« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Obama’s Generals

“Obama had to do this 18-month surge just to demonstrate, in effect, that it couldn’t be done . . . the president had treated the military as another political constituency that had to be accommodated.”

LTG Douglas Lute
Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan
as quoted in the Washington Post .

The past three days the Washington Post has been serializing the new Bob Woodward book, “Obama’s Wars,” on the front page of that paper. Though I have been stunned by what I’ve read I haven’t been surprised. That a feckless and un-serious man when elected president would pursue a war in a feckless and un-serious way should surprise no one. What has left me stunned is the fact that Obama never seriously considered whether winning the war in Afghanistan (or sealing the victory in Iraq) was in the national interests of the United States. His lodestar was rather an arbitrary and precipitous withdrawal date in July 2011.

Here you have it in black and white. The surge of troops into Afghanistan was below the number recommended by his military advisers. Obama did not support the surge, he was fixated on an early withdrawal, but he lacked the courage to make that decision. How a president can continue to waste the lives of young Americans in a war he neither believes in or cares about is beyond my comprehension.

Worse, no one is surprised that Obama would do this. Anti-Americanism is seems to have been programmed into his DNA, to the point where everyone just expects him to act this way. But that isn’t what this story is about.  It’s about the people around him, including our most senior uniformed leaders – men who know better – who have allowed this to happen.

Through most of the Iraq War the left and media, to the extent that they are separate entities, had a fascination with the idea of “the revolt of the generals.” In this particular cloud cuckooland the generals… who back then had all the answers… would rise up en masse and put Chimpy McBushitler in his place.  TIME and the NY Times ran stories lionizing the handful of retired generals who decided, from personal pique or inflated sense of self-worth, to break faith with soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines serving in combat in order to settle some perceived slight received at the hands of the Bush Administration.

Retired generals like Paul Eaton

and John Batiste

made commercials for the lefty front group VoteVets criticizing President Bush for pursuing the War in Iraq to what looked to be a successful conclusion as of January 20, 2009. They criticized him for not listening to his generals.

I wrote at the time in response to a shockingly stupid David Ignatius column advocating “push back” by the military:

The military is not a branch of government. It has no special rights to set its own policy in contravention of the directives of the senior leadership. Any thinking human should recognize that military insubordination is not a healthy thing in a democracy. The idea of heavily armed men “pushing back” against their civilian leadership should scare the bejeezus out of us all, regardless of our politics.

Those sentiments apply as much today as they did five years ago.

Sometimes the military is called upon to do stupid things. It goes with the territory when you put on the uniform. But the military should never be called upon to dishonestly spend the lives of young men and women. And that is what sets the current situation apart from the situation under President Bush.

No one ever doubted President Bush intended to win the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Many differed on which war was more important but the resources dictated that one war could be fought and one had to be a holding action. Bush deployed the Army Reserve and National Guard into combat for the first time since the Korean War. He spent the political capital he’d accumulated like a sailor in Olongapo (or a soldier in Tongduchon). When all told him the war couldn’t be won, he doubled down and left his successor a win in the most difficult of the two wars.

Compare and contrast this to the shameful actions of the current president and his administration.

Batiste and Eaton and VoteVets and their fellow travelers on the left have shown their true colors. As recently as last year Eaton was still playing Captain Ahab to Don Rumsfeld’s Moby Dick. John Batiste has been mercifully absent from the public eye. VoteVets is nothing more that a low IQ verson of OFA with a website fails to even mention the Washington Post series or even acknowledge we are still at war. Not a peep is heard from pundits and editorial pages encouraging the military to “push back” against the Obama administration as any opposition founded in principle would require.

More disappointing, however, has been the behavior of GEN David Petraeus and ADM Mike Mullen. Both men, seemingly for the best of reasons — the conviction that they can succeed with one-armed tied behind their back, and perhaps a justified fear that without them, things would go even worse for their men — have elected to go along with Obama’s decisions which inevitably have created a slow motion march to the helicopter landing pad on an embassy roof.

And that is the tragedy here. Ultimately staff colleges will examine the actions of Petraeus and Mullen since 2009 and equate them to those of the Joint Chiefs during the early stages of the escalation of the Vietnam War. Just as every young officer when I was commissioned heard the story of Army Chief of Staff Harold Johnson and his failure to resign over Johnson’s hare-brained plan to fight Vietnam on the cheap, so too will be told the story of the hubris of Petraeus and Mullen who were convinced they could mitigate a military disaster that the civilian leadership of this nation has deliberately brought on.

