"Obama battles with advisers over Afghan exit plan"

 "President 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.

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."  Washpost

--------------------------------------------------------

I knew this was going on at the time.  The bottom line here is that President Obama does not really have the generals under control.  This is a potentially disastrous portent for America's future.  The president makes policy.  The generals carry it out.  That is the American tradition.  There have been generals who thought they knew better, and perhaps they did, but that is irrelevant in a country that has valued federal political democracy above all else.  The constitution makes the civilian president commander in chief of the armed forces.  He has the command authority at the top, not the generals.  If he wishes to fire David Petraeus tomorrow, Petraeus will be gone the day after.

Petraeus is quoted as saying to his staff, "the White House is ------- with the wrong guy." If true, that is right on the edge of insubordination.  The McChrystal episode evidently did not impress him.

Obama gave the generals too much in the outcome  of the great "policy review."  They interpreted that as an indication of weakness.  pl 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/21/AR2010092106711.html

Comments

[William R. Cumming]

Any of the commentators focusing on Indian role in US Afghan policy? Seems immediate withdrawal might cause some Indian politicians great heart burn! IN the meantime the Communists continue their long term comeback and success in India.

[Patrick Lang]

DH

I hope that is good. pl

[Fred]

Anonymous,

Thanks for that link. Meant to read that book in '07. Interestng commentary on Nuremberg. Chris Dodd should have run for President in '92.

[shanks]

Re: firing Generals.

For an Obama team which is hyper conscious of image maintenance, you think he'd do it? All past interactions have indicated, that he has either caved in or triangulated the "perfect" course which makes everyone unhappy and proved that he is indecisive on a lot of things that matter. Heathcare, Fin. reform, every major piece of legislation, he managed to tie himself into knots.

He is not in control of events, he will not be. And the Generals won't let him. He's now wedded to them and can only hope that they'd coast along to not damage "his" presidency.

The nation comes last.

[fanto]

jonst,
"But the truth contained in it has just enough spin, hidden agendas, and subtle textual skills to render the 'truth' not only meaningless, but dangerous, as well. It will be a sign of maturity the day we turn our backs on this technique of writing, and this writer, in particular."
This puts it in the most succinct way - thank you, I could not agree more.

[DH]

Sorry for the delay, colonel; it's excellent.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198