Obama: twice rolled by his generals

Thu, 05/14/2009 - 12:02pm

I am told that General Odierno's objections to the timing of the release of a new round of photos of detainees being abused in Iraq were decisive to President Obama's decision Wednesday to reverse himself and decide against the release of those photos.

I am surprised by Obama's reversal. I wasn't so taken aback in February when he went along with his generals and abandoned his campaign promise to withdraw a brigade a month from Iraq this year, and instead endorsed a plan that kept troop levels there pretty steady this year. But to get rolled twice -- well, he must think he is running up some pretty big chits with them. I know he is trying to do the right thing but at some point he is going to have to say, My way or the highway.

MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images



Advertisement

 

I'm wondering if in the end,

I'm wondering if in the end, as President Obama, he knows there is a good chance the upper court will find for those wanting these photos released. But, as commander-in-chief Obama, he's shown he's willing to submit tactically to his field commander's concerns?

If I'm right, I further wonder if General Odierno has thought of this also, and is just buying time to prepare for any fallout that may come from it?

Interesting

A president who really listens to his generals. Well, this could change if Odierno keeps putting his big foot out there. Obama's trying too hard to be moderate - where's the change?

Doing the right thing....

Maybe its best to consider that in each decision he is doing the right thing. Other spins aside. He will be speaking at Navy next week. Believe the President is gaining the support of his Admirals and Generals.

Maybe its best to consider

Maybe its best to consider that in each decision he is doing the right thing.

Don't we need to pull out from iraq and afghanistan?

If releasing the photos would do so much to hurt the war effort, how much chance do we have to keep a dominant position there long-term?

Our position has been that we're the good guys, who're going to bring peace and democracy.

But to the world we're starting to look like bankrupt perverts. And it looks that way whether we release the photos or whether we instead refuse to release them because they look so damning.

Salient

"But to the world we're starting to look like bankrupt perverts...."

This is a much bigger issue one for which we may need a very broad reformation effort.

For now the other two are very tactical for not losing on the fringe.

Really?

“Moreover,” [Obama] said, “I fear the publication of these photos may only have a chilling effect on future investigations of detainee abuse.”

"a chilling effect on future investigations?" Assuming there might be future investigations, which I doubt based on Obama's past statements, then why does publicizing a crime, without mentioning any suspects, chill the investigation? Are no crimes to be publicized under this administration? Even Bush didn't try that. Are we actually supposed to believe this baloney?

Who's dirty?

I wonder if the theater commanders of both our theaters of war are dirty... along with half of Congress both Dems and Reps...

Did some of these photos come from areas of responsibility that fell under Odierno (who in his first tour in Iraq was very heavy handed and so were his troops) and the new AF-PAK commander McChrystal who was most likely running kill teams that may also be dirty and have used these torture techniques..? I mean, if this thing was S.O.P from Bush on down... than these acts took place EVERYWHERE... under all kinds of leaders who looked the other way... just like our Congress....

Would the release of these photos... and the investigation that may come regardless... finger some people who now hold critical positions in Obama's administration?

I wonder.....

War , by it's nature

is a 'win quick' or 'hit lower' proposition. The rules are only meaningful if breaking them will result in greater loss than observing them.

The best military victory is a bloodless victory, to achieve political and economic objectives through threat of violence. To be known as lethal and credibly willing to go to any length necessary, to destroy the enemy means and moral will to continue the conflict.

When a fight against a weak foe 12 time-zones away becomes general and protracted, the primary mission has failed, or been superceded by something that isn't defense.

The value of lifting prisoner abuse pictures above internal service investigation is that it provides durable documents, to debunk the 'glory of war' myth. Whatever skin McChrystal or Odierno has in the FOIA picture lawsuit, already won and won again on appeal by ACLU, the shaky myth must be defended, that we don't wage wars of aggression.

xx

x

McChrystal's upcoming confirmation hearing

is the real reason for this. The Iraqis and Afghans know all about US detainee abuse, either first or second hand, but there's no need to wave a red flag in front of senators considering any McChrystal connection to detainees or torture. The Tillmans will provide enough drama already for General McChrystal.

All the reporting

has said that the initial decision to accede to the release came from "the Pentagon." Now the reversal comes from the White House. Was "the Pentagon" as the initial decider on this just a formality or smoke screen?

Or maybe...

Or mybe the President has realized that while you can say anything while a candidate, actions are what matters once you're in office. I never thought I'd say this, but I'm impressed by Obama's foreign policy pragmatism.

