Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS.
“I don’t think I can defend him for being out of touch with his commander,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution. “He has other people who advise him. But there’s no one else with the feel on the ground that McChrystal has.”
What? Wouldn't you say that captains and lieutenants have the feel on the ground? McChrystal just got to Afghanistan.
On a different tack, isn't there an argument for keeping the civilian leadership at a remove from the people who need to execute? If Obama was talking to him once a week, everyone would say he was micromanaging.
I'm guessing the "indefensible" refers to the character of pretty much everything O'Hanlon has ever said or written; for example, "Michael O'Hanlon's shameless pandering to conventional neo-conservative foreign policy thinking, particularly his unrepentant support of the war in Iraq, is indefensible."
First thought: How often do Gates and McChrystal communicate? And Gates and the prez?
But once in the last 100 days is a real slow infostream.
Interesting question on civil-military relations.
Ceteris paribus, why should a president *not* assume he's getting accurate, unfiltered information from his national security team (ie, Gates and Jones)?
How far down the chain, with his limited time and energy, should a President have to go, and how frequently, and how deeply, to assume he's getting the right information?
Odd comment. Should he be on weekly VTC with Odierno as well? Who else? Petraeus too? If possible, Ex, would you lay our your list of people you believe the president should talk with on a regular basis? You've clearly given this issue a lot of thought.
He meets with Gates and Mullen regularly. If I understand correctly there are a whole slew of people in DC who are part of McChrystal's daily VTCs. Is there is problem with information flow? Or is this just another cudgel to beat conformity out of the entire system, to make national strategic decisions be responsive to tactical and operation considerations rather than the reverse?
Giving a theater commander a direct line into the Oval office is hardly an obvious call, and btw Petraeus' intervention in domestic politics during the Bush years was close to unprecedented in American politics. And it was dangerous. And instead of trying to institutionalize the Petraeus aberration, we should be on the look-out to prevent its recurrence.
To have talked once in three months with the commander of your publicly proclaimed central front either demonstrates a profound confidence in the chain of command or a complete indifference for ground truth. I'm hoping for the former and fearing the latter.
Bernard:
It's certainly true that the balance can swing too far in the direction of micromanagement. The weekly teleconferences with Petreaus were probably a necessary corrective, given the recalcitrance of the defense establishment. Now, with Gates at the helm at Defense, and Petreaus at CENTCOM, it's not necessary to establish an alternate chain of command. Obama has selected a SecDef he trusts, and works closely with him. That's the way it's supposed to work.
But once in a hundred days? C'mon. It's not as if this war's on autopilot. I well understand that the President may have wished to give McChrystal sufficient time to gain his bearings and to complete his review. But that's over. It's been over for a month. And today's scheduled session, like the four that will follow it, has too many participants for either Obama or McChrystal to form much of an effective relationship.
I don't buy the theory that there's some unspoken tension here. I think that a relatively new president chose to err on the side of empowering his subordinates and freeing them to do their jobs. But he probably went too far in that direction. Don't you think it's useful for a president to hear directly from the man on the scene?
Not really sure why this totally not thought post is "indefensible." Perhaps you'd like to explain why?
And do you really want to put yourself in the same company as Michael O'Hanlon?
President Obama used Afghanistan for 2 things, to show that he isn't your typical pacifist mushy Democrat and to contrast it with Iraq, good war & bad war . Once he got into office he realized war is hard and decisions that are often unpopular have to be made. He is going to throw the Coinistas under the bus and use Joe Biden's double secret probation counter terrorism plan and then blame the last asshole for all the mistakes. I wish he would spend the time that he is spending on the Olympics on AF/PAK.
I imagine Chicago gets hot in the summer and they could do with a few Olympic swimming pools.
Why is this so surprising? I guess I'm thinking of the reports of President Obama meeting with GEN McChrystal:
"The White House began its review of the Afghan war strategy in earnest Tuesday, with senior administration officials meeting via videoconference with the top commander in Kabul, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, at the start of what could be weeks of debate over whether to send thousands of reinforcements."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125427038855351227.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDD...
1. Bad general press after the 60 minutes interview with GEN McChrystal, because the soundbite story became, 'hey, he met with the General ONLY ONCE". Plus, complaints of dithering, from numerous quarters.
2. So, now, stories of more regular meetings and the beginnings of a second review. Everyone's all working so very hard within the administration, can't you see? Working hard FOR YOU, people.
