With the Iraq war spinning out of control in mid-2005, retired Marine General James L. Jones spoke with his old friend Peter Pace, the incoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Jones, who is now Barack Obama's national security advisor, had been sounded out for the Joint Chiefs job but demurred. One reason: He felt that civilian leaders in Washington were warping the military planning process. "Military advice is being influenced on a political level," Jones warned Pace, according to Bob Woodward's book State of Denial. Jones's warning squared with other reports at the time that U.S. commanders in Iraq felt pressure to keep troop levels low. Faced with a growing Democratic onslaught, the Bush White House was all too determined to pretend that the war was under control.
Four years later, Jones visited U.S. military commanders in Afghanistan. As it happened, Jones was joined on his trip by Woodward, who reported in The Washington Post on July 1 that Jones had warned the commanders against requesting more manpower in the wake of President Obama's approval earlier this year of 21,000 more troops. According to Woodward, Jones cautioned that Obama would have a "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot"--or WTF (as in, "What the fuck?")--moment were he to get such a request anytime soon. Jones was even more explicit in an interview with the McClatchy news service. When Obama originally increased troop levels, Jones said, military leaders had agreed that "there would be a year from the time the decision was made before they would ever come back and ask for any more."
Although other officials quickly disavowed Jones's remarks, it was clear that Jones had committed much the same sin that drove his disgust toward the Bushies. "There is pressure being brought to bear on generals," says a congressional aide who closely tracks Afghanistan policy. And, with the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan reportedly gearing up to request tens of thousands more troops this fall, it was an early sign that the Obama administration could fall prey to some of the politically driven mistakes that helped turn the Iraq war into a fiasco. Indeed, that's why recent commentary warning that Afghanistan could be to Obama what Vietnam was to Lyndon B. Johnson--a foreign quagmire that smothers a Democratic president's ambitious social agenda--may miss the point. The real danger for Barack Obama is not that he will follow in the footsteps of LBJ. It is that he will repeat the errors of George W. Bush.
Until early 2007, Bush foolishly tried to limit America's presence in Iraq. His initial approach was defined by the experience of Army General Eric Shinseki, who was publicly rebuked by senior Bush officials after testifying that several hundred thousand men would be necessary to stabilize the country. (Bush ultimately invaded with about 130,000 troops.) In the months that followed the invasion, press leaks indicated that commanders who knew that their forces were overextended were reticent about asking Washington for more boots on the ground. Generals were pressured, usually by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to find ways to bring home American forces as quickly as possible.
The administration also exaggerated progress in Iraq, both raising expectations and dashing its credibility. Standing up Iraqi security forces was presented as the path to an American exit well before those forces were anywhere near ready to shoulder the burden. And Bush allowed the Iraq war to become a self-justifying engagement, in which saving American "face" and denying Islamist insurgents a victory became a core rationale for the war effort. Although Bush ultimately reversed course on the most important of these factors when he finally ordered his audacious January 2007 troop surge, his slow recognition of these mistakes probably prolonged and worsened the war.
People involved in Afghanistan policy fret that a similar dynamic could be evolving in the Obama administration. The bluntest among them is Anthony Cordesman, a former aide to John McCain now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who advised the recent strategy review conducted by General Stanley McChrystal, the new Afghanistan commander installed by Obama earlier this year. "What frightens me most," Cordesman said at a late-August panel at the Brookings Institution, "is that there is very sharp pressure on General McChrystal and on Ambassador Eikenberry from the White House and the National Security Council not to ask for specific additions in resources when they come back in September or October."
.jpg)
Print
COMMENTS (11)
It is almost impossible for any of us to imagine the box Obama is in on Afghanistan.
First of all, there's the Commander in Chief bit. Try to imagine this greenhorn civilian sitting down with these hardcore military types. At the very least he has to project to them as a president fully capable of playing the gung ho Navy Seal persona as needed. But they are also wary that he might further damage both the effectiveness and the morale of the armed forces. He's got to allay this concern by projecting as much sympathy for [or genuine commitment to?] their cause as he can possibly muster.
Then there are all the reactionary right wingnut Rush Cheney assholes out there just chafing at the bit to p ... view full comment
It is almost impossible for any of us to imagine the box Obama is in on Afghanistan.
First of all, there's the Commander in Chief bit. Try to imagine this greenhorn civilian sitting down with these hardcore military types. At the very least he has to project to them as a president fully capable of playing the gung ho Navy Seal persona as needed. But they are also wary that he might further damage both the effectiveness and the morale of the armed forces. He's got to allay this concern by projecting as much sympathy for [or genuine commitment to?] their cause as he can possibly muster.
Then there are all the reactionary right wingnut Rush Cheney assholes out there just chafing at the bit to paint him as "a Negro soft on terrorism".
