Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
What doesn’t Military get about Executive in Charge?
Share:
by YankeeJim | September 22, 2010 at 02:27 am
244 views | 1 Recommendation | 22 comments
Photos
The Commander in Chief is in charge of the military. A civilian Secretary of Defense manages the Military. The Commander in Chief defines the outcome and the Military’s job is to produce the means.
The President, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense have said that the plan for Afghanistan is to use the place as a base of operations to pursue al Qaeda. Since al Qaeda has moved into Pakistan, pursue the terrorists there. Do what you can to stabilize the government in Afghanistan, but don’t plan for a long term operation because that is not our business here.
In the meantime, critics talk of other potential threats from terrorists. Surely they are out there. Surely the American intelligence and defense apparatus needs to keep the heat on and to bolster boots on the ground intelligence. The President and government should not shoot their mouths off in public about such operations as that is stupid, revealing, and foolhardy. Keep in quiet and make it effective.
In his remarks, the President reveals his stiff upper lip.
"We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever. . . we absorbed it and we are stronger." Obama
“Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan war
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 22, 2010; 12:11 AMPresident Obama urgently looked for a way out of the war in Afghanistan last year, repeatedly pressing his top military advisers for an exit plan that they never gave him, according to secret meeting notes and documents cited in a new book by journalist Bob Woodward.
This Story
View Only Top Items in This Story
Frustrated with his military commanders for consistently offering only options that required significantly more troops, Obama finally crafted his own strategy, dictating a classified six-page "terms sheet" that sought to limit U.S. involvement, Woodward reports in "Obama's Wars," to be released on Monday.
According to Woodward's meeting-by-meeting, memo-by-memo account of the 2009 Afghan strategy review, the president avoided talk of victory as he described his objectives.
"This needs to be a plan about how we're going to hand it off and get out of Afghanistan," Obama is quoted as telling White House aides as he laid out his reasons for adding 30,000 troops in a short-term escalation. "Everything we're doing has to be focused on how we're going to get to the point where we can reduce our footprint. It's in our national security interest. There cannot be any wiggle room."
Obama rejected the military's request for 40,000 troops as part of an expansive mission that had no foreseeable end. "I'm not doing 10 years," he told Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at a meeting on Oct. 26, 2009. "I'm not doing long-term nation-building. I am not spending a trillion dollars."
“Breaking News: Secret, CIA-run Afghan army taking the fight against al-Qaeda into Pakistan, new book reports
“The Washington Post
to jim.george
show details 11:47 PM (6 hours ago)
----------------------------------------
Breaking News Alert: Secret, CIA-run Afghan army taking the fight against al-Qaeda into Pakistan, new book reports
September 21, 2010 11:32:06 PM
----------------------------------------
A clandestine, 3,000-man paramilitary army of Afghans, created and controlled by the CIA, is conducting operations against al-Qaeda and Afghan Taliban strongholds in Pakistan, Bob Woodward reports in his new book, "Obama's Wars." President Obama authorized the elite Counterterrorist Pursuit Teams as part of a stepped-up campaign against safe havens in the Afghan war.
For more information, visit washingtonpost.com”
Advertisement
NowPublic on Facebook
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most Recommended Comment
"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)
Crowd Power
YankeeJim
Arlington, Virginia, United States
Related Stories
Recommendations (1)
Anonymous user
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (22)
at 02:38 on September 22nd, 2010
That the President was able to draft a strategy and put into operation with more resistance and less help from the military is indicative of a President with much ability and resolve. We have been on the warpath too long and need to pull the warriors back for retooling.
The intelligence warriors should be on point -- quietly on point.
at 02:55 on September 22nd, 2010
We have a huge collection of designer clothes like Sarees, Salwar Kameez and Lehenga Cholis visit - www.sareez.com/
at 03:19 on September 22nd, 2010
Do you have anything in olive drab?
at 03:36 on September 22nd, 2010
One day you're cleaning out your closet. The next day you're shopping for a new wardrobe? Shame on you ,you capitalist....
at 04:55 on September 22nd, 2010
We also have a huge collection of designer clothes like Sarees, Salwar Kameez and Lehenga Cholis visit - www.sareez.com/
at 05:30 on September 22nd, 2010
Maybe my friend nanute can use something. Nanute cleaned the closet too.
at 08:16 on September 22nd, 2010
Jim, I never evah, buy anything I can't try on. I think it has something to do with my feminine side.
at 10:35 on September 22nd, 2010
Hormone therapy
at 10:46 on September 22nd, 2010
Jim, If this quote is true, General Petraeus should be relieved of command and retired:
Bob Woodward reports that Obama repeatedly asked the generals to provide a plan in Afghanistan that had an exit plan, and they refused. So it’s not clear why he didn’t clean house right then and there.