Who didn't expect all of this?
"Giving a theater commander a direct line into the Oval office is hardly an obvious call, and btw Petraeus' intervention in domestic politics during the Bush years was close to unprecedented in American politics. And it was dangerous." - Bernard Finel
Why was this dangerous? Direct information is different from second-hand information, isn't it? If more than one review is reasonable, why isn't information from more than one personal source not okay? I thought this is part of that whole thoughtful process that characterizes our dear current President, in comparison to our previous dear President?
"Or is this just another cudgel to beat conformity out of the entire system, to make national strategic decisions be responsive to tactical and operation considerations rather than the reverse?" - Bernard Finel
If the President is tough enough to order another strategic review - that's the general line around here in the comments section, right? - why should we expect him to cudgeled? I'm genuinely curious to understand why this would be so. The President ought to meet with whomever he wishes to meet with, I think.
Right or wrong, Obama has delegated a lot of his concern over foreign policy issues in general to his team (Clinton, Jones, Gates, Biden). He's concerned with (1) the economy (2) health care, and apparently (3) Chicago Olympics.
I'm starting to feel it's pretty obviously wrong, but not indefensible. For instance, if Bush had done less talking to his generals, we might have been in better shape. . .
M
As a Chicogolandian I say: please, please, please don't get the Olympics! Can you imagine the awarding of contracts in that environment? If the GOP were smart, which they are not politically, they would start cultivating city sources of info NOW.
(I know nothing and no-one. I stay out of it. This is all supposition, I'm sure the contracting will go well, in fact, hey, yeah, I changed my mind. Please get the Olympics. Jobs for everyone! Yeah for our political class!)
Srsly, I don't know anything. I was just joking around.
Abu Visitor:
I somewhat concur with your opinion. The McChrystal selection was made, I think, to enable him to go Balls-to-the-Wall CT mode when and if the transition from spit swapping, poop centric COIN took place. Alternatively:
could this be a dog that hasn't barked moment?
An elephant in the room moment?
Is this really a Great Game mission?
Is this about pipelines from the Baku region through AF/Pak, to the Gulf?
Does the NCA believe:
1) that peak oil is upon us?
2) that there will be a 15-20 year turnover to alternate solutions?
3) That the Chinese, Indians, and Asian Tiger economies will demand Oil in ever increasing amounts (with sounder currencies???) over the coming years?
4) That when push comes to shove, price will not be the deciding factor, but access?
5) That possession is 9/10th of the Law?
6 That the above equals Same Same for the Iraki and (dare I say it) Kurdish theater of Ops?
7) Does anyone have more plausible scenarios (CNAS personnel exempted)?
Let's face it, the canard that we are preventing Bananastan from becoming AQ Headquarters again by dumping in shitloads of ever kinder and gentler grunts fails the smell test of any person with an IQ higher than Whale Shite. This is drivel for possible consumption for those afflicted among us.
BTW, Do any of all y'all know how to get a job on a draft board. If so, does the position have positive potential for renumeration? Lastly, will I need a German wheelbarrow to tote my twenty pieces of silver (shitloads of bills) of Murrican dollars once they reach the relative worth of Somali Shillings?
"why should a president *not* assume he's getting accurate, unfiltered information"
The whole question is one of personality, management style, and priorities. Bush spoke with Petraeus weekly (with Fallon, Gates, and others in the loop) Kennedy and Johnson were more willing to hear it from the joint chiefs and other advisers. McMaster wrote a book (dissertation-based) on that, it's touched on in Best and Brightest and a few other chronicles. However, they didn't have a video screen in a room next to the oval office that could initiate an on-camera conference call at the push of a button.
I pointed this out a few posts ago. It seems quite strange to me.
Above, someone asks
First thought: How often do Gates and McChrystal communicate? And Gates and the prez?
If you read the entire NY Times article, you find this nugget:
he receives weekly memos from General McChrystal and meets weekly with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Aides said the president had thoroughly studied the general’s report, and they noted that it was Mr. Obama who approved firing the last commander and replacing him with General McChrystal.
In my first post here, I asked if there was actual "deliberation" going over what to do in Afghanistan, or if the President was simply not treating this as a matter of the utmost urgency. I think I've got my answer.
