wants to stabilize the situation, something increasingly difficult because of Pakistan. The US has long relied on supply lines through increasingly unstable Pakistan, a longtime haven for Al Qaeda and Taliban cadre after they were chased out of Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11. There have been recent closures of those lines, in the legendary Khyber Pass and elsewhere, due to Islamic jihadist attacks. Peshawar, the longtime regional capital, is increasingly unstable.
In the wake of his pre-inaugural travels, Petraeus thinks that new supply lines have been secured.
Barack Obama visiting with US troops last summer in the Middle East.
The U.S. has struck deals with Russia and neighboring countries allowing it to transport supplies to American troops in Afghanistan through their territory, the head of U.S. Central Command said Tuesday. Most supplies for U.S. and NATO troops must first pass through northern Pakistan via the Arabian Sea port of Karachi, a treacherous route sometimes closed because of attacks by Islamist militants.
But it's probably not that easy, not that that was easy. Moscow will probably want more concessions. In fact, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev has just been re-tracking Petraeus's steps in Central Asia.
It's unclear how salvageable the situation is inside Pakistan, where US missile strikes against jihadists have begun again under the Obama Administration. In fact, it was Obama himself who first publicly called for such strikes, in 2007. Which ironically prompted criticism of Obama by then frontrunner Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and some in the Bush/Cheney Administration.
Perhaps a more explicit deal can be done with Iran to help with supplies and with stabilizing the situation in Afghanistan.
With all the demonization of Iran, something that its wild-eyed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made easier, it's easy to forget that, like Russia, Iran helped the US bring down the Taliban regime in Afghanistan after 9/11.
Besides, after the US toppled Saddam, one might even say that Iran owes the US a favor for making it a bigger regional power than it would ever otherwise have been.
Sardonic humor aside, watching Obama work with Petraeus and his other commanders is going to be quite fascinating.
You can check things out during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com
|
Obama Pakistan Missile Strike Kills 18
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Suspected U.S. missiles killed 18 people on the Pakistan side of the Afghan border Friday, security officials said, the first attacks on...
|
|
First Missile Strikes On Pakistan Since Obama Presidency: Reports
According to ABC News, Commander-in-chief Obama has launched his first missile attacks... The CIA's bombing campaign against al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan continued with two...
|
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Love this story!
The video at the bottom: "Barack Obama visiting Afghanistan in July, in this Al Jazeera report." at 1.23 - 1.29 seconds sez it all folks!
Six seconds of true journalism, voice of the people be it only two, one old guy one young dude; you tell me!
What did it say?
See William Bradley's Profile
Six seconds of true journalism? Sounds like a record!
OMG OMG OMG
This is what the Huffington Post is all about folks...
The second and third videos hit 10 on the soundbite meter; yet the first one and the transcript of Obama questioning the general; OMG how can one not give this man credit for communication skills?
Nice way to spend a Sunday after brunch ;-)
See William Bradley's Profile
Indeed!
It may be too cute, but perhaps ceding Afghanistan to Al Qaeda is exactly what is required.
It would draw them from their Pakistani- tribal-land hide-aways and stabilise Pakistan. This would also facilitate intelligence gathering while they re-occupied their areas etc. Thus we could hit them later.
Of course the only downside is a huge, humanitarian one, in that yet again we would be using indigenous people as bait in order to round-up the evil-doers; creating more recruits for nihilistic jihad.
On balance I think we are going to have to remain in Afghanistan but it is going to cost us in personel.
It gives me no joy to say that this would probably have been avoided if the Bush-whacker had actually committed enough troops in the first place, and sealed the border before we evicted the Taliban.
He didn't so much smoke 'em out, but just drove them under the hills.
You're right. That's too cute.
See William Bradley's Profile
Ummm ...
Maybe somebody can explain to me the logic behind Obama's proposed plans to start an"orderly evacuation"of our forces in Iraq and escalate out presence in Afghanastan!
If this is a plan to correct the collosal blunders commited after 9-11,-the bypassing of Afghanastan,where Bin Ladin was hanging out, to pursue a non existant non relavent enemy in Iraq-it strikes me as many many days late and more and more dollars short,not to mention unfathomable more violence and destruction! It also continues to keep the world and the American public in the dark about just what the hell do we hope to accomplish by increasing our presence in Afghanastan?
