You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Afghanistan
Obama disregarded Petraeus recommendation
2011-06-24
Testifying before a Senate committee today, the commander of allied forces in Afghanistan confirmed under oath what many had suspected:

In his speech Wednesday evening, President Obama disregarded the preferred troop drawdown choice of his top general, David Petraeus, now headed to become director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Obama clearly appeared to be paying attention to the anti-war left wing of his party and to war-weariness reflected in polls after a 10-year conflict that began when he was a mere state senator.
That means that Champ owns the decision lock, stock and barrel. If Afghanistan blows up again he's responsible. If, god forbid, a terrorist group uses Pashtunistan as a base to launch an attack on the U.S., Champ will own that too.
The widely-admired four-star general was the architect of the successful Iraq troop surge that Obama also opposed as a U.S. senator but that has now enabled him to drastically reduce U.S. forces there.

The 58-year-old Petraeus couched his committee answers in the standard Washington etiquette acknowledging civilian control of an obedient military. However, his forthright replies rapidly reverberated across the Capitol, where so many in the political business are so ready to believe that the accelerated troop withdrawals were ordered by the Democrat more to enhance his troubled reelection plans, than because they would enhance the cause of crushing terrorist forces in Afghanistan.

Under questioning, Gen. Petraeus admitted today, "The ultimate [drawdown] decision was a more aggressive formulation, if you will, in terms of the timeline than what we had recommended."

He then quickly added, "The fact is, there has never been a military commander in history who has had all the forces that he would like to have, for all the time, with all the money, all the authorities, and nowadays all the bandwidth as well."

"Obviously, he preferred options that gave more time," Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates confirmed to Agence France Press. Gates too is leaving the Defense Department after years of service under two presidents and reportedly disagreeing with Obama over starting a third war by attacking Libya.

Michigan's Sen. Carl Levin, a Democrat who's been pressuring Obama for a quicker Afghan pullout, asked the general whether he considered resigning over his disagreement with the commander in chief.

Petraeus replied: "I'm not a quitter. I don't think it's the place for a commander to consider that kind of step unless you are in a very dire situation." Later, he added:
Each person above me -- all the way up to and including the president -- has a broader purview and has broader considerations that are brought to bear. The commander in chief has decided and it is then the responsibility, needless to say, of those in uniform to salute smartly and do everything humanly possible to execute it.
That's correct and to his credit. Our military should, however, be graced with a commander in chief who values them and gives them the tools, time and manpower to do a job right.
Obama, who as a candidate argued that Afghanistan was the right war to confront terrorism, not Iraq, has ordered two troop surges there -- in March and December of 2009. The latter, coming after a controversial protracted four-month review, involved 30,000 additional forces, raising the U.S. commitment there to just under 100,000. That was reported to be somewhat smaller than commanders had sought in order to effectively clear the entire country.

With the available assets, Petraeus forged an improved working relationship between special forces and the CIA and focused on southern Afghanistan. Allies have since regained control of much of that territory.
You rarely see the MSM admit that: Petraeus, once again, had a plan that has worked. This time, however, he had a President who pulled the rug out from under our people.
*shrug* It's a blog post. How many LA Times readers will actually see it?
The plan was to allow newly-trained Afghan security forces to come in behind the allies in the south. And next fighting season the troops would focus on subduing eastern Afghanistan closer to Pakistan.

Those plans, however, now seem at least jeopardized by the removal of one-third of U.S. troops by September 2012, just two months before the presidential election.

Petraeus is certain to be overwhelmingly confirmed as CIA director. However, his candid answers today, confirming latent suspicions, will endure in the political debate, especially if Taliban and Al Qaeda forces bide their time awaiting the announced pullout and either hold off allied progress or even reverse it.
Posted by:Steve White

#14  POTUS BAMMER

versus

GEN. PETRAEUS [ + USN ADM. Mullen] ...

and

* DEFENCE.PK/FORUMS > [Top US] MILITARY LEADERS KNOW OBAMA'S DECISION IS A [high-risk] DISASTER, for US-Allied interests.