You're just saying that

because you're not the mother of a dead Pakistani or Afghan child. You call it "pragmatism"; I call it murder.

Rolling along

Well, President Obama didn't get "rolled" by Gen. McKiernan. So what was the deal with his dismissal, anyway?

Tom, we talked about this.

Tom, we talked about this. There is abaolutely no reason that you should be surprised that Obama went back on a promise made. Same reason anti-globalization folks shouldn't be surprised that he went back on his promise to renegotiate NAFTA and postpone free trade agreements with Colombia. Same reason Planned Parenthood shouldn't be surprised that he's putting off the Freedom of Choice Act for the forseeable future. Same reason the Armenian Lobby shouldn't be surprised that he went back on his promise to recognize the Armenian Genocide. He has an impressive habit of making people on both sides of an issue think he is on their side, and the media never pressed him on this in the campaign. So he was free to promise just about anything he needed to to get elected, knowing that he'd get next to zero scrutiny from the press.

He also has the habit of floating ideas through the media to judge the public reaction before deciding to go ahead with it. Making wounded vets use their own insurance ring any bells?

"Where's the change?" This is

"Where's the change?"

This is what happens when you elect a president based on a catch, yet entirely amorphous and meaningless slogan such as "change." Technically, every President ever elected brought "change" in their first term.

But the President is patient.....

for the public and military to realized that it has been manipulated for a very long time and suppressed into not acting upon its ethics. Equanimity, is what he has..the ability to remain calm in the tempest...awaiting the moment that the community will rise up to its own capabilites and resolve these issues. This President is not a caretaker and we are not wards of the state. First, we change ourselves.

That's not quite leadership

That's not quite leadership then, is it? Your way, the President has to make no difficult decisions - he just responds to public opinion. I agree that is what Obama is doing, but I didn't think it was that great a governing strategy in the 90s, and I don't think it is now either.

Responsibility makes a dove more hawkish...

This is an interesting example of how being inside the ruling government changes a dove more hawkish. Senators and Reps can be more free in their criticism. But Presidents tend to err on the side of security, because they feel more directly responsible. Any one agree?

That being said: Obama is being pragmatic, as many have commented, and that's impressive. The disappointing part is that if Bush made this decision, the left would have been hyper-critical. The decision would have been condemned as another example of the administration's secrecy. The Olbermann types would have thrown a fit, and the mainstreamers would have assailed Bush. But for Obama, it is "pragmatic" and "listening to his Commanders." Weird.

Finally, I think one or two more instances of this happening are needed before declaring a pattern of CinC getting "rolled."

Any thoughts on any of those statements?

The Left?

The left has been "hyper-critical" of this decision, including Olbermann. The decision has been widely assailed. What are you talking about?

You probably won't hear him

You probably won't hear him talk about "creeping fascism" in reference to Obama's White House.

The more important point, however, is that you do not have to be a supposedly bumbling idiot cowboy--or just a "bad president"--to make hawkish decisions that are believed to be mistakes by people on the left and sometimes the right who are outside of the government executive. You just have to be president to feel the burden of responsibility that pushes you in that direction.

Another example of this was the Blair government in the UK. Supposedly a progressive Labour government, Blair's front bench followed Bush and took its Armed Forces to war with Iraq in the face of a back-bench rebellion from its less centrist MPs. It was also the Labour gov't who fought to keep and extend the detention time of terrorism suspects without formal charges in the face of Conservative party criticism week after week at PM's Questions. The progressive Blair gov't oversaw the huge increase in CCTV in Britain's cities to prevent crime and terrorism. The Labour govt has been in favor of national ID initiatives.

What is it about being the executive in power that turns people hawkish? I think that when a Senator/Congressman turns President, there are many things that push him in that direction: (1) New POTUS becomes more privy to intelligence and therefore more aware of the everyday threats, (2) "not on my watch," (3) "I am in charge now, and cannot afford to get hit and be seen as not having done everything to prevent it."

I think being at the top makes a Prez/PM more cautious, hawkish, and makes him tend to err on the side of security. Am I just crazy or is there something to this? Somebody talk me down on this one.

Ian Smith

Pragmatic? No, not at all

pragmatic: of or pertaining to a practical point of view or practical considerations.

practical: concerned with matters of fact: concerned with actual facts and real life and experience, not theory

Now if one thinks that maintaining US military forces in Iraq despite the "success" of the surge, reinforcing seven years of failure in Afghanistan, killing more innocent women & children and destabilizing nuclear-armed Pakistan while the US faces a $1.8tn deficit and is borrowing 46 cents of every dollar it spends, with no relief in sight, with no corresponding priority placed on pressing domestic needs, are PRACTICAL and PRAGMATIC actions then I'd strongly disagree.

