That didn’t take long. NYT:
On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Mr. Gates said that under the plan, 100,000 American troops would be in Afghanistan in July 2011, and “some handful, or some small number, or whatever the conditions permit, will begin to withdraw at that time.”In his prime-time address at West Point on Tuesday, Mr. Obama said that even as he planned to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, his administration would “begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.”
It makes one wonder how completely President Obama controls the military and intelligence services. He reversed himself on release of prisoner abuse photos, caved on rendition, and now is upended less than a week after making a major national policy address. Choose a Republican as your Secretary of Defense, and perhaps one shouldn’t be surprised if one branch of the government doesn’t seem to get many of the White House’s memos.
Discuss
37 Comments . Comments are closed.No surprise here.
During campaign pols must throw out the partisan red meat and keep us divided, gin up supporters, etc. Once in office they work off the same policy papers , and briefings from the same foreign policy establishment. Want to know what any Admin will do- just read the next policy paper emanating from the Council on Foreign Relations.
Anyone here notice private contractors are way up under Obama. The number of private contracted personel actually now exceeds the number of troops in Afghanistan. (WSJ)
Sure, but the speech at issue was less than a week ago
This was no campaign speech, this was the culmination of a months-long review by the President of the United States announced on national television at West Point no less:
It sort of reads differently if he had said:
The White House and the Pentagon are way out of step here. That's what is interesting. If Obama controls the military, Gates may get his walking papers soon, I guess. If, on the other hand, he tolerates this kind of public undercutting then it seems he is not the one making policy in this area.
Two points
For the record I am completely in agreement with you in opposing the surge and think we should start a phased redeployment yesterday. That said I take two issues with your opinion of Gates.
The first is that Obama is not shifting his stance from last week, his speech said that forces would begin the withdrawal in July 2011. So it is quite plausible depending on the pace of the withdrawal that we would have a significant number of troops several months out from that date. What would be a bigger flop flop would be arguing that troops would still be there in 2013, which the President has been on record saying he would oppose.
The second is the presumption that because Gates is a Republican he is somehow a horrible hawk influencing policy. Gates is a fairly moderate Republican. As DoD under Bush he argued that we were losing in Iraq and Afghanistan, he supported the smaller surge, Cheney wanted a bigger one. He wanted Guantanamo closed, he supported increasing the amount of soft power money DoD can deploy including using civilians to create aid projects, he is against torture, etc. In my view Obama had three advisers disagreeing with him, Jones and Biden wanted to go down to 10k ASAP (the correct policy IMO), Hillary and McChrystal wanted the 45k surge, and Gates advocated a 35k surge. Obama basically created a middle course between all of them landing in between Gates and Biden (though obviously much closer to Gates). Gates, like Colin Powell, is a career defense/military man who is really a non-partisan expert on national security issues. The R next to his name was likely to make it easier to get jobs since Rs are hired under both administrations, while Ds only get hired under Democratic ones. Gates has served under six Presidents and three of them were Democrats (in CIA under Carter, Bush I, and briefly Clinton, in NSA and DoD under Reagan, SOD under Bush II and Obama). Gates also likely agreed with his mentor Brent Scowcroft that the Iraq War was a bad idea (Daddy Bush sent his buddy Brent to bail out his son on Iraq, Brent said 'hire Gates').
So I disagree with the notion that there is some international conspiracy to ensure a militant foreign policy. If anything the CFR is full of realists, and while Haas was a liberal hawk on Iraq, most of its contributors have been skeptics, and most are now skeptical of the Afghan surge. Also Andrew Bacevich is a conservative Republican and also find the surge appalling.
To me the biggest threats are the holdovers from the Clinton era, Holbrooke, Susan Rice, and Hillary Clinton are some of the biggest liberal neocon's within the foreign policy establishment. All were pro-Iraq War, all believe in the essential neocon fallacy (and fantasy) that US might makes right, that US military power should be deployed for the sake of a higher moral principle including human rights and democracy building, all endorse the disproven democratic peace theory, all endorse military action against Sudan, and some against Iran. These guys are the real bad news bears and I wonder to this day why Obama didn't bring in his own advisers, liberal realists like Anthony Lake, Samantha Power, and Bill Richardson. That is the real question.
For the record...
...I believe I have read/heard that Secretary Gates is actually registered to vote as unenrolled.
For the record...
Harry Reid did apparantly once says Gates has "never been registered as a Republican: http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/...
However:
1) Many sources indicate that even as a young college student, Gates was "very involved in the Young Republicans, and even became the chapter's President."
2) His background (A career CIA official, deputy CIA director under Reagan and deputy director of central intelligence under George H.W. Bush) clearly indicates that his employer's at least think he is a Republican.