Ironically, Batiste and Eaton and the other unprincipled tools who made the political fight over Iraq much harder than it need have been and who never thought twice about besmirching the reputations of others if it served their purposes will continue to ride the MoveOn generated meme that they were men of integrity despite their conspicuous silence on Afghanistan today.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • Kudzu

    And for once, the term of “Obama’s Generals” is used properly, IMHO. He campaigned hard for the “smart power” people and got many ex generals (including current VA Secretary) to jump on his bandwagon. Yet now that some serving commanders object to his strategy he and the left is aghast at the “betrayal” of the military.

    Granted, the military should avoid political discussions where questions of loyalty or sedition come into play. But its amazing to watch the Mongrel hordes react to the clarion calls for removing top commanders who oppose the current CINC… but not the last.

  • http://www.800cart.com Ron Robinson

    …hard enough to leave a deep scratch.

    One that could not be buffed out and would become a legend of its own.

  • skorrent1

    That the Woodward/Post quotes may have been garnered from comatose, or at least deeply asleep, advisors, it is troubling that we could be headed for another “declare victory and get out” moment.

    Having shown our weakness in a protracted conflict in Vietnam, we were quite willing to take the other side against the Soviet Union. Successfully! I fear the Islamists will not be as accommodating. I don’t think that even the Iranians are foolish enough to issue a challange that Obama, or even his successor, couldn’t ignore.

    If Woodward has the mood in the White House correct, we are in for a conflict with the Islamist/ Wahabist/ Terrorists that may pass the Cold War in length, and be even hotter.

  • David123

    on the one hand it means being against the United States and its policies. But on the other hand, and in practice, it means being against individual American people, so when there is shooting going on, the anti-American actions result in the deaths of more individual Americans.

    That any American could treat so cheaply the lives of their fellow individual American people is really really bad.

  • http://xmmlbchat.blogspot.com katesmith

    Among others.Lucrative business deals are playing out in Afghanistan like Caterpillar. Commenter to a Caterpillar story today said he had just returned from Afghanistan and ‘the place is filled with Cat equipment.‘ . Mike Mullen seems mainly concerned with diversity training.

    • Kudzu

      To what point really? We also have JCB equipment over there too. In fact JCB won the Army’s contract for backloaders and hoes so… where’s your conspiracy theory there? http://www.camecjcb.com.ph/jcb_newsletters/news-jcb-sends-military-hmees-to-afghanistan

      • powertothepeople

        two companies and how they got contracts, lets not fool ourselves into thinking that Obama does not reward those who back him. He owes a ton to a lot of people, businesses and unions, and they do get the contract when possible. But that has been the way for many many years and Obama is not the first and he will not be the last.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    I have but two points to make.

    First, and this is personal, the above-the-fold picture of Obama at Dover is easily the most offensive photograph I’ve EVER seen. The BoyPresident™ shows up at Dover with his entourage of politicos and reporters and photogs and prostitutes the hallowed ground that is Dover for a cheap photo op. I could go on, but this is a family friendly site and I’d get banned and probably visited.

    Second, this should be a hard lesson for Republican Presidents. Do not involve us in a war without a plan to win decisively before you leave office. Again, I am forced by the bounds of good taste and reason to stop here.

    But again, great article and right on target.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Aside from the obvious CinC differences between Presidents Obama and Bush that you’ve well noted, the biggest difference between the two is their humanity.

    Obama slides into Dover at night for a cheap photo op. No doubt one of the reasons for the photo op at Dover is that the Left screamed for seven years that “pictures of coffins” were being denied us. So Obama got on his knees for the Left.

    With respect to President Bush, he was constantly criticized by the same Fellow Travelers who pushed Obama into the Dover visit for not appreciating the “cost” of his decisions. I know for a fact that President Bush, on numerous occasions and with no fanfare, gathered families of men who were KIA and brought them to venues where he would be appearing. They came, again with no fanfare, and met with President Bush privately. He spoke one on one with family members and gave what comfort he could and stayed for as long as there were family members who wanted to talk with him. There were no reporters, no photographers, I don’t believe even White House photographers were present. If families brought cameras and wanted pictures, President Bush stood with them.

    I know about President Bush only because he met with the family of one of the Marines in my son’s unit. They happened to not be supporters of Bush, but afterward they told me that they’d never met a more gracious man.

  • http://www.amazon.com/Wade-Arnold/e/B002RHGZAS/ref=ep_sprkl_at_B002RHGZAS?pf_rd_p=479564851&pf_r Wade

    …why generals don’t resign. In the case of Petraeus, as said, I think it’s a case of “if I’m there, I can manage this better than someone else who is less competent.”