But now, he has no choice but to relieve Petraeus of his command.
at 11:10 on September 22nd, 2010
That's what I think. Obama should have cleaned house. Bob Gates has no stomach for a worthless effort and he should be given an order to cut out the cost for which there is no return.
Defense leadership must be staffed with military officers who follow civilian orders. If they don't like, get out. We are overstaffed in the officer ranks.
at 13:30 on September 22nd, 2010
Sorry to disagree, Jim, but realistically, what sense does it make having the military beholden to a civilian who, if he has served in the military, did so years ago and as such does not understand what the needs of a modern military strategy are? It is a problem that has all but killed the Canadian Forces. In fact, civilian interference is what created the “Canadian Forces” in the first place, tying the hands of the once viable Army, Navy and Air Force. It would be a shame to see the same happen to our neighbours to the south, the military becoming a civilian organization first and foremost, bogged down by a bureaucratic quagmire to the point where it can no longer function. Military strategy should be handled by military minds, not accountants and bankers, always watching the purse strings. While they do have a role to play, and an important one, keeping spending in check, realistically, theirs should be an advisory role, and a background administrative one. They should not be making demands of the military, controlling funding, and expecting their orders, based solely on a civilian perspective, to be respected and followed. The modern world is not the same as the one ninety years ago, during the First World War. Even in the last ten years, there has been a shift in military thinking; things have changed, including the nature of warfare. It is non-linear, and brutal, on a level few can fully fathom. If the current government is serious about the War on Terror, they need to give the military the freedom to pursue it as needed. Also, to make a claim that the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 />US or any other state can “absorb” a terrorist attack is ludicrous. If Obama thinks that is the case, he should talk to the families of those who have died, and see if they think it is reasonable to “absorb” such losses of human life. Preventing terror attacks is not an easy, or a cheap task, but it is a necessary one, and one that those without the experience and training ought to leave to the experts.
at 17:50 on September 22nd, 2010
In a democracy, the civilians set the policy and the strategy to achieve defined outcomes. One can argue that the executive has flaws in these definitions, but in the end, the Commander in chief is just that.
at 08:23 on September 23rd, 2010
I can agree that in democratic nations, civilians have a role in developing policy. I am a little concerned about an accountant, or an economist, or any other non-military type developing military strategy. The men on the ground are not a series of numbers and quantities, and the needs of those men, in order to fulfil the mandate set out for them, stamping out terrorism, for example, are not known or understood by a civilian, in an office, on the other side of the world. Nor are the outcomes of failure as clear to that civilian. Those who can see first hand what is working and what is not should have the authority.
Just look at what happend the last time the West interfered with Afghan politics... a lot of weapons and bloodshed, and no infrastructure, a lot of young people with no parents, ripe for the picking by the Taliban. A Commander in Chief is a great idea, as long as he has command experience. Politicians seldom do, not in a serious, combat oriented sense. Soldiers become chess pieces or dollar signs. They know their jobs, and they see first hand what is required, they need to be listened to, and their orders should come from someone with an understanding of these things. After all, when was the last time a serving president went into battle?
Defining goals and policy is one thing, but defining strategies should be left to those who have up to date experience of the situation and needs of those actually serving. This is not a slight against the President, or anyone in his administration, simply an observation based on experience within the military, and various bureaucratic institutions, as well as from the researching for hundreds of papers on various historical instances of politicians trying to control things they have no ken of. A hands off CiC is better than a hands on one who does not understand the intricate nature of the position.
It is not about flaws in the government, or those who make it up. Of course, there are always flaws in Government. This is a bigger issue, however, as hesitation, a lack of information, or impared understanding, which are unavoidable over such a distance, combined with a lack of experience in military matters, costs lives. It also, in the long run, tends to exessive limiting of the military to save money and please the "doves" of society, at the expense of a nation's security. That is my concern whenever I see politicians taking charge of the military.
at 08:31 on September 23rd, 2010
Well, let's put it this way, if the Commander in Chief said the following:
1. We're in Afghanistan because that country harbored terrorists who attacked the USA.
2. Now, clear out the sources of terrorism in that country i.e., al Qaeda and Taliban sympathizers, and follow the terrorist sources wherever they lead.
3. Support the creation of an Afghan government that is anti-terrorist and anti-Taliban. Develop that government to the point that it can defend itself against terrorists and Taliban with overwhelming force.