Looking at the facts, these facts and more, leads to the indisputable conclusion that Obama is being anything but pragmatic. What Obama IS doing -- no surprise here -- is putting his own perceived political interests above the nations's best interests.

Pragmatism in Iraq

Pragmatism in Iraq- Nobody should be surprised that Obama went back on the 1 brigade per month promise. When I heard that one during the campaign, I gave it a big "Yeah, right." He lied to his base on that one. I think he knew he would have to go back on that one.

I happen to agree with slowing down the withdrawal. Not many good options there, but I know one unacceptable option: leaving a void too quickly, allowing descent into civil war (again); allowing Iran to put its fingers farther into Iraq to support the Shi'a; inviting Saudi Arabia to defend its Sunni bretheren. The proximity of these actors seems dangerous to me, and is asking for regional war. That seems less pragmatic to me than staying there and exiting more slowly.

That being said, I agree that you cannot stay forever. And if one thinks we should start exiting because the pressure could cause Iraqi politicians to reconcile at a quicker rate, then that is a good reason. Perhaps such an analysis should drive withdrawal policy. But if one wants to exit quickly because we should not have invaded in the first place, then either go get hired to advise an obscure rookie Congressmen, or cross over into the big leagues and realize that no time machine has yet been invented. I am glad Obama is crossing into the majors on this one. He was playing AA ball on foreign policy during the primaries, and that scared me. At the time, I had to hope he was lying or would flip on these issues.

Ian Smith

Obama the Wuss. I can't

Obama the Wuss. I can't imagine any other leader doing a 180 like that!!

Imagine if he didn't have the media licking his shoes!!!

Chits?

If Obama is rolling up chits from the brass, maybe he's planning to use them to revoke "don't ask, don't tell" and let gays and lesbians serve openly in the US military. He can say he deferred to the brass on Iraq withdrawals and the torture photos, but will defer to the grunts on gays. (Polls show most grunts who served in Iraq and Afghanistan favor allowing gays to serve.)

So is Obama thinking ahead of the brass?

campaign rhetoric v. reality

Candidate Obama's positions on national security rarely meshed with the realities of fighting a war against a determined and evil foe(s). Now that he has responsibility, calmer heads seem to have prevailed (thank god!). He has so much credit with the left that they cannot turn on him... yet. But he needed to gain the confidence of the very good military leaders that Gates has maneuvered into position. Afghanistan is his now.

To paraphrase Stalin, "Keith Olbermann? How many divisions does he have?"

So were Obama voters evil or stupid?

So all the citizens who voted for Obama based upon his unrealistic, irresponsible campaign rhetoric -- were they also evil, or just plain stupid?

evil?

I didn't say evil - or stupid. Perhaps naive is a good word. Show me a politician who never pandered to their base with unrealistic promises. Obama was a blank slate for every 'progressive' thinking person to project their hopes upon - and he encouraged that with vague promises that always had a caveat hidden in the fine print.

In a funny way, I'm sort of glad that he has the high approval ratings to make pragmatic decisions without fear of declining popularity. The very cult-of-personality that turned me off allows him latitude to make tough choices... for now. The next four years will be interesting.

So 69,498,215 naive people,

mere simpletons, elected Obama president because they weren't smart enough (like rpm) to realize that Obama's promises were unrealistic and irresponsible.

I have a different theory. The people who voted for Obama were realistic and responsible, had a right to expect Obama to at least try to fulfill his campaign promises, and ought to be very dissatisfied (not happy like you) that he has abandoned them.

not 69 million...

More like just the 5 million voters it took to give Obama the victory over McCain. And with the 'historic' level of unreasonable expectation and self-delusion that accompanied this election, I think those people would be pretty easy to find.

That said, every president must find the balance between campaign promise and reality. I recall a fairly strong promise in 2000 by candidate Bush that the US would not engage in 'nation building.'

Suppose the photos get

Suppose the photos get released. Then it's predictable there will be a whole lot of outrage in iraq. Not because they think now that we didn't torture and don't still torture. Because the photos make it obvious and make it obvious that we ourselves know and that we aren't going to stop.