    There IS something to be said for that. If I was a private, and generals were resigning left and right, only to have one come in who was less of a man, I wouldn’t feel so good about it. I’m a private…I can’t resign. I’m stuck. Petraeus probably thinks they’ll all be “stuck” together, and make the best of it.

    Part of it is also a loyalty to not desert their men. That is the honorable part. But that might be what one tells oneself, when the situation is a no-win scenario.

    On the other hand, when you get above one star, it’s ALL politics. Most of the high ranking generals and admirals went to the same elite schools that the politicians did. They think they CAN make it work because of that certain arrogance and cockiness.

    There are some damn good officers in our military, but they’re put in that no-win scenario. However, it would make quite the upheaval in the public if Petraeus and several others suddenly resigned. Obama would be toast. And the men would in turn, eventually, be saved.

    • streiff

      Army Chief of Staff Harold K. Johnson opposed President Johnson’s incrementalist approach to Vietnam. One morning he decided to resign in protest figuring other generals would follow suit and Johnson would be unable to proceed. Enroute to the White House he changed his mind because… wait for it… he thought if he stayed he could make the outcome better.

      Also, most general officers — of all grades — have not attended elite universities. That just isn’t the case at all. A handful have Ivy League Ph.D.s but the overwhelming majority do not.

  • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

    Sound analysis. Death by cynicism is perhaps the worst crime a government can commit.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    “No one ever doubted President Bush intended to win the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan”

    I certainly had my doubts when he kept Rumsfeld on and continued a strategy that was not working for three years. I wasn’t sure at all until he fired Rumsfeld and endorsed the surge strategy.

    Although I did not impart any malicious motives to Bush, there were those on the left who thought that Bush’s real intent was to simply take over Iraq and keep a US presence there in perpetuity. At least it seemed somewhat plausible when viewing the results.

    Sorry to take this off on a tangent, but we need to be reminded from time to time of the many mistakes that led directly to the Democrat takeover of the government. Otherwise we might make the same mistakes in the future.

    • streiff

      Our strategy, inherited from the Clinton administration, provided resources for “win-hold-win”. IOW you had enough resources to fight one regional war to win while fighting a holding action in another, the holding action would receive the resources from the won war as it wound down.

      I fail to see how you… or anyone… can say that the strategy wasn’t working as Anbar province began it’s turn around no later than March 2006 and by election day 2006, the Anbar Awakening was in full swing.

      I have no intention of re-telling the history of the Iraq war here but I’m not going to have this story dominated by MoveOn talking points either.

      • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel

        the 1/3 of Iraq that is Anbar Province was well on its way to recovery by the time Petraeus became commander of MNF-I. He applied the principles he used in Mosul and McMaster used in Tal ‘Afar, and those applied in Anbar, to the country as a whole, but calling Iraq a lost cause after 2006 (an entirely pre-Petraeus year) amounts to parroting some very, very incorrect talking points.

        • Kudzu

          would be a better example IMHO of how the strategy (Bush, Rumsfield, Petraeus, Oderino who all constructed the COIN mentality) was truly effective. I say that because Diyala was and is a more diverse cross-section of Iraq as a whole. Every sect of Islam is represented there in mixed cities and neighborhoods which presented a special problem for us on the ground. In 2005 to 2006 we watched the left chastise us and call us losers while we made daily progress in building the Iraqi security infrastructure as well as their quality of life. It was the beginning of the end and we could see it from our point of view but saw and heard sitting Senators say it was lost and how we were pursuing the wrong course in the war.

          Diyala wouldn’t truly turn around until Operation Arrowhead Ripper took place, after Together Forward in Baghdad. But we saw the signs. The commanders in the area understood that we needed to hold ground and not give it up and that ground was humanity just as much as it was physical space.

          As far as keeping us there forever, in December 2005 we began shutting down outposts near the Iranian border which were in the foothills of Kurdish oil fields. We left it all behind (including a retrans tower, funny story there) and gave it to the Iraqis who took over responsibility for security in the area. Later in summer 2006 GEN Casey came to conduct a formal change of responsibility with the Iraqi 5th Division at FOB Caldwell.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            The administration made NO mistakes, Progress was swift and inexpensive, and there was no reason to replace Donald Rumsfeld. Funny how my memory of those events was so far off.

          • Kudzu

            My support for the actual mission or there not being mistakes. As far as replacing Rumsfeld the issue boiled down to his love of “light” and not staying versus the need to hold ground and going heavy.

  • Icythus

    Particularly the Army. And by blame, I’m just referring to the last bit about Gen. Petraeus and Adm. Mullin.