Has Mr.Obama lost sight of the fact that Soviet efforts to "Pacify"Afghanastan"played a large part in it's ultimate collapse?
So you want the Taliban to re-take Afghanistan and let Al Qaeda operate there again?
That makes sense ... how?
U guys watch way too much Star Wars and Austin Powers; or the new and improved Al Qaeda!
Give them (the bad guys)computers and keep an ear on them;
just out and out say;
" Hey dude, here's a computer, we are going to monitor every stroke of your keys..."
They'll(the bad guys) will still do what everyone does, they'll work the machine man and that way they will connect with others that are near and dear and "Hello", "Bara Bing", quotations in the air, we (Big Brother in cyberspace space) get to have transparency on them (the bad guys)....
Now the real question is what r we going to do do with the Hanford Challenge instead of the Taliban Challenge !!!!! ????? !!!!!
See William Bradley's Profile
I'm not sure what you are suggesting? Ceding Afghanistan to the Taliban and Al Qaeda?
Sorry- thought this might work better as a specific reply-
It may be too cute, but perhaps ceding Afghanistan to Al Qaeda is exactly what is required.
It would draw them from their Pakistani- tribal-land hide-aways and stabilise Pakistan. This would also facilitate intelligence gathering while they re-occupied their areas etc. Thus we could hit them later.
Of course the only downside is a huge, humanitarian one, in that yet again we would be using indigenous people as bait in order to round-up the evil-doers; creating more recruits for nihilistic jihad.
On balance I think we are going to have to remain in Afghanistan but it is going to cost us in personel.
It gives me no joy to say that this would probably have been avoided if the Bush-whacker had actually committed enough troops in the first place, and sealed the border before we evicted the Taliban.
He didn't so much smoke 'em out, but just drove them under the hills.
OK, listen up:
SUSTAINABILITY-Less weapons, give them all a computer.
EDUCATION-See Sustainability
None r immune to the corruption that Unearned Privilege breeds.
The second and third videos hit 10 on the soundbite meter; yet the first video and the transcript of Obama questioning the general: S--T & OMG how can one not give this man credit for communication skills; both such mutual respect, that's what u get from a good education?
Nice way to spend a Sunday after brunch ;-)
I like the Al Jazeera report on Obama in Afghanistan but then it peters out into a typical Arab man in the street bit denouncing America.
You seem to know Al Jazeera well. Do they do this to keep the radicals at bay?
See William Bradley's Profile
I do know Al Jazeera quite well. I think this report reflects not just its view of Obama visiting but also the widespread lack of regard for America's role in the ME and South Asia.
Obama asked Petraeus the exact right question last spring.
Do you define "success" in Iraq as a ridiculous neocon fantasy?
Or do you define it as stability in Iraq, tamping down Al Qaeda in Iraq, and checking Iran?
See William Bradley's Profile
That's one way of putting it.
Obama and Petraeus look like they're already a team in that video from last summer.
See William Bradley's Profile
I think Obama and Petraeus definitely hit it off.
This is going to be fascinating.
It's going to be fascinating to see how many people are knee jerks on the left as knee jerks on the right.
PART 1 of 7
Get our people out of Iraq and leave the stuff there…
Dear Mr. President,
I would like our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible and I believe that I have a simple outline to a plan to get them out safely and a way to dispose of equipment; LEAVE IT.
Well, leave most of it in that area.
The Bush administration and its contractors have brought in enough equipment, built huge complexes (bases), and have made plans that would ensure that we would never leave Iraq. There is no time to get all of the equipment out and returned to the U.S. within 16 months or our troops out safely if we plan to take it all. There is also no way to, or should we, destroy all of the buildings and bases that we have built.
So, you just want to have everybody pull out immediately?
See William Bradley's Profile
Your plan is to cut and run?
I'm no fan of the neocon approach, but it's probably not best to have folks clutching at helicopters leaving the American embassy, either.
PART 2 of 7
Get our people out of Iraq and leave the stuff there…
We have left Iraq’s infrastructure in a shambles. Water systems, Power systems, buildings, and people are all war torn and are in need of repair. Their military is all but non-existent. This will not do when we also want the Iraqis to be able to defend themselves and to have a sovereign nation without the fear of its neighbors, especially Iran, from coming in and taking them over as soon as we leave. There are also others countries and friends in the area that need equipment in order to protect themselves.
