An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Democracy in Deutschland, Revisited

Ondoy: The Katrina Of Asia ? (UPDATED) »

President Obama: Restoring Chain-Of-Command (UPDATED)

Posted by TYRONE STEELS II, Site Administrator in Politics, War.
Sep 28th, 2009 | Comments

UPDATE: According to MSNBC’s First Read, President Obama will be meeting with ALL the players in his Situation Room tomorrow (emphasis mine):

Although President Obama has spent so much time and energy on domestic issues in his first nine months in office, last week’s news (Iran and its nuclear ambitions and missile tests, the future of Gitmo’s closure, and Gen. McChrystal’s troop request for Afghanistan) once again proved that foreign affairs could end up defining Obama’s presidency more than health care or even the economy. And foreign affairs will continue to dominate this week’s headlines. On Tuesday, Obama will meet in his Situation Room to discuss Afghanistan with Gens. Petraeus and McChrystal, Defense Secretary Gates, Secretary of State Clinton, Ambassador Ikenberry, and Afghanistan adviser Holbrooke. On Thursday, the U.S. will have its big meeting with Iran in Geneva. That meeting comes after today’s news that Iran test-fired long-range missiles capable of striking Israel and American bases in the Persian Gulf.

Well General McChrystal’s gets his second meeting with President Obama along with his “boss” General Petraeus. And even Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton will be there. We’ll see what comes out of this.

******************************

According to Amanda Carpenter at The Washington Times, President Obama has only spoke to the U.S. Commander in Afghanistan only once:

The military general credited with capturing Saddam Hussein and killing the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, says he has spoken with President Obama only once since taking command in Afghanistan.

“I’ve talked to the president, since I’ve been here, once on a VTC ,” Gen. Stanley McChrystal told CBS reporter David Martin in a television interview that aired Sunday.

“You’ve talked to him once in 70 days?” Mr. Martin followed up.

“That is correct,” the general replied.

Of course former U.S. Ambassador for the United Nations John R. Bolton has to weigh in on this with a familiar refrain:

“I think it’s very clear, and has been during last year’s campaign and in the eight months the president has been in office, that he just doesn’t regard foreign policy and national security as important as domestic issues, like reforming the health care system,” Mr. Bolton told the hosts of The Washington Times’ “America’s Morning News” on Monday.

But Tim Fernholz at The American Prospect makes note that President Obama looks to be restoring the chain-of-command (he takes aim at Ben Smith at Politico who flagged the Washington Times piece as well):

Ben thinks this is evidence of “Obama’s — thus far — limited personal involvement in the Afghan war.” No, it’s not. It’s Obama’s return to normal procedure — I don’t think having the President micro-manage a conflict a world away is a particularly smart. McChrystal reports to General David Petraeus, who in turn reports up-the-line of command.

From my vantage point, this is a very good move from President Obama. General David Petraeus has been in McChrystal’s position. He knows “the deal”. And restoring the chain-of-command, where Gen. McChrysal reports to Gen. Petraeus is a win-win. Some in Right Blogtopia here, here, and here are painting this as “Obama the Inexperienced” and “Obama The Foreign Policy Goof”. On the contrary, this is smart. President Bush may have needed to jump in at times due to the urgency of two wars but he also didn’t have pressing and very serious domestic issues. President Obama does. And restoring the chain-of-command keeps expert “eyes on the ball” that report directly to him while maintaining orderly flow of intel and information; all the while freeing the President to tackle domestic issues as well (that are AS important at this stage).

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

Leonidas

Sounds reasonable, it doesn't matter who he listens to along as he listens. Petraeus can filter things and inform the President about what he heeds to know and isn't bothered with things that can be taken care of down the chain. If he wants a more direct report or clarification he can place a call down the line.

shannonlee

This behavior also shows trust to the people directly beneath him. This is particularly important in the military where repecting the chain of command is essential.

Ron Beasley

Generals always have trouble remembering that it's not their job to make policy. Both McCrystal and Petreaus are politically ambitious and all of these leaks border on insubordination. Let the neocons and Zionists scream - if this borderline insubordination continues Obama and Gates need to fire them both.

PWT

I am going to have to side with the Right Blogotopia on this one. It is just one incident but it appears to be a pattern of aloofness. Mr. Obama has not stepped up and lead on any issue domestic or international. He does not know what it means to be a leader and has never demonstrated any real leadership prior to or during his political career (prove me wrong - I'd like to see some examples of Leadership).

T-Steel, as to the 'urgency of domestic issues', Mr. Obama is creating his own urgency. The country will survive until the end of his term and beyond without Health Insurance/Care Reform. However, the most important issue (problem is a more appropriate term) facing the country is the economy and that gets hardly a mention. Mr. Obama allowed Congress to write the Stimulus bills, let them pass them, and has now moved on to his pet issues. I'd rather he chucked the whole Health Insurance/Care issue, rolled up his sleeves and explain his plan to get the country growing again.