    It’s non secret that there is a very strong bias in the military against answering the question “Can you do this?” with anything but “Can do, sir!” That’s great when you need a fortified enemy position, but when applied to policy decisions, it’s a recipe for what we’re seeing in Afghanistan (and what we saw in Iraq circa 2005-2006).

    Just putting myself in the shoes of a career military officer, I can see it being hard to switch of 25-30 years of ingrained military attitude about requests/orders from a superior officer. I’m not excusing them, just trying to understand the psychology.

    • mriggio

      other than merely speaking in generalities. Although I never was one, I served under many high-ranking officers, and observed loads of others. If anything, as stakes rose, most became risk-averse, until & unless they got promises of unrealistically enormous resources. Hence the so-called Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force and clearly defined winning objectives before striking. If anything, the many-stars-on-shoulders guys I knew were pragmatic to the point of over-cautiousness. Unlike their non-commissioned folks, but that’s another story entirely. Cheers!

    • streiff

      I think the Army, of all the services, is most likely to simply do what it is told and to take a distinctly Pollyannish view of the treatment it is going to get from the politicians.

      During the downsizing following the Gulf War the Army convinced itself that the Congress really, really wouldn’t take a machete to its end strength. I don’t know if the reality set in even after we lost 8 divisions and 300K men.

      • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel

        ..is that branches like the Air Force were too busy getting shiny chrome badges issued to every person (so nobody would feel left out) to notice, rationalize, and accept what was being done to them by Congress.

      • Kudzu

        Because we’re still doing it. Already threats and talks of early retirement and personnel cuts in certain fields are being tossed around. Replaced by… government civilian employees, its a way to play with employment numbers. Create thousands of jobs that pay $100k a year and you stimulate local economy and tie whole communities to the MIC and government dole.

    • Kudzu

      I have had to deal with it as a rather overstressed NCO for the past seven years. I hear officers say “yes, sir, we can support that” and then turn to me to make it happen. As an honest broker I turn back and usually say “sir, that’s not smart… (or worse)” and explain how we’re unable to support “it”.

      But as a senior officer, certainly as a flag officer, you have to first say that you can do it. Failure means that you’re incapable and admitting it means that you won’t even try… which means you won’t be nominated for that next star or command.

  • ihateliberals

    For a General at anytime to take such a negative stance as he did with the Koran burning pastor is shameful. His statements inferred that we re losing and that the burning would make us lose even more. It is very hard for a soldier to fight a war that his commander doesn’t think they are winning. Petraeus wasn’t looking out for his troops he was trying to help his commander-in chief look good. A good leader would never say things that would hurt his troops moral that way.

    • edintexas

      Te beef I have with Petraeus, on this issue, is simply that he has inserted himself into a domestic political issue. That has been a forbidden area all my life (and then some). He might have convinced himself that it was “for the troops”, but I suspect many of the troops would have disagreed with his position. In any event, it was domestic politics and the General should have kept his mouth shut, no matter his personal position on the issue. If he wants to get involved in domestic politics, he should retire first.

    • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel

      You’re one of the same folks who was yelling “Petraeus for President (even though we know nothing about his politics)!!” right up until he began accepting orders from a CINC with a D next to his name, aren’t you?

    • Kudzu

      You negate everything you will ever say. You know nothing of the man nor his politics. He had a responsibility to show the Afghan people that his command was not like the idiot in Florida. He already had riots in Kabul and other parts that threatened his command and troops. You need to realize that we have a responsibility in the military to more than just your spastastic rages

    • tacoslayer

      His statements on that issue inferred no such thing.

  • apen

    Civilians put on rose colored glasses when they look at the military. We tout the young men who join to fight for country and come home as hunters blooded, wounded or dead as the military. They are the tools. The military is a close knit group of overpaid egotistical SOB’s who’ll do anything, anything at all, to keep their uniforms on. Those that leave the paygraded life must repatriate to civilian life or become outcasts in their own homes and neighborhoods. I’ll ask, do you know any of these men? Not the paycheck suckers but the real warriors? We ought to, we are getting a first hand view of what they are capable of and following an order is just the beginning for some of them.

    Please review your history. No war anywhere was ever run by men less capable of pursuing an order that those today. That brings me to my main point Milgram. Yes, Stanley Milgram and his studies which prove the danger a standing army really is and why when we see orders being followed that are odd if not down right ignorant we need to ask where loyalty to nation begins and loyalty to command ends. The last thing we need is an armed force thinned of patriotic members leaving behind the purely egotistical warriors. We might regret their return home someday, under orders.

