"... But it’s clear the finger-pointing between the White House and Pentagon reflects no mere technicality. Both examples cited to me by well-placed sources close to the Defense Department offer new evidence of a criticism that has dogged this administration for most of its six and a half years: that Barack Obama’s White House is so insular and tightly controlled it often avoids “outside” consultation—including with its own cabinet secretaries and agencies. That’s especially true when the issue is one of this president’s least favorite things: opening up new hostilities in foreign lands. To his critics—and I spoke with several for this article inside Obama’s administration as well as recent veterans of it—it’s all a reflection of the slapdash way a president so vested in “ending wars” has embraced his new one.
Indeed, the Syrian-rebel incident recalled a more famous instance of White House surprise tactics a year earlier, when after a stroll on the White House lawn with chief of staff Denis McDonough, Obama embarrassed Kerry by abruptly deciding to ask for congressional approval for bombing the regime of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad—only hours after Kerry had publicly declared that Assad was facing imminent action. Ironically, Congress quickly balked at approval, humiliating Obama," Politico
------------------------------
These two articles encapsulate the criticism circulating in Washington with regard to the ineptitude of Obama's government in the foreign policy field. Examples of the childish naivete of this administration are many and quite a few are recorded in these articles.
As I have written many times, this is a foreign policy team dominated by inexperience and/or an obsession with academic thinking derived from too much time spent in college and not enough real world time on the ground in the places they theorize about.
Martin Dempsey is the one shining exception in this government. God help us when he leaves.
pl
Bear with me on this point. The administration started off with a street scrapper for a chief of staff, rather than a polished professional. Rahm Imanuel ran the White House like he was a district boss back in Chicago. His boss let him limit access and stayed away from the adults who could have helped create a sane big picture. Those kind of choices in personnel result in the ineptitude we see today.
Posted by: BabelFish | 30 October 2014 at 11:05 AM
Well, if memory serves we had all these 'foreign policy experts' closely aligned with the Defense establishment in the last administration. How did that work out for us?
The Politico article is just another Washington 'process' story. The time to judge the foreign policy results of any Administration is well after it has vacated the White House.
Posted by: shege | 30 October 2014 at 11:34 AM
PL! Heartily agree with the position stated in this post!
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 30 October 2014 at 11:44 AM
Col. Lang,
One more... He has not been present on the daily intelligence briefings that is why he always acted (or genuinely?) surprised when something out of the ordinary happens.
Posted by: makosog | 30 October 2014 at 12:06 PM
shege
Your memory serves you ill. these were completely different groups of people. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 30 October 2014 at 01:18 PM
PL, I didn't mean it was the same set of players as we have now. In the last administration we had 'old pros' who were supposed to work well together: Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney etc.
We can debate if they 'bumbled', but the results of the foreign policy they implemented are not consistent with the expectations we had of the 'safe hands'.
Posted by: shege | 30 October 2014 at 02:13 PM
shege
"Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney" Yes, old hands but incompetent or driven by neocon ideology. Powell's idiocy in "buying" the WMD crap is matched by the purposeful conspiracy to invade Iraq indulged in by the others. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 30 October 2014 at 02:17 PM
America elects an untested cipher to project their racial fantasies on and it goes poorly: news at 11.
"Neocons! Neocons!" always the neocons!
The neocons and the current Childrens's Crusade are driven by the same utopian impulses - the only question is who gets to pull the lever.
Powers, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney? No daylight between them.
Posted by: Tyler | 30 October 2014 at 02:38 PM
Banging the old narcissist drum again, but this observed behaviour is typical.
Narcissists like Obama hate, and are scared of, real experience and achievement because they are a direct threat to the narcissists self esteem by demonstrating mastery of their subject matter. I watched a very competent chief of staff in an institution get fired for the crime of correcting a minor mistake her boss had made.
Good people are driven out and replaced with know nothing sycophants and the mutual admiration societies inside many University departments are a ready breeding ground for such folk.
Be aware that everything is personal for the narcissist and his staff must always be in a living hell wondering if they will receive a pat on the back or a slap in the face each day.
With that in mind, I pray for Gen. Dempsey, I believe the President would replace him if he wasn't a coward at heart.
Posted by: Walrus | 30 October 2014 at 02:58 PM
I wonder if this is due to the pathotoxic narcissism that Walrus has referrenced. He has structured his team of trusted inputters so that only worshipful validators are granted any opportunity for input.
To its credit, this Administration has avoided war with Iran so far.
Posted by: different clue | 30 October 2014 at 03:04 PM
Dempsey and Hagel earlier today... Dempsey: US considering empowering Sunni tribes
The Pentagon is considering ways to bring the Sunni Arab tribes of Iraq's Anbar province more fully into the battle against the Islamic State group, the top U.S. military officer said Thursday.
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters that expanding U.S. train-and-advise efforts to include the tribes is one of three key elements of a strategy designed to roll back IS fighters in northern and western Iraq.