First, I would begin having the French contractors come in and re-take charge of the oil wells and infrastructure as they did before we occupied Iraq and gave the oil to Bush’s contractor friends. Get our contractors out of the way and ensure that we are not there controlling any part of their country. By having a trusted ally remain and take care of their oil interests we relinquish claim of and responsibility for it.
See William Bradley's Profile
Your assessment here is a couple years out of date ...
PART 3 of 7
Get our people out of Iraq and leave the stuff there…
Second, begin to divide up equipment into the order of its importance for the future. Figure out what equipment and troops need to go to Afghanistan, decide what computers and equipment are vital and would give a technical advantage to an enemy, then plan for that to come back to the U.S., see what our friends in Israel need to feel safe in the region when we leave and plan to bring that equipment to them, determine what equipment and arms would be needed by the military and government of Iraq to remain safe, inspect and decide what equipment would never be any good in the future and needs to be scrapped or destroyed, and now organize a list of what is left and plan to split it into 6 groups. Please, do not waste time being too anal about counting every bullet.
PART 4 of 7
Get our people out of Iraq and leave the stuff there…
Third, begin negotiating with Kuwait, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Russia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. Each of these countries would need to be involved in order to have a clean and quick evacuation of our troops and equipment from Iraq. Work with the U.N., as well, in order to have U.N. troops involved in the exit.
Kuwait would be a main exit point for equipment, troops and what is leaving to go to Afghanistan, but could not be the sole exit point. It would leave our troops vulnerable as they travelled to the area to depart unless there were other areas for there withdrawal and we had enough U.N. support.
Syria, Jordan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia could be other exit points. Syria and Jordan could be given equipment and money to allow us to transport our troops out at several points and also to transport equipment and supplies to Israel. Each would be allowed to have an equivalent amount of equipment that would hold a balance in the area and not tip anyone’s hand.
PART 5 of 7
Get our people out of Iraq and leave the stuff there…
Saudi Arabia just wants us the hell out of there. I believe they would not want our equipment to come through there or need our equipment but they may, for a fee, allow us to transport troops out through their borders.
Russia and Pakistan are our routes to bring equipment and troops into Afghanistan. We need to see what they would want in order to help us complete our mission there and to allow our troops and equipment to flow through their countries. Turkey would be a route for this equipment and troops to get to Russia or to ships in the Mediterranean.
Russia and our other friends in the area might help transport troops to friendly countries in the area while they wait for transport or commercial plane rides back to the U.S.
Working with the U.N. for troops to help ensure our troops get out safely and we leave Iraq in the hands of the U.N. and the Iraqi government as we exit. The U.N. can help negotiate a full withdrawal.
PART 6 of 7
Get our people out of Iraq and leave the stuff there…
By following a plan that is similar to this, we would have troops and equipment leaving at the closest exit points and our troops in northern Iraq would not have to travel across the entire country in order to exit. Equipment would become secondary to lives of our troops. We could lessen the extraction time to a few months and ensure our troops would have U.N. troops to watch their backs as they exited. We do not want another Saigon.
I know this plan would be asking Secretary of State Clinton and the State Department to do a lot of work, but it would make a diplomatic exit rather than a military fight to get out.
PART 7 of 7
Get our people out of Iraq and leave the stuff there…
The alternative appears to be leaving bombed out bases, vast fields of burned out and destroyed equipment and the death of many of our troops as they exited. Our troops would need to be wasting time worrying about equipment rather than their lives. To me, that is unacceptable.
Thank you,
Mark
P.S. Remember, it’s about lives not stuff. Leave the stuff, get our troops out safe.
If it's about lives and not stuff as you say, why would you want everybody to leave immediately?
See William Bradley's Profile
It's a heartfelt, kneejerk view.
After reading your 7 steps, it's difficult not to laugh. You clearly demonstrate you have little knowledge or understanding of the dynamics of the Middle East, our relationship with Russia, military equipment, logistics requirements of the military, rules regarding technological transfer to foreign nations, the current state of the Iraqi military, the effort required to redeploy a large military force, etc. etc. Stick to what you know.
Has as much insight and knowledge as Bush 43 had. 43 should have followed daddy 41's example and never went there.
Even in the Gulf War it was Cheney that wanted to continue on to Bagdad. It was Powell and Schwarzkopf that were against that and Powell said if you break it you will own it.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
