Who's really in charge here, the generals or President Barack Obama? ---- AIPAC
On Dec 7, 12:34 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > <http://www.politico.com> > > *Who's in charge -- generals or Obama?* > By: David Rogers > December 6, 2009 10:34 PM EST > > Gen. Stanley McChrystal > <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30085.html>, the U.S. > commander in Afghanistan, goes before Congress this week, and with him > comes this question: Who's really in charge here, the generals or > President Barack Obama? > > The long-awaited hearings, beginning Tuesday before the House and Senate > Armed Services committees, are a bookend of sorts to Obama's address > last Tuesday <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30093.html> at > West Point committing 30,000 more troops to the war effort in > Afghanistan. Implicit in the president's decision is an effective cap of > about 100,000 for the American force, but top Democrats fear that unless > Obama is more assertive, the military chain of command will undermine > his July 2011 target to begin some U.S. withdrawal. > > "The president's decision > <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30248.html> is already being > softened and made mush of," Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman > Carl Levin (D-Mich.) told POLITICO. And within the House and Senate > Appropriations committees, senior Democrats --- themselves veterans of > past wars --- have grown increasingly concerned by the political clout > of a generation of younger, often press-savvy military commanders. > > McChrystal and his strong ally, Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the > U.S. Central Command, are quotable stars in today's modern media; their > wartime budgets not only are large but also give them exceptional > discretion that is the envy of their foreign policy partners in the > State Department. > > The September leak of McChrystal's confidential report on the need for > more troops helped box in Obama and quickly became grist for the > Republican political mill. Even before that, Rep. John Murtha > <http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/JohnMurtha> (D-Pa.), > chairman of the House defense appropriations panel, complained of what > he saw as a pattern of news reports from the military in Afghanistan > promoting a buildup. And while Obama has a retired general of his own in > National Security Adviser Jim Jones, the 65-year-old Marine four-star > has not been the counterweight that many of his admirers had predicted. > > "I've always believed that the president of the United States is the > commander in chief," said Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman > Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), who was awarded the Medal of Honor in World > War II. "It concerns me when I see my president, the commander in chief, > having to debate with generals. They can do that privately, but he > should be able to say to General A, 'This is the way we're going to do > our business.' ... I would expect generals to advise the president but > not to go public." > > The U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, retired Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry --- > whose own cables critical of a military buildup were leaked in November > --- appears alongside McChrystal this week. And having them side by side > underscores the need for greater clarity and cooperation going forward. > > "The pace [of withdrawal] is condition-based. The location is > condition-based. But what wasn't condition-based is the beginning," > Levin said of the July 2011 date. "I want to see if McChrystal says, > yes, he understands that." > "Second, does he support it? He's not obligated to. I'm asking for his > honest personal opinion. If he has a different opinion, he should tell > us. He's obligated to tell us. ... Their advice should be private, ... > with the one caveat [that] if they are asked by a congressional > committee for their best professional opinion, they are duty bound to > give it to us." > > For all the tensions, independent observers say the driving force behind > Obama's decision was the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan > and Pakistan, and Jones couldn't be expected to stand down the military. > "Our system is a dialectical one. Countering forces produce a > 'synthesis,'" said one Washington veteran of past war debates. But much > will rest now on Defense Secretary Robert Gates > <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30250.html> to make the > decision stick --- and be a bridge between the uniformed military and > White House. > > Together with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Gates dominated House > and Senate hearings last week on the president's decision, and the two > were prominent on Sunday morning new shows > <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30262.html>, as well. > > July 2011 is "the beginning of a process," Gates told NBC News's "Meet > the Press" and one that he estimated could run three to four years past > that date. "We will begin to thin our forces and begin to bring them > home. But the pace of that ... will depend on circumstances on the > ground. And those judgments will be made by our commanders in the field." > > Just as important, in Senate testimony last week, Gates said what has > been left unsaid by others: that the military establishment agrees no > more troops will be requested beyond the current planned surge. > > This came in a little-noticed exchange in the Senate Foreign Relations > Committee, where Gates first spelled out that he has been given the > discretion to add 3,000 support personnel beyond the combat brigades, > bringing the so-called surge component to potentially 33,000. > > "You have no doubt that we will not be adding more troops to Afghanistan > after this deployment, outside of the 3,000 potentially that you have > may have to add?" asked Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.). > > "That is the commitment that we have made to the president," Gates said. > > That Kaufman pursued this question was not entirely surprising: His > former boss, Vice President Joe Biden, was among those most leery of > McChrystal's initial troop request. But it also shows how much the > administration, beginning with the president, wants to beat down any > comparisons to the steady escalation of troops committed to Vietnam in > the '60s. > > "So this is not like ... comparisons to Vietnam. This is not even like > Iraq," Kaufman said in reply to Gates. "This is a firm commitment by the > president of the United States, agreed by the major foreign policy > strategic planners in our government, that in July 2011 we're going to > start drawing down troops and we're not going to be adding more troops." > > To be sure, implementing that decision --- like Vietnam --- is easier > said than done, and one of the ironies of the debate thus far is that > while the administration keeps saying this isn't Vietnam, they keep > talking about it. > > In explaining the "unholy alliance" of Al Qaeda and Taliban forces, > Gates suddenly felt compelled to double-back and say he wasn't restating > a new domino theory --- made famous by Lyndon B. Johnson's insistence > that the U.S. would be fighting on "the beaches of Waikiki" if Vietnam > fell to the communists. Clinton herself spoke of "Afghanization" --- > echoing then-President Richard Nixon's "Vietnamization" policy in 1969. > And in the long press accounts Sunday of their own decision making, > White House aides --- many of whom grew up after Vietnam --- made a > point that they'd gone back and read Gordon Goldstein's 2008 "Lessons in > Disaster" on McGeorge Bundy, a key adviser to both John F. Kennedy and > Johnson on the Indochina war. > > In truth, there's nothing about the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan thus > far that matches the murderous killing in Vietnam --- and nothing quite > like North Vietnam itself, which was able to send large, even > mechanized, forces into the South to support insurgent guerrillas. > > But the presence of porous borders, the challenge of building and > partnering with the Afghan security forces and the large costs to the > American taxpayer are all real --- and similar to Vietnam. > > Most focus has been on the immediate cost of the added troops this year > and a forthcoming supplemental spending bill that could approach $40 > billion, when added funds for the State Department's "civilian surge" > are added. But this is only a first payment, and given Gates's and > Clinton's answers, the increased commitment knocks a far larger hole in > Obama's budget. > > Until now, the administration has estimated it could get through fiscal > 2010, ending next Sept. 30, with $130 billion for overseas contingency > funds for Iraq and Afghanistan. From 2011 through 2014, it predicted it > would need only $50 billion annually since the pace of the U.S. > withdrawal from Iraq is to accelerate over the coming year. > > In fact, these numbers will clearly be inadequate, and in 2011 alone, > whatever happens in July that year, the war-related costs will be > double, if not triple, what's projected. > > Perhaps the most difficult challenge for McChrystal in this same period > is the planned buildup of Afghan forces, who must be prepared to begin > taking over territory from McChrystal's troops in 18 months. In this > case, both he and Obama are paying a huge price for the lack of > investment under the Bush administration, and the U.S. must run at > almost double-time pace to catch up with where it wants to be. > > Gates has testified that the goal is to have an Afghan army of 170,000 > by July 2011, but Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of > Staff, told senators that only about 98,000 Afghan troops are trained to > date, and many of them are not yet in the field. > > In a year's time, the goal is to have this number at 134,000, but the > lack of Afghan partners poses a more immediate challenge in deciding > where the U.S. can now best target its own military operations against > Taliban strongholds in the Kandahar and Helmand regions. > > How long can the U.S. hold an area --- without Afghan partners --- and > not appear to be an occupying force to villagers most affected? It's a > decision for McChrystal in the field but also one that has to be watched > closely for Obama, now that this is his war, as well. > > "He's got to be very, very much on top of the type of missions and the > way in which these troops are deployed," Senate Foreign Relations > Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) told POLITICO. "It's clear to me > that there are limitations. We should not be going in, clearing and > holding areas where we don't have the ability to come in immediately > with Afghans." > > "If we don't, we're going to be digging ourselves a hole," he said. > "[Obama] has to very careful not to allow that to happen." > > � 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC > > <http://www.irides.com> > > homelogo.gif > 1KViewDownload > > irides.jpg > 1KViewDownload -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