    • streiff

      not an freakin “oath keeper.”

    • Marcus_Traianus

      I would suggest imadouche.

      I can’t remember the last time so many contradicting, contra-intellectual, stupid. unsubstantiated foolishness was written in two paragraphs.

      Two things;
      1- Always know who you are talking to. Especially when that person has given their blood for a cause you fraudulently claim to represent; even though it’s fairly obvious you know nothing about it. Let me draw a picture since that is always easier to visualize. Your knowledge and experience on this subject would probably fit on a pinhead. His, I am thinking, Pacific Ocean.
      2- History being what it is, well, yes, I suppose pretty well documented and articulated says you are wrong on just about every count. But it would be a waste of time to spend any more time on this.

      You may want to make the next comment “I am sorry” or something along those lines. Just a suggestion.

    • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel
      • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

        Does he take his 9/11 conspiracy theories LIHOP or MIHOP?

    • Kudzu

      I didn’t know I would do anything to keep my uniform on for a paycheck. Bloodsucker… that’s a new one. Egotistical? You really don’t know any troops do you?

      Destroy the standing Army? Go ahead and enjoy your last breaths of liberty.

      Returning home under what orders? To remove your guns? Again… you don’t know many or any of us

  • dude

    Dead people vote too, ya know! Never let a crisis go to waste……

  • Marcus_Traianus

    Although I am not sure if any of the choices for GEN Petraeus were good ones.

    Overall, parts of the contemporary strategy are personally new and unenviable from a military perspective. Especially the part which has military personnel overtly playing diplomat in bringing waring parties to the table. That’s usually a job for the guy with soft hands (sorry CAO’s).

    I frankly like the counter-insurgency strategy where we team up with “friendlies” (whoever that may) and start wiping out bad guys by the bushel until they want to talk then point them to the table where a guy with soft hands and white shirt is sitting. Arguably, you can opine that is what happened in Iraq, albeit again, I think the military was asked to do too much. But it uniquely worked. “Uniquely” being the operative word.

    Frankly, I think that is where Petraeus’ train went off the track. He seemed a little too eager to pursue a “sit down at the table” strategy in A-stan. I remember when he gave a speech at Heritage and began talking about McGuiness and the IRA. I started drifting off and thinking “where is he going with this?” IMO that eagerness was a perfect opportunity for Obama to use Petraeus as a fall-guy for his ridiculous “talk to your enemies” meme couched in a “Surge” wrapper. I don’t think the GEN saw it coming and now we are locked in this amorphous strategy with withdrawal deadlines, blurred lines of responsibility, uncooperative allies and our guys are paying for it. It’s a huge bowl of turd soup and unless we change the ROE’s to be more flexible and start regularly flaming bad guys every time we smell their stink, there is more hurt down the road. I still think Petraeus is the guy to do that. But he needs to throw his DoS hat in the fire.

  • http://www.scragged.com petrarch

    Sometimes we’ve wondered what would happen if Obama gave a clearly unAmerican command – e.g. to fire on a Tea Party protest. Would the generals refuse the order, or resign?

    Answer: no, they are 100% committed to their civilian chain of command. Which ordinarily is an excellent and good thing, we don’t want military coups.

    But if they won’t resign in protest over wastage of the lives of soldiers under their command, they certainly won’t over a few civilians.

    It must be a terrible responsibility to try to balance all the competing issues these days.

    • streiff

      equating following a lawful, if misguided, strategy is the same as firing on unarmed citizens.

      What color is the sky on your planet?

  • normklevens

    Who cares what Woodward’s book says ? The general, though validated what is important. Obama doesn’t care whether we win or lose in Afghanistan and he it, doesn’t give a wit about the personnel being sent to fight his war. He is not assisting the Iraqi’s in their final phase toward a middle east democracy. A loss, based on his ROE though should occur when a Republican is in the office; just like Kennedy and Johnson’s Viet Nam. Obama uses the military as props when he gives a speech at an institution he would would not be accepted to. West Point; where this country’s most bravest generals, colonels and majors learned the art of war. Obama is a criminal for sending this country’s best to die. President and CIC Bush would have been raked over the coals by now with the book’s release. But this is not a pissing contest,like the question of tax cuts. This is a matter of life and death and Obama is a criminal.

  • rec0n

    He was told our casualties would escalate, but why would that make any difference in light of all the other decisions he’s made that lead to the same end. And of course, they do, and of course, we begin hearing the comparisons to Vietnam. Never mind who’s to blame for condemning our warriors to a slow death. My bitterness runs deep. So does my anger.