I'd just like to note
That (1) can be said for myself (even the part about being a college republicans chairman) but I'm not sure if I see myself being a registered Republican as an adult. Much of that depends on where the party during the 2010-2012 election season. Still, who knows where I'll be politically in 30 years.
I think its a serious, serious reach to point out one's world view as a college student to determine their worldview as a 50+ adult.
.....or lest we forget our Sec. of State, yes?
agree absolutely
I was a Republican in my youth. I'm still not a Democrat, but almost feel like the party moved to the right of me. Consider Gerald Ford's social views, for example. He was pro-choice and pro-gay, including gay marriage.
Point Taken but Hillary's Conversion Was Much Earlier
Yes, she was raised in a conservative household, was breifly a "Goldwater Girl" and even served as President of the Young Republicans her freshman year at Wellsley.
However, by her Junior year (1967-68), she had already quit the YR and was a supporter of McCarthy (the anti-war candidate) in the Democratic primary elections.
By her senior year, she was completing her 92-page honors dissertation on Saul Alinsky and calling out Republican Senator Ed Brooks as "out of touch" during her commencement speech. Off to law school, she worked with Bill for McGovern in 1972 and interned at the radical California law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein.
Her first job out of law school? Staff attorney for the Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge. By 1974 she was a member of the Nixon impeachment inquiry staff.
Gates?
Recruited to join the CIA while getting his masters degree at Indiana University, joining upon graduation.
A year later, was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the United States Air Force. From 1967 to 1969, he was assigned to the Strategic Air Command as an intelligence officer. After fulfilling his military obligation, he rejoined the CIA.
With Reagan elected, Gates was named the Director of the DCI/DDCI Executive Staff in 1981, Deputy Director for Intelligence in 1982, and Deputy Director of Central Intelligence from April 18, 1986 to March 20, 1989.
With H.W. Bush elected, Gates was Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs from March until August 1989, and was Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser from August 1989 until November 1991. As Iran-Contra faded, Gates became Director of Central Intelligence.
His PhD dissertation was on: "Soviet Sinology: An Untapped Source for Kremlin Views and Disputes Relating to Contemporary Events in China"
Just asking because the thought came to me while reading you
do you automatically, while meaning to or not, equate military service with conservatism or republicanism?
No.
I understand that those who serve in our military have a wide range of political views. I also have always had a tremendous respect for the way in which the military command structure strongly discourages any political debate. Civilian control of the military is an essential aspect of our democracy.
Gates is a tried and true military man (even as head of Texas A&M), but I do not equate that in any way with being a Republican or a conservative. It is his appointments by Reagan and the two Bushes that I think are most telling.
Also, I recognize the following:
1) Forty percent of the military is made up of ethnic minorities, while a good portion of the remaining 60% of soldiers are from lower-income families. These demographic groups are mostly Democrats.
2) The military offers free health care, free housing, and free public education. These are ideas more closely associated with Democrats than Republicans.
So, no, I don't.
This is getting off the main topic...but I must comment on a couple things
In order to receive "free health care" "free housing" and "free education" you must be serving in the military. Therefore it isn't really "free". It is part of your compensation/benefit/entitlement for serving in the Military. Not something given away for free. It is something members of the Military actually earn.
My subordinates, peers and superiors all come from different parts of the country, different backgrounds, different ethnicity...etc... They have all had different reasons for joining...among them (at times and in rare cases) was cause they had little opportunity for anything else. Speaking for myself, I joined out of high school instead of choosing to college and had only intended to do one enlistment. That was 18 years ago.
For the most part, most of my fellow service members have all had a few things in common.
Members of the military (regardless of your stats relating to minority and lower-income families) are overwhelming conservative on fiscal, social, national security and foreign policies.
McCain v. Obama 68% to 23%
http://www.thaindian.com/newsp...
Brian Allen MSG, U.S. Army
Gates
and Clinton portrayed the July 2011 milestone as a timeframe in which Obama wanted Karzai and his governemnt troops ready to take responsibility for security of the nation. They agreed the date was set to communicate a sense of urgency to the Afghan guv'mint.
Obama emphasized July 2011 as the beginning of withdrawal, amounts unspecific, prolly for us liberals who oppose escalation but might tolerate it if he promised a withdrawal in twenty months as much as for Karzai to get his arse in gear. What Obama did not do is committ to the size or percentage, "to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan" of the withdrawal (yes! you've been punked.)
Gates, answering a question about conditions on the ground, said the withdrawal could be some handful or some small number, or whatever conditions permit. That is not a contradiction of what Obama said ...unfortunetly.
Stretch (Bush's knickname for David Gregory) asked Gate if he will finish Obama's full four year term as Sec of Defense to which Gates answered, that's up to President Obama.
Great post, J.C.!