Thus personally and politically, it's almost impossible to conjure up a senario where Obama is not playing the Bush character fronting the Bush foreign policy agenda for the forseeable future. Instead, what the rest of us have to hope for is that he is no where near as incompetent. We have to hope he is Tina Fey playing Sarah Palin as a mockingbird, not Sarah Palin playing herself as a dodo bird.
Imagine HER [Sarah, not Tina] as the fucking commander in chief! Let me stop hyperventilating before I go on.
In America, the overseas agenda, as with the domestic economic agenda, is coordinated between Wall Street, the federal government and the military industrial complex. Lots of folks in the mainstream media still insist it's about spreading freedom and democracy around the globe, but they and their advertisers own the means of producing "the news" [the main organs] so whatcha gonna do, right? Folks like me [and hopefully you] just have to work around the default inflection points as we've always done.
george walton
Pretty big holes in all of that Georgie.
jacko once boxo
Pretty big holes in all of that Georgie.
jacko once boxo
Given the extent to which both you and I are as far removed from being "fully informed" about matters such as this as Crowley is no doubt convinced he is so much more informed, I merely probe more extemporaneously and into thickets few others are even inclined to take seriously.
I am interested in the cross currents between human identity, human psychology, human emotional reactions and human infatuation with "reason". Then I probe [just as precariously, intuitively, problematically] any possible relationships between these subjunctive conjectures and more rooted [often immutable] factors like political economy: power, wealth and the ideologues who pretend they can be mastered. With words an ... view full comment
Given the extent to which both you and I are as far removed from being "fully informed" about matters such as this as Crowley is no doubt convinced he is so much more informed, I merely probe more extemporaneously and into thickets few others are even inclined to take seriously.
I am interested in the cross currents between human identity, human psychology, human emotional reactions and human infatuation with "reason". Then I probe [just as precariously, intuitively, problematically] any possible relationships between these subjunctive conjectures and more rooted [often immutable] factors like political economy: power, wealth and the ideologues who pretend they can be mastered. With words and idealities, for example.
Now, rejoin intelligently and perhaps I can begin to take you....seriously? Maybe feel intrigued or even challenged? I almost never come across that here. That's why friends of mine point me in the right direction when we tussle with these things philosophically.
So, are you clever enough to parry with me?
; o )
george
George. It would be impolite for me not to respond. Take this for what it is worth. Only you can know.
You think that you have a special relationship with absurdity. You entertain the notion that because of your insights into the heart of its character thus emerge master and issue forth accordingly. i suspect this a projection by virtue of absurdity being the default polemical dismissal of competing arguments of those ' brave enough' to engage you. Reconciling your dispositions while using the cudgel of absurdity ratification is something your going to have to work out personally and privately. Working it out on these pages is, quite frankly, tedious for most. Evangelizing ' Merrily, merrily ... view full comment
George. It would be impolite for me not to respond. Take this for what it is worth. Only you can know.
You think that you have a special relationship with absurdity. You entertain the notion that because of your insights into the heart of its character thus emerge master and issue forth accordingly. i suspect this a projection by virtue of absurdity being the default polemical dismissal of competing arguments of those ' brave enough' to engage you. Reconciling your dispositions while using the cudgel of absurdity ratification is something your going to have to work out personally and privately. Working it out on these pages is, quite frankly, tedious for most. Evangelizing ' Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily. Life is but a dream has inherent hazard to intellectual honesty. Especially when you invoke as much only in the service of your own bias.
jacko:
George. It would be impolite for me not to respond.
george:
On the ontrary, it's not even impolite to call me a Jew hating Nazi in this bastion of civilized discourse. But you strike me as the "Mr. Jew hating Nazi" type. Am I wrong? ; o )
No, I think I have a special relationship with words like "absurdity". Or do you subscribe to words that suggest absurdity is something you can pull out of your pocket like a set of keys?
The "heart of its character"? Is that anything like the very nature of absurdity itself?
Let me ask you this: Which Wittgenstein metaphor do you subscribe to---language as a picture or language as a tool?
Or, perhaps, language as a picture of a tool?
Is Wittgenstein mor ... view full comment
jacko:
George. It would be impolite for me not to respond.
george:
On the ontrary, it's not even impolite to call me a Jew hating Nazi in this bastion of civilized discourse. But you strike me as the "Mr. Jew hating Nazi" type. Am I wrong? ; o )
No, I think I have a special relationship with words like "absurdity". Or do you subscribe to words that suggest absurdity is something you can pull out of your pocket like a set of keys?
The "heart of its character"? Is that anything like the very nature of absurdity itself?
Let me ask you this: Which Wittgenstein metaphor do you subscribe to---language as a picture or language as a tool?
Or, perhaps, language as a picture of a tool?