So what's the chance that the election will take place, and they get the chance to vote to tell us to go away? Pretty high.

And what's the chance in that case that they actually do tell us to go away? Almost certain.

So either we go away or we throw out the iraqi government and try again with a new iraqi government that we choose from the pool of iraqis who're ready to collaborate with us at that point.

If those photos get out while there's still time for that iraqi election, it will cost us the war. We'll lose control of the iraqi government, we'll lose control of the oil, we'll lose our bases. We'll lose the war over those photos.

And that leaves me with a nameless doubt.

Was the intelligence we got from that torture worth what it cost?

TOM RICKS SAYS RAY ODIERNO IS POORLY EDUCATED, OVERPRICED

Tom Ricks wrote in the Washington Post to abolish all Academies and War Colleges but still has not told which if any of the Academies or War Colleges he has actually visited so that readers and listeners would know if Ricks had any valid knowledge of what he is talking about. That is, Ricks popped-off with "Lets kill Annapolis et al" with no personal knowledge of the life, culture, ethos of each of the Academies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/16/AR2009041603483.html

The article by Tom Ricks in this case is irresponsible and sloppy and Ricks owes cadets, midshipmen, families, NOK, grads, prospects and his readers an apology for his weak journalism. His topic, Accountability and Transparency, is excellent -- Grads more or as much as any others urge Accountability and Transparency of their Academies -- and War Colleges -- and I have written so; but his actual article is so failed as to warrant some decent apology especially for injury to those who cannot hit back: families and NOK and the dead and prospects for academies affected by the sloppy article.

By way of introduction, my West Point class is 1966. I chaired construction of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in DC and worked with vets for decades building the Korean War Veterans Memorial, the Women's statue at the Wall, the Women in Military Service Memorial in DC and Memorials in many states. Right now I work to help the project for the WW II Women Pilots (WASPs) be awarded a Congressional Gold Medal, as were the Tuskegee Airmen. That legislation has just passed the Senate. For President Reagan I planned and directed the Vietnam Veterans Leadership Program in 47 states. Some of the programs continue to this day, on their own funding. The VVLP mission is to link vets up with each other to find jobs and to break the false stereotype of vets as folks to feel sorry for, to pity, to treat as victims; instead to recognize vets as Strong Warfighters and Strong Citizens. Many VVLP guys and gals now work this mission for Iraq and Afghanistan vets.

Here is why Tom Ricks owes an apology. First, he seems not even to know that USCGA and USMMA exist. But his piece would abolish them. What an insult to USCGA and USMMA -- to say abolish them and not mention them. Second, Ricks does not say where on the web his cost data can be obtained and examined. Third, he in fact has not visited all the Academies and War Colleges he would shut, in a way to learn their ethos and culture and effectiveness of teaching, but by his tone of (false) knowledge, readers would think he has some close knowledge of the schools; West Point reports that Ricks has visited briefly, but not to learn anything at West Point of depth about the life and values of cadets and West Point and of West Point grads.

Fourth, Ricks omits mention that Washington and Jefferson long ago had sharp discussions about the need for West Point, and Washington strongly wanted the Academy. Jefferson opposed until right after he became President and saw the light, so to speak. He set up West Point (and so all Academies) (except USCGA) to draw youngsters from all walks of life -- the very poor especially -- proportionately from all over America through Congressional appointment. The Academies Reflect America thanks to Jefferson's Genius and Washington's Leadership.

Ricks seems not to know that the founders were clear on the need for a National Military Academy and he does not re-examine their arguments. USCGA brings in applicants by examination only, not by appointment from Congress proportionally nationwide. USCGA still succeeds in reflecting all of America and in fact has a slightly higher proportion of women admitted than the other four academies.

Fifth, Ricks does a thing that shows complete unfamiliarity with the heartbeat and life of the Academies: he tries to separate the Graduates from their Academies by saying the Grads are "crackerjack" but the schools are "community colleges" -- meant to mean, "second or third rate." So he insults Community Colleges too :) Most Academy grads strive to embody the values of their Academy in their lives. Ricks, unaware of this, shows a kind of insulting ignorance.

Sixth, Ricks in his article holds up ROTC as a paradigm without noting that no O-10 in active service has faced Peer War -- WW II kind of like war -- meaning that in 2009 the military does not know if ROTC programs steel grads adequately for Peer War. Meanwhile, Academies are proved in steeling grads for Peer War. He does not address the known un-evenness and disparities and inadequacies reported on many ROTC programs nationwide. He shows ignorance of his subject matter, in short. He goes on to say that Academy grads are too expensive therefore, but with no foundation of fact and analysis. Some or many or all ROTC programs may in fact be significantly underfunded.