4. When the terrorists and Taliban are sufficiently neutralized, report back and we will initiate withdrawal.
5. Caveat: We don't have unlimited time or resources. Do what you can do in a year and we are leaving.
What is the military strategy for accomplishing this?
at 09:21 on September 23rd, 2010
realistically, it will take more than a year to stabilize the Afghan government. Their troops are good fighters, but there is a lack of faith in them, within the people of Afghanistan. Until the ANA and ANP are restored to a level of reliability in the eyes of the people, there is no stability, and the terrorists will return. Short term strategies do not accomplish long term policies.
However, within this restricted guidline, I would say the best strategy would be a troop surge, with an increase both in the training of the Afghan forces and in closing with and destroying the enemy. Make it as stable as possible, give the best possible opportunity for the Afghan government, and then pull out the combat troops. Training cadres should be left on the ground, as a firm military force is not established over night. Unit by unit build a solid base, so that when things do start to go wrong again, which they likely will, atleast there is someone on the ground to try and deal with it.
The problem is that groups like Al Qaeda cannot be sufficiently neutralized, they need to be destroyed; globally, not locally, destroyed, or they will come back as soon as they find a weak spot. Or they will move to a new country, a new failed or failing state, and start over.
As always, I see your point, of course, and it is a valid one. My concern is that politicians think in terms of dollars, and days in office. That does not bode well for the rest of us, as we still have to face the consequences, even if the head of state has changed, and is able to dodge accountability. Hatred often outlives those who initiated it, just look at Yugoslavia, it had been a peaceful, thriving nation for decades under Tito, but after his death, old rivalries and hatred, going back centuries, reared up.
It is usually a good idea to look at the history of a nation before invading, because it gives a reference into what political and cultural issues you will face; Afghanistan is an eater of armies, and always has been. Had our leaders thought about that, maybe they would have taken a different course of action. But now we have sent troops in, the safest long term course of action is to see it through, and help the nation build anew. Build ties, rather than sever them. Afghans are very loyal, if you earn that loyalty; make them an ally, and the threat is lessoned. Cut all ties, without that loyalty, and the result is a repeat of the post Soviet era....
at 15:29 on September 23rd, 2010
Commander in Chief says: Destroy al Qaeda and like kind groups -- persist and destroy.
What is the strategy?
at 09:10 on September 24th, 2010
Again, it is a time consuming process and requires resources. To cut corners leads to long term problems. Unfortunately, the politicians making the calls in all the nations involved do not understand the military and social context that these issues are embroiled in. There are just not enough international troops on the ground to do the job they are expected to, and all the nations who do have boots on the ground are now looking at ways to get out. It would have been better not to invade, if the plan was to destabalize the nation and leave. It was a poorly thought through move, rushing in with no strategy, no long term goals, and now the situation is worse, because there is a power vacuum. I am not saying that there should be no exit strategy, this is not supposed to be a war of colonial expansionism. My point was that it is irresponsible for the nations that invaded, with no long term strategy or objectives, to then use their own lack of planning as and excuse to turn tail and run. I am furious that the government here in Canada has decided to pull out troops, and disgusted by the attitude taken by these politicians. If there had been any thought put in prior to the invasion of what the long term concequences would be, and the nature of Afghan history and culture, many of the issues could have been addressed early on. They were not. That is the issue, key details were ignored early on, and now everyone ahs lost the stomach to see things through, because they lacked any forethought.
at 14:51 on September 24th, 2010
"There are just not enough international troops on the ground to do the job they are expected to, and all the nations who do have boots on the ground are now looking at ways to get out."
The reson is that there is low return on cost. Nations do not have discretionary resources to spend on risky intervention.
at 14:53 on September 22nd, 2010
Obama is the third 'horseman' and is SCUM, he and the Clintons allowed the Roman Catholic IRA, PIRA to murder 2514 British soldiers, he this bastard talks about standing firm - you are not liked in England keep away.
at 17:52 on September 22nd, 2010
Depends on who in England you are representing.
at 19:27 on September 22nd, 2010
The president of the U.S. is commander in-chief but that role needs to be directed by firm policy that gives the general staff an outline regarding intent. After that it ought to be left to the generals to get on with the job and not to be hamstrung by constant politically correct directives and interference by political maneuvering that place the soldier in unnecessary and grievous harms way. The soldiers job is to kill the enemy defined; not police the enemy or act as such for any nation. Korea was the beginning of this police action crap and the idea of limited warfare. Vietnam epitomizes the futility of the idiocy of limited warfare. If the president, any president is concern with how the public is going to vote they ought not to engage in any war until the public has spoken via a referendum. Otherwise stand by your war and take the hit come election time. Playing at opportunism has cost the lives of many a good man and women doing their duty as military service personnel.
at 03:52 on September 23rd, 2010
Roger that.