Is Wittgenstein more or less relevant in Aghanistan than The Onion?
Brave? Brave is Pat Tillman. We're just jerking each other around with the tedious bravado of a few well chosen words. Or, in your case, a few less well chosen words.
Besides, you don't even have a sense of humor. You're snide more than sniggering. You know, like me.
Try again.
george
George:Besides, you don't even have a sense of humor. You're snide more than sniggering. You know, like me.
Me: Au contrare. I responded in equanimity without all that much interest..... for what it's worth.
George:Besides, you don't even have a sense of humor. You're snide more than sniggering. You know, like me.
Me: Au contrare. I responded in equanimity without all that much interest..... for what it's worth.
George: Besides, you don't even have a sense of humor. You're snide more than sniggering. You know, like me.
Me: Au contrare. I responded in equanimity without all that much interest..... for what it's worth.
Me [not to be confused with the me above]:
Nope. Not even a giggle. Not even a grin. But I did manage a gimace or two.
You're in way of your head, of course. But equanimity is a good thing to have when you don't possess what is actually needed to sustain your end of a farce. And farce may well be the word du jour in describing Obama in Afghanistan.
Even if he manages to work things out with his military minders and Fox News.
gw
George: Besides, you don't even have a sense of humor. You're snide more than sniggering. You know, like me.
Me: Au contrare. I responded in equanimity without all that much interest..... for what it's worth.
Me [not to be confused with the me above]:
Nope. Not even a giggle. Not even a grin. But I did manage a gimace or two.
You're in way of your head, of course. But equanimity is a good thing to have when you don't possess what is actually needed to sustain your end of a farce. And farce may well be the word du jour in describing Obama in Afghanistan.
Even if he manages to work things out with his military minders and Fox News.
gw
George. You got me going a little bit. Pissed me off just a touch. But that's because you insulted my intelligence and that's my own vanity speaking.
What bothers me most is that you would fain wisdom doing the jester while servicing your own agenda. You lack sincerity as a cover for the fact don't really have anything of value to contribute beyond pretensions and your own flavor of the day. You're absurd. You fake it because that's all that you've got.
If your bottom line were Love then we would have something to discuss. But it's not. Thus I am convicted that you don't know shit.
Jacko
George. You got me going a little bit. Pissed me off just a touch. But that's because you insulted my intelligence and that's my own vanity speaking.
What bothers me most is that you would fain wisdom doing the jester while servicing your own agenda. You lack sincerity as a cover for the fact don't really have anything of value to contribute beyond pretensions and your own flavor of the day. You're absurd. You fake it because that's all that you've got.
If your bottom line were Love then we would have something to discuss. But it's not. Thus I am convicted that you don't know shit.
Jacko
jacko,
Now, aren't you glad you cashed the check I sent you to appear on Dr. Phil? Your diagnosis is spot on. Well, it is for the character I play in here.
And now you are accusing me of insulting something I have never been able to find. What does your intelligence look like? Is it both flaccid and turgid like mine?
Yes, I agree. Once you are reduced to faking your own sincerity all you've got left is the flavor of your treakly pretensious opinions about Afghanistan. Remember that? The point of Crowley's own pretensions here? But he is a genuine intellectual and you and I are reduced to this.
Did I reduce you first or did you reduce me?
What does it mean not to know shit? True, I don't know yo ... view full comment
jacko,
Now, aren't you glad you cashed the check I sent you to appear on Dr. Phil? Your diagnosis is spot on. Well, it is for the character I play in here.
And now you are accusing me of insulting something I have never been able to find. What does your intelligence look like? Is it both flaccid and turgid like mine?
Yes, I agree. Once you are reduced to faking your own sincerity all you've got left is the flavor of your treakly pretensious opinions about Afghanistan. Remember that? The point of Crowley's own pretensions here? But he is a genuine intellectual and you and I are reduced to this.
Did I reduce you first or did you reduce me?
What does it mean not to know shit? True, I don't know you...but that doesn't seem to make it any clearer.
Oh, and I Love your name. It sounds familiar though. Ever been to Neverland?
Hmm...
Fain wisdom. Did you mean, uh, feign? I prefer to fake it myself. But then I've always been a man's man.
You're not very good at this, are you?
; o )
gw
Oh I don't know George. Fain works fairly well as it is. It was a three scotch decision. So it goes.
I have some real world stuff to do. Ta-Ta.
Oh I don't know George. Fain works fairly well as it is. It was a three scotch decision. So it goes.
I have some real world stuff to do. Ta-Ta.
Jacko,
Ta ta?
Sigh. Another one bites the dust with a whimper. No bangs left I suppose. Better go back to the quarry.
gw
Jacko,
Ta ta?
Sigh. Another one bites the dust with a whimper. No bangs left I suppose. Better go back to the quarry.
gw