Seventh, Ricks in his piece uses some alleged hearsay about some commanders who prefer non-West Pointers, he says. That is fine -- West Point is not perfect and not nearly perfect :) But anecdotal hearsay proves nothing. An editor of merit would have deleted, and pressed for real substantiation.

Eighth, Ricks omits to say that more than any other Americans, many Academy grads believe that their Academies have to earn their keep anew in each generation. I have written this myself. It is a reason that I participated in and supported the work of author Rick Atkinson in his writing the book, "The Long Gray Line" about West Point and the class of 1966. I told Rick, "We owe an accounting, to say to Americans, this is what you gave to us, and this is our Report." The book shows my own foibles, blunders and errors :) The point is, Accountabilty and Transparency :)

Ninth, Ricks omits mention of women and the gateway that the Academies provide to women for contributing to the defense and life of our Country. In 2005 the 10,000th woman graduated from the Five Federal Academies (I did the research); America is now on the way to 15,000 women grads of the Academies. This is a powerful and culturally and militarily important cohort. Ricks seems oblivious to this aspect, the aspect of bringing women so quickly and fully into mainstream Military and (as vets) Community Leadership. This exhibits again the genius of Washington and Jefferson. They made this possible.

Tenth, the piece Ricks wrote is so journalistically irresponsible that it unforgivably wounded folks who Can't Fight Back. That is, he rattled the morale and feelings of parents of prospective cadets and midshipmen and the prospects themselves, and many cadets and midshipmen, and widows and NOK of Academy grads killed in battle, and he insulted the brave dead from Academies. Hal Moore USMA 1945 of "We Were Soldiers" is an overpriced product of a third-rate college? Some would disagree. His steel in saving his battalion is seen by many as Proof of West Point's Value as Founded by Presidents Washington and Jefferson. Paul W. "Buddy" Bucha USMA 1965 is an overpriced grad of a third rate school? Congress and the President probably thought otherwise in citing Buddy for the Medal of Honor for saving the 89 men in his surrounded and cut-off Company in the 101st Abn. My dad John Wheeler USMA Jan 1943 at Normandy and the Ardennes and the Bridge at Remagen and the Liberation of the Nordhausen Death Camps was the overpriced grad of a third rate school? Ricks can go to Arlington and speak that at my Dad's grave :)

Eleventh, Ricks rabbit-punches Dave Petraeus USMA 1974. He insults him. He calls Dave's school third rate but says Dave somehow got into Princeton for graduate school. Dave had been kind and gracious to Ricks. Ricks is rather insulting to the Commanding General who trusts him. He does owe an apology for that. Ricks ignores that Dave himself by his life and work strives to embody West Point.

Twelfth, Ricks clings to an unmanly quality of Never Own up to an Error. There are better men and women at the Washington Post than that. Dave Broder, for example. Ann Scott Tyson, for example. Henry Allen, for example. Don Graham, for example. Ricks instead has done the unmanly thing of hiding behind a few editors at the Post who hew to the "Never Apologize, Never Explain" doctrine that infects some Journalists. The ombudsman of the Post says he only does news, not opinion pieces. Ricks' editor at the Outlook Section has never explained why he let the journalistically weak piece get published in a Fine Newspaper. The Editorial Page editor still does not "get" the flaws of the Ricks writing. The topic -- Accountability for the Academies -- is superb and timely. The actual article is journalistically unprofessional and failed.

Ricks instead drifts along at stall-speed, so to speak, in denial -- unattractive in anyone but especially a journalist and author. Instead Ricks this week points out that the West Point class of 1976 with Raymond Odierno, Dave Rodriguez, and Stanley McChrystal had the travail of an Honor scandal -- a periodic event at USMA; but without mention that at West Point Honor is Real and the human condition means that humans fall short. The point is, West Point stands for and hews faithfully to Honor. And to Accountabilty and Transparency.

The Washington Post and Tom Ricks want the Military and the Academies to be Transparent and Accountable. But in this egregious case of awful journalism the Washington Post and Tom Ricks do not hold themselves to anything close to that Noble Standard.

The Editorial Page Editor and Outlook Editor of the Post and Ricks can Man-Up and apologize, at least to the young and innocent and good folks they wounded.

John Wheeler
USMA 66
wheelerusa@usa.net