You can take this to the bank:
Well, they did it to us again. We voted for Abe Lincoln and we got Harold Hill. Welcome to River City. It wouldn't have mattered if we had voted in the comedy team that ran against Harold. We got the same government. No change. No hope.
This does serve as a lesson for us. Especially the youth whose futures are looking bleaker with each passing month.
Now, we can trust the stories of global warming, can't we? They wouldn't lie to us about that just to line their own pockets? Would they? Oh, maybe they take that to the bank...
I find it hard to believe
that Sec. Gates wasn't saying exactly what the President expected him to say.
Do you remember CANDIDATE OBAMA?
If you do, nothing should "shock" you regarding his approach to Afghanistan.
http://www.poligazette.com/200...
More troops are needed in Afghanistan, Obama said: "We've got to get the job done there, and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI...
"As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan," Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, wrote in an Op-Ed article published on Monday in The New York Times. "We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there."
As far as Robert Gates goes, keeping him on board remains one of the smartest things Obama has done. Midstream and knee deep in Iraq and Afghanistan Gates (after finally replacing Rumsfeld) is the man. He is non-partisan and very loyal to the Commander-In-Chief. Obama's "spin" and vague description of a gradual withdrawal beginning in July 2011 was the politician speaking to you. Robert Gates was the (SERVING AT THE DISCRETION OF THE PRESIDENT) told NBCs meet the press the real deal.
Maybe if you were paying attention
to what Obama actually said and not what the pundits and arm-chair analysts said that he said, you would not see any inconsistency here. I don't.
a fair criticism
but it is alo true that Obama talked about withdrwal beginning in July 2011 which is somewhat misleading given a fuller explanation of his plan.
How is it misleading?
Both the Gates and Obama quotes in the diary talk about starting the process in July 2011. This whole thing is much ado about nothing.
withdrawl or WITHDRAWAL?
Obama's talk about withdrawal was misleading becuase he didn't say withdrawal mught include just a few, he implied a Withdrawl, the beghining of the end of the war, whereas in reality withdrawing a minimal number of troops - a few - does not amount to withdrawal.
I don't think Obama and Gates are at odds.
I think Obama delivered a policy decision in a way to gain support for it while potnetially overstating the scope of the withdrawal in July 2011.
I'm not too worried
Maybe because I assumed all along that these things move slowly and thus interpreted "withdraw" as "begin to withdraw" without a second thought.
i agree with you
its good politics by Obama and who knows what Afghan will be like in 7/2011. The only thing he's made it difficult to do is surge again.
For folks who want that war over, becuase al quada is less than 100 which was our objective, they have every right to be pissed by Obama's slight of hand misleading phrasing.
Is it change you can believe in?
I won't go round and round again...
...but suffice to say I don't count myself among those you refer to in your second paragraph and I am solidly behind the plan as presented at West Point.
Incoherent policy
The West has far too few troops in Afghanistan for a real counterinsurgency. So we'll be in roughly the same spot next year as this. So I'm wondering. Is this an urgent, unavoidable problem for our national security or not? If so, we should institute a draft and get it done. If not, why are we placing our chips on such a bad bet?
jconway's discussion above suggests to me that this is very bad management-by-committee whereby compromises between clear positions with clear rationales produce a muddied position with no rationale.
Draft?
To be honest, attending my nephew's wedding a month ago down in Charleston (82nd Airborne) and meeting his LT and CO, we certainly don't need a "draft" and a dilution of talent in our armed forces. That's just political spinning. Believe what you want to believe (this isn't Vietnam folks) but there are some pretty impressive men and women volunteering for our armed services right now.
Draft, exactly
If you accept the premise that we have to win a counter-insurgency in Afghanistan against the Taliban, then we need a much, much larger force there. Like three times what we have now.
The only way to get that is by having a draft.
Dilution of talent? You bet. We simply need a bigger force if we're going to take on the Taliban and win. We cannot pay volunteers enough to triple the size of our forces.
Me? I don't accept the premise. Not at all.
But I'm surprised that the people who do are so prey to magical thinking that they imagine that overcoming the Taliban can be accomplished with a smaller force than has proven historically necessary.
Why such optimism? After all, this is Afghanistan we're talking about! Counter-insurgency has always been extra difficult there.
But that is NOT the premise
The premise -- agree or disagree -- is that a relatively small US force can hold the Afghan/Pakistani border closed while the Pakistani military pushes the Pakistani AQ/Taliban from the East.
No "magical thinking" is required -- it is the Pakistani military that provides the offensive push, and US forces are deployed to defend from "outside" (in this case Pakistani) "aggressors" (in this case AQ militants).