I mean, even Mr. Bush was able to get NCLB passed in his first nine months in office. Good or bad, it was a major piece of legislation that had been proposed by Mr. Bush and passed into law rather quickly. Thus far, Mr. Obama has not shown such leadership.

SteveK

Am I the only one that thinks Dr Strangelove when Generals start thinking that they're in charge?

Ron Beasley

In a word - NO

PWT

How do we know that the leaks are coming from the Generals? Sure, it's likely that there are some Zionists creeping around the Pentagon that may have started these rumors, but isn't there a more likely explanation - Hillary Clinton. She only took the job at State to soften Mr. Obama up for the 2012 primaries - after all, how else could you explain her gross mis-handling of international affairs thus far?

Leonidas

I think more along the lines of Douglas MacArthur than Dr. Strangelove. Its a real example.

pacatrue

It seems the primary question is to ask how often Obama talks to Petraeus. If it's all the time, then I go with T-Steel's take. If it's also rarely, then Obama may need to be more involved.

T-Steel

I lumped domestic issues such as health care and the economy into each other. I do agree President Obama has created an urgency in health care at the expense of the economy at large. But while I don't agree with everything Obama is pushing for in health care, I do think health care reform is a big part of getting the economy right. But as I said before, I am a jobs guy. I want Americans employed more fully before health care reform. But that's just me.

Regarding President Obama's aloofness (perceived or real), I think it's a matter of style. As I said in earlier posts, President Obama is more like Professor Obama. Deliberate and cool. And he has shown leadership in the the swine flu situation, engaging the Muslim World (some like it, some don't), education (2,500 tax credit to help offset the cost of tuition for those seeking a college education - nearly five million families are expected to save $9 billion, according to Treasury), and transportation (over 2500 highway projects approved).

All that's nothing to sneeze at.

T-Steel

Guess we need to see what Gen. Petraeus says. But it looks like there may be issues there as Ron Beasley said earlier.

elixelx

What would they talk about? Whether the Military is stupid? Racist? Greedy? Whether they like the same brand of beer! Barry-boy is afraid, yes, sh*t scared, that once he sits face-to-face with McC he will no longer have "plausible deniability" to say that he did not understand the imperatives in AfPak because he had not been briefed by his generals. And in any case nothing, but nothing that McC will say to Barry-boy will make the slightest difference. In order to remain viable to his political base Barry-boy CANNOT send more troops to Af.; CANNOT stop the pullout of Iraq, no matter how much worse it becomes; CANNOT not sit down with Iran; He is as locked in to these positions as the Pope is to Priestly Celibacy... So why talk to McC? Why talk to Maliki? Why not talk to A'jad? Surely you can't be suggesting or hoping that Barry-boy break his campaign promises? He hasn't done so yet, so why start now! (Ok, OK. That last para IS sarcastic!)

DaGoat

This seems a little manufactured to me. Obama only speaks to the Commander in Afghanistan once in eight months but er, um.......that's a good thing because he's following the chain of command!

Since McChrystal was responsible for the key report on Afghanistan that's been gathering dust it seems to me a little more direct contact would be reasonable.

CStanley

That was my take on it too...though I'll also agree with pacatrue. If Obama has been having frequent consultaion with Petraeus and going over the report from McChrystal with him, then fine, he's following the chain of command. But if, as it appears so far, he hasn't been as engaged as he should be with either of them in responding to the report which he requested from McChrystal, then there's a problem. It's not a matter of who he talks to as much as a question of whether he's talking enough to either or both of them.

elixelx

I want to ask the Genius Military Strategians commenting here--What would have been the effect of a full-court press in Afghanistan from Nov 01 till now, given that the Iraq war had NEVER been fought, and that ALL the men and materiel that were poured into Iraq had gone instead into Afghanistan and America had "kept her eyes on the Afghan Ball, and not been distracted by Iraq"?

Specifically: Would Pres. Bush have been so reviled? Would the Iranians and the Syrians have become as involved? Would the 10,000 or more Al Qaeda killed in Iraq have stayed in Af to fight and what would have been the outcome for America. (Please don't say that the AQ in Iraq were Iraqi AQ!) Would America have been out of AF by now having "won"?

The five year action in Iraq is beginning to look increasingly like a brilliant military masterstroke, opening up a second front to draw Al Qaeda out to where they could be killed, because it is much more difficult to kill them in AF and where it would have taken ALL the resources of IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN put together to fight to a stalemate or a Vietnam-like defeat! A holding action in AFG while decimating AQ in IRAQ: And now a holding action in IRAQ while a surge kills off the rest of AQ in AFG. Go for it, Barry. You still might pull your Presidential Cojones out of the embers!