* SAME > {Afghan] TALIBAN DENOUNCE OBAMA TROOPS ANNOUNCEMENT, DISMISS PEACE TALKS DURING PULLOUT.

IOW, the Jihad = Afghan/AFPAK Insurgencies will go on.

The MILTERRS = RADICAL ISLAM know it > Political-Legal Jihad = THEY GET LEGAL/ELECTORAL CONTROL OF BOTH PAK = AFPAK GOVT-ARMY + PAKISTAN'S LR NUCLEAR ARSENALS.

WE-CANNOT-CONFIRM-OR-DENY-WE-WANT-NUCWEAPS ISLAMIST IRAN is only the beginning for the US-ALLIES + UNO.

Posted by: JosephMendiola   2011-06-24 21:37  

#13  One thing he'll find is that many experienced analysts left the Agency either to retire or to go make money in industry. There's a huge turnover,

A good thing the DoD has their own team, then, lotp. Then, too, as the new head of the CIA, General Petraeus can offer retiring military analysts opportunities on the civilian side. This could make things very, very interesting in his new organization...
Posted by: trailing wife   2011-06-24 21:01  

#12  can you imagine what he's going to find when he gets to the Agency?

One thing he'll find is that many experienced analysts left the Agency either to retire or to go make money in industry. There's a huge turnover, a lot of analysts are kids whose grasp of things like history are somewhat limited ....

or so I've been told by someone who has a whole lot more reason to be credible than I do on this topic. But then, that's not hard ....
Posted by: lotp   2011-06-24 20:30  

#11  My guess is that agencies like the CIA and State have entire layers of management dedicated to the sole purpose of
I think it's more like Jerry Pournelle's Iron Law: in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representatives who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2011-06-24 18:53  

#10  "That means that Champ owns the decision lock, stock and barrel. If Afghanistan blows up again he's responsible."

Nonsense, Steve. He (and his pet attack dogs the MSM) will blame the military/Bush/Tea Party.
Posted by: Barbara   2011-06-24 16:06  

#9  My guess is that agencies like the CIA and State have entire layers of management dedicated to the sole purpose of keeping the top man in the dark and/or carefully filtering which information makes it up the food chain to the top.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2011-06-24 14:52  

#8  There are only a few ways that Pashtunistan will stop exporting terror and murder: The countries involved will become civilized in a real sense or it will become physically impossible for jihadis to move from there to the rest of the world. There are other possibilities to accomplish that goal, all involving massive loss of life.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2011-06-24 13:48  

#7  What you want are polls which reveal your and your opponents' weak points, and how many people have noticed each. I also want polls which indicate whether or not those questioned are in touch with basic realities.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2011-06-24 13:44  

#6  And I'm guessing they have a fair chance of succeeding.

The whole damn place, every agency needs to have the top management cleaned out.
Posted by: Mad Eye Hapsburg7644   2011-06-24 11:59  

#5  Mike, Petraeus will also discover (I predict) that those same people have a new assignment: neuter him.

And I'm guessing they have a fair chance of succeeding.
Posted by: Steve White   2011-06-24 11:01  

#4  Petraeus is certain to be overwhelmingly confirmed as CIA director.

An interesting thought - can you imagine what he's going to find when he gets to the Agency? How hard people worked to sabotage Dubya's efforts, and how hard those same people may have worked to cover up Obama's mistakes?

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2011-06-24 10:21  

#3  with a strategery of polls

Polls are only as good as the wording of the questions asked and the insight of those analyzing the results. Getting polls telling you how much you are beloved because the questions guide the answer are a waste of money... though very gratifying to a certain type of ego, the kind which confuses cause and effect. What you want are polls which reveal your and your opponents' weak points, and how many people have noticed each.
Posted by: trailing wife   2011-06-24 10:14  

#2  He's listening to General Axelrod with a strategery of polls
Posted by: Frank G   2011-06-24 09:49  

#1  We making ice in the empty quarter, it's an amazing achievement, but to what end and cost?
Posted by: S   2011-06-24 06:51  

00:00