The political landscape of Afghanistan is much larger than just Karzai versus Taliban. More importantly, the Afghani government is so completely weak and dysfunctional that the Afghan people are far more concerned about the influence of warlords — specifically, whoever controls their immediate neighborhood. It does zero good to worry about who wins an election when the police and courts have no ability whatsoever to enforce whatever laws are or are not passed.
We are not talking about a Vietnam, nor a "counter-insurgency in Afghanistan", nor anything very similar. We are, instead, talking about a dirt-poor country filled with dirt-poor people who are under constant and relentless pressure from all sides.
More importantly, we are talking about religious extremists in Pakistan who are currently recruiting Jihadists from around the world in pursuit of nuclear weapons currently in the control of the Pakistani military -- in a Pakistan with a weak and tottering "democracy" and Muslim majority.
Campaign premises
The whole goal of our involvement there is to prevent a return of the Taliban and the excessive use of boldface. Replacing warlords, however worthy a goal, has never been a direct goal of U.S. policy. President Obama, if anything, wants to keep the mission on that narrower focus.
So I think the premise that I'm examining is more likely to be the one policy-makers have in mind.
Who said anything about $quot;replacing warlords$quot;?
My point is that the people of Afghanistan don't care who is in charge of the government — and (by implication) neither should we.
I suggest that the actual goal, whatever the campaign premises were, is to prevent a nuclear-armed jihad in Pakistan. That's the goal that President Obama articulated.
It seems to me that President Obama laid out the premises that they have in mind. I didn't hear any mention of striving to "win a counter-insurgency in Afghanistan against the Taliban."
not one if the same
That's not implied at all. Our interests should recognize there interests so that we can join on the ones we have in common but our interests are nonetheless different than theirs. If we are to withdrawal, and I think we all want to be able to withdrawal, then their national security must be effective at repelling Al Quada.
I fear you conflate two independent ideas
The world is full of nations, groups, and movements with whom we share common interests. We do not, however, provide military support for most of them.
I suggest that when we deem the political situation in Pakistan safe — when Pakistan's nuclear weapons are not in jeopardy of falling into AQ hands — then our national security interest is done.
That is the moment when we should (and I suspect will) withdraw, regardless of the condition of whatever government claims power in Afghanistan at that time.
Hmmm
Why, then, is the US supporting/ upholding a regime, and persisting in an occupation, that can only strengthen the Taleban's hand by fueling and exacerbating Pashtun grievances? Our goal is actually to create Bantustans.
You can't have it both ways.
The speech (and the policy) was an attempt to appease far too many groups with far differing wants/needs. The result was he made nobody happy (other than his loyalists for the most part). If you only have $10 and 2 of your kids ask for $10 to go to the movies, it does no good to give them $5/each. You may think you are helping them or making them happy, but the end result is neither kid makes it into the movie.
We need to stop trying to please every group and do what is in the country's best interest once and for all.
I think President Obama is doing just that
I think he's focused on doing what needs to be done militarily to prevent AQ from gaining access to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, while simultaneously providing political and diplomatic cover for withdrawing US forces from Afghanistan.
Frankly, I want a President who looks at the facts and makes life-or-death decisions -- for an enormous number of people -- accordingly. Furthermore, I think that far too many folks oppose anything the President does simply because he is a Democrat (I'll resist the temptation to ascribe other biases) and far too many folks oppose anything but an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, regardless of the facts.
I think the prior administration created a terrible mess, and I think this administration is cleaning it up as best they can.
If that makes me a "loyalist", so be it.
Your sig line gives away your $quot;loyalty$quot;.
I am shocked that you support Obama's statement and plan... NOT!
I can tell you an anecdotal story about a place I worked and they were picking a new VP Sales. My manager at the time was very "loyal" to the company (almost blindly) and they ended up picking a guy to run sales (for a company with 600 sales people) who had NO SALES EXPERIENCE. When I mentioned how insane I thought this move was my manager said, no it was brilliant since this guy had no sales "baggage" and could be a fresh start... (of course the new VP failed miserably). The point is he was justifying the choice no matter who it was due to his blind loyalty. When that happens it becomes very easy to justify the choice!
I have supported more troops in Afghanistan but I think Obama has created a plan which will fail miserably and the chances of us (in any appreciable way) leaving Afghanistan within the next 5 years is very low. Gates is hurting Obama's credibility with his supporters.
I am similarly shocked that oppose the President's plan
I invite you to offer an example of a proposal from President Obama that you support.
I liked $quot;cash for clunkers$quot;.
I thought it had some problems (Toyota vehicles accounted for 19.2 percent of the 489,269 sales, while General Motors had the second spot at 17.7 percent. Foreign cars occupied eight of the 10 spots on top-selling vehicle list) and the program showed the admin clearly were poor planners as the program far exceeded their plans.
But on the whole I liked the purpose of the program. Want more?
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Wed 8 Feb 1:15 PM