Father_Time

There are several links in the chain of command between a field commander and Preside dent of the United States. The fact that the President does not personally communicate much with a field commander is quite reassuring to me.

Of course he is a smart President, but to be fair, the act that he follows is really not much competition in the smarts department.

Anything Bolton says I immediately discard out of hand. Also the republicans need to get that drunken Kit Bond off of TV trying to make political hay over the issue between shots of whiskey. Kit Bond is nothing, so go away.

daveinboca

McChrystal was named as McKiernan's replacement more than a year ahead of schedule. That must have been at Petraeus's recommendation.

"Of course he is a smart President, but to be fair, the act that he follows is really not much competition in the smarts department." is not only off-topic, but inaccurate, as the guts to go with Petraeus with the Surge was against nearly unanimous opposition. Opposition which had effusively supported his earlier Operation Cobra II. Until the going got rough.

But as a participant in the SouthEastAsian War Games, I can recall when LBJ would talk daily to Westmoreland, as would GHWB often do to Gen. Schwartzkopf where I also was in the war zone. As TSteele says, it's a matter of style with Obama, and he has other fish to fry, but he'd better watch out or he'll get into a situation where he tries to do it on the cheap, and as Cobra II indicates, that can be disastrous. Strange that Hillary Clinton should voice her opinion about Gen. McChrystal, and totally inappropriate.

Father_Time

No. Presidents don't need to be in ol’ good buddy contact with down the ranks personnel. Presidents take the recommendations of the Secretary of Defense and may make occasional inquiry if necessary in decision making, not micro manage war. Running a country is not like running a welding shop. If delegation of authority is wrongly placed then the delegate is replaced at the pleasure of the President.

D. E.Rodriguez

"Obama only speaks to the Commander in Afghanistan once in eight months but er, um.......that's a good thing because he's following the chain of command!"

Actually,that's 70 days, DG.

pacatrue

Has the opportunity to agree with CStanley.

Though I do think it's ironic that certain conservatives who think Obama is a socialist incompetent demagogue, in some combination, want him to be more engaged personally in managing the war in Afghanistan.... We think he's out to kill our grandmothers and yet we're outraged that he's not heavily involved in military tactics.

CStanley

Haha, yeah, those ironies are often present in the most partisan opponents. Of course, I would say that it's possible to view military decisions (strategy, not tactics) as the president's core responsibility while some of the domestic priorities he's taken on are not, so there is some basis for having an internally consistent disagreement over priorities without it being about his actual competence in any of the areas.

Leonidas

But as I said before, I am a jobs guy. I want Americans employed more fully before health care reform.

Agreed, having a job makes healthcare more affordable.

Leonidas

and all of these leaks border on insubordination.

Unless these leaks came from the top by order.

StockBoySF

"Unless these leaks came from the top by order."

That's not Obama's style. There were no leaks out of campaign Obama until the Hillary people showed up.

StockBoySF

So let me get this straight.... Referring to another T-Steel post today here.... Conservatives don't want to Obama to go to Denmark to plug the Olympics for the US because they want him to spend more time on domestic issues. Yet conservatives want Obama to micromanage the military in its battles overseas.

The conservatives don't have priorities on running the country. Seriously, can anyone tell me whether conservatives believe Obama should focus on domestic or international issues? Rhetorical question.

Besides I thought everyone agreed that the chain of command was important. What strikes me is that conservatives didn't howl at Bush for breaking the chain of command.

StockBoySF

PWT: "I mean, even Mr. Bush was able to get NCLB passed in his first nine months in office. Good or bad, it was a major piece of legislation that had been proposed by Mr. Bush and passed into law rather quickly."

Haha. You're right NCLB was passed. But it was never full funded. That's like promising your daughter her first bicycle for Christmas, but when she opens up the wrapped box the only thing in it is a set of training wheels.

DaGoat

Yet conservatives want Obama to micromanage the military in its battles overseas.

There is a happy medium between neglect and micromanagement, and I would guess that's where most people would want him.

Father_Time

Why is it not good? What, the President has nothing else to do but jaw-jack with all the various field commanders everyday? What are we paying the Joint Chiefs and Secretary of Defense for....window dressing?

CStanley

Conservatives don't want to Obama to go to Denmark to plug the Olympics for the US because they want him to spend more time on domestic issues. Yet conservatives want Obama to micromanage the military in its battles overseas.

That's an absurd analogy, SB. Getting the Olympics for Chicago is hardly on an order of magnitude as national defense. It's not a matter of 'domestic' vs. 'international', it's which domestic issues take precedence (the economy and jobs vs. healthcare) and which international issues (war strategy which affects the security of the nation and lives of troops vs. an Olympics bid which is largely seen as payback to political allies and friends.)

PWT

It is the Congress, not the President that writes and provides funding for the laws that it passes.

blog comments powered by Disqus