Petraeus versus the Pentagon
A very interesting WaPo article which paints a division between Iraq commander Petraeus and multiple figures in the Pentagon over the recent declarations of a need for "a pause" in the return of "surge" troops from Iraq.
Petraeus's job is to focus solely on Iraq, so his position is very understandable, but what I found interesting is that Bush's recent rhetoric matches Petraeus's and doesn't share anything with Adm. Fallon or these other figures in the military.
It really gives an insight into how Bush is dealing with/seeing his Commander in Chief responsibilities. The Iraq monomania has taken precedence over Afghanistan or any of the other threats the military command is planning for.
In his mind, Petraeus is the salvation of his legacy.
There's a second track to all of this. The Pentagon is genuinely divided and officials and ex-officials are increasingly taking their policy debates to play out in the press.
Look at this quote yesterday from Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway regarding Afghanistan.
That level of debate (or honesty) would never have been accepted under a Rumsfeld. Is this a weakness or a strength of Robert Gates?
Petraeus's job is to focus solely on Iraq, so his position is very understandable, but what I found interesting is that Bush's recent rhetoric matches Petraeus's and doesn't share anything with Adm. Fallon or these other figures in the military.
It really gives an insight into how Bush is dealing with/seeing his Commander in Chief responsibilities. The Iraq monomania has taken precedence over Afghanistan or any of the other threats the military command is planning for.
In his mind, Petraeus is the salvation of his legacy.
There's a second track to all of this. The Pentagon is genuinely divided and officials and ex-officials are increasingly taking their policy debates to play out in the press.
Look at this quote yesterday from Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway regarding Afghanistan.
"It is a bit confusing at this point because we as a department need to see it the same way and quite frankly, at this point in time, we just don't," Conway told reporters.
Asked if that should be the case more than six years after the United States invaded Afghanistan, Conway replied: "Well, no... We as a department need to have a common view so that we can agree upon the actions that need to be taken -- no question about that."
That level of debate (or honesty) would never have been accepted under a Rumsfeld. Is this a weakness or a strength of Robert Gates?
posted by mikevotes at
7:36 AM
7 Comments:
90/10 strength vs weakness. The weakness resides in the failure to find common strategy/understanding but really Gates is handicapped by the oval office bubble...
By
Anonymous, at 8:39 AM
Agreed.
There were also some earlier reports that Gates was "looking the other way" and allow some officials to speak dissent as part of his White House power struggles.
Instead of him arguing against Cheney, he would let officers go out and make headline statements that outflanked the internal White House struggles.
He kind of used them as extortion.
Don't know if that's true, but they seem to appear when he needs them.
By
mikevotes, at 8:50 AM
There's a vacuum of leadership, of course, coming from the WH, with Bush essentially telling his military people to just deal with it.
By
-epm, at 9:44 AM
There's also a lame duck element here.
By
mikevotes, at 10:09 AM
I see a basic contradiction in the whole War on Terror concept. It's unwinnable in conventional terms.
By
Anonymous, at 11:38 AM
Try that again...
It reflects the basic contradiction in the whole War on Terror concept. It's unwinnable in conventional terms. Gates and the military know it but Bush needs a clear win.
By
Anonymous, at 12:02 PM
Bush needs to get out of the responsibility for the loss. He needs to be able to leave saying, "things were going the right way when I left...."
And he has no concern for the mess he leaves to get there.
By
mikevotes, at 9:38 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home