The other elements are advising and assisting Iraqi government troops and creating so-called national guard units as a sort of quasi-military force that must first gain legal approval from the Iraqi government.
"You need all three of those eventually," Dempsey said. However, a condition for training and advising the tribes would be the willingness of the Iraqi government to arm them, he said.
Speaking alongside Dempsey, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel agreed that the tribes are an important component of the strategy.
"The Sunni tribes are going to have to be part of this," Hagel said.
http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Dempsey-US-considering-empowering-Sunni-tribes-5858842.php
Posted by: CTuttle | 30 October 2014 at 05:34 PM
CTuttle
Looks like DoD is catching up to SST. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 30 October 2014 at 05:45 PM
See, agreement can be found on these threads between PL and someone on the left coast!
Posted by: shege | 30 October 2014 at 06:14 PM
Tyler says: America elects an untested cipher to project their racial fantasies on and it goes poorly: news at 11.
Shege says: Supreme Court selects an untested cipher to project their right-wing fantasies on and it goes poorly.
Something we can agree on: Powers, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney? No daylight between them.
Posted by: shege | 30 October 2014 at 06:17 PM
"However, a condition for training and advising the tribes would be the willingness of the Iraqi government to arm them, he said"
Is Abadi willing and/or capable to do so, Sir...?
Posted by: CTuttle | 30 October 2014 at 06:26 PM
Realism has been out of fashion for a long, long time.
Posted by: oth | 30 October 2014 at 06:28 PM
Walrus.
I am wondering if Clinton/Bush/Obama might actually be sociopaths rather than NPDs (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/basics/symptoms/con-20025568), http://www.naturalnews.com/036112_sociopaths_cults_influence.html#, Or maybe our current and recent leadership are a combination of the two. As I understand it psychopathology is rarely one thing or the other. It is more like a Venn Diagram rather than discrete compartments. Just a thought.
Regards,
Posted by: Charles Dekle | 30 October 2014 at 07:02 PM
Shuge,
Get the hell over Bush II. Its almost 8 years now, Obama has continued or doubled down on Bush II's idiot policies and you guys can't admit your flawed negro messiah is a failure.
Its like a,reflex: critique Obama and b-b-b Bush!
Posted by: Tyler | 30 October 2014 at 07:20 PM
C. Tuttle
IMO, no. And so we should pursue our own interest by doing this as a UW op from a base in the KAR. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 30 October 2014 at 07:51 PM
Col.,
"... we should pursue our own interest..." I second that suggestion. I sure wish someone would replace the White House's "must read" Twitter post summaries with some daily SST required reading.
Posted by: Fred | 30 October 2014 at 08:12 PM
pl,
And there needs to be no one higher than an SF Colonel in the UWOA. No generals. No whiz kids from think tanks, war colleges or staff schools. The generals need to be outside the area responding to the needs of the in-country commanders, providing top cover for those commanders and their needs, and ensuring the NCA understands what those in-country commanders are doing and need to do.
Posted by: The Twisted Genius | 30 October 2014 at 10:30 PM
Got that right.
Posted by: MRW | 30 October 2014 at 11:02 PM
Tyler
Respectfully - we are still living with Bushcheney .
The Daash insurgency with al Douri cohort as its military planners is a direct result of our taking Saddam Hussein from power . And yes Obama has allowed the neocons and the neoliberal Wilsonians to hijack our current foreign affairs policies in Ukraine and elsewhere at great peril to These United States. At least we did not bomb Syria over the CW false flag incident. And how we are doing destroying and degrading Daash/ISIL at this time is clearly an open question . It defies logic to me why we cannot somehow persuade al Douri to disavow al Baghadadi .
Posted by: alba etie | 31 October 2014 at 05:27 AM
Am always amused by stories like this in the media. Obama is in his lame duck phase and those in the administration or those positioning themselves for the next one plant stories like this. American foreign policy is littered with decisions that time that proven idiotic at best. If Obama is hesitant to engage in war,......am all for it. What good has all the engagements in the Middle East wrought? A muddled mess.
I spent a good amount of time watching Dr. Porches presentation to the UK Commons committee and comments about doing nothing seem to take these parliamentarians by surprise.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?322230-1/british-house-commons-defence-committee-hearing-isis
Posted by: Omonaija | 31 October 2014 at 07:00 AM
Dempsey wants US advisors to go back and tell the tribes in Anbar "We're back, and you can trust us this time."
The irony of Americans being back in Iraq to back both the Iraqi government and the Sunni tribes again, so they can both maintain their illusions and not have to compromise, just like 2007-11.
I'm skeptical. Either they have to fight it out themselves, or some serious head-knocking of both sides is required. Unfortunately, the vulnerability of Americans being in Iraq and eager desire for immediate good-news seems to preclude the head-knocking.
The solutions are within reach, but foolish intransigence has been ruling.
Posted by: Green Zone Cafe | 31 October 2014 at 07:52 AM