The dangerous part was not the line of information, it was Petraeus' violation of the norms of civil-military relations when he became a policy advocate, and when he used his uniform to intimidate opposition into silence. This was not his first foray into the improper. His op-ed in September 2004 -- 6 weeks before the election and full of statements and claims that proved massively over-optimistic -- was also wholly improper, even if we choose to believe that he had no intention to affect the presidential election.
My point is that the Petraeus example is not one to emulate... at least not if you like civilian control of the military.
If you think of the issue just for a moment from the perspective of civil-military relations rather than through the narrow focus of the Afghanistan mission, I think my objections become clear.
"he receives weekly memos from General McChrystal and meets weekly with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Aides said the president had thoroughly studied the general’s report, and they noted that it was Mr. Obama who approved firing the last commander and replacing him with General McChrystal."
I was being a little too jokey in my above comments, I think, and obscured my points. The above excerpt by MattDC better shows the, well, point I was trying to make. That the day to day presentation of this particular debate in the general press, or amongst the general population, can veer into some strange territory.....
Also, I'm not sure that particular excerpt answers any questions, to be honest, but it sure is different from the quick sound-bite of 'only one meeting.'
"If you think of the issue just for a moment from the perspective of civil-military relations rather than through the narrow focus of the Afghanistan mission, I think my objections become clear."
Dr. Finel - I don't know. With the op-ed I understand your point; by definition, op-eds are political in that they represent opinion! Meetings at the discretion of the President, though? In the nature and manner the President wishes, and for whatever reason? Also, Greyhawk brings up a good point: technology does change this sort of thing, doesn't it? At least, in terms of the expectations of the public? I don't understand how meetings negatively affects civil-military relations, if it is the President doing the asking, for whatever reason.
Do we now throw the chain fo command out the window?
Are there not 2 layers of responsibility between POTUS and GEN McChrystal?
If the president wants VTCs weekly, daily, hourly... or even if he wants to have a direct open-mic to McChrystal 24x7, that is his choice. The problem is the assumption that the President must make himself available to a theater commander on a regular basis, and that if he fails to do so it is "indefensible." Exum and O'Hanlon don't think Obama should have a choice. He should be obligated to do this.
How can I be the only one who sees the madness in this position? It is essentially an assertion that military commanders have a special and unique role in our political system, and deserve unprecedented direct access to the president. Yes, Bush gave Petraeus that role. Like most things Bush, that is not a good model to emulate.
As John Buchanan points out, there are 2 layers of responsibility between POTUS and McChrystal. Yeah, McCrystal he has an important assignment. But health care is a major agenda item. Should Obama meet with every HHS Undersecretary weekly? Climate change is a major initiative. Should Obama meet with every EPA deputy administrator? Should be meet with every Undersecretary of State? Every special envoy?
And also... can we be honest for a minute... has ANYONE ever been able to show how Bush's weekly VTC were helpful to anyone or anything other than to cement Petraeus dominance over Iraq policy?
Your lack of knowledge of the chain of command is astounding. Typical COINdinista hissy fit.
I haven't talked with the President since.... errrr... Well; who ~is~ supposed to talk to the President? And how often?
I don't think M4 should have regular contact with the President. From experience (and exposure), I know that those in the field don't want the hand of near-God descending from on high with a "3,000 mile screwdriver" and mucking about in their work. And info up the food chain should go through the food chain (you don't really want to eat algae do you? Wouldn't you rather it be proccessed through the shrimp, and then through the fish, etc?) M4 should be in daily contact with King David, and both of them in regular BOGSATs with Mullen and Gates. But the latter two are the ones who should be in the President's ear, as needed.
I'd almost go so far as to say that if M4 ever reached-out to contact the President it would have to be IOT surrender his command and his commission. And if the President reached-out directly to M4, by-passing the chain of command, it'd be an expression of distrust in and as much as asking for the resignation of that chain.
de opresso!
I dunno, how often did Roosevelt talk directly with Eisenhower?
The quibbles about chain of command are dramatically missing the point.
Call me old fashioned, but it seems to me that the President's top priority, or nearly top priority given some other immediate crisis, ought to be the conduct of an active war we're fighting. That doesn't mean he should be micro-managing around a Risk map of Afghanistan, or talking all day to the boots on the ground or re-arranging the chain of command. But the evidence is that he's not making it a much of a priority at all. Despite his vigorous campaign promises to the contrary. For a man elected because he was supposedly intellectually curious, he seems remarkably uninterested in the core competency of his job.
Please place all coinistas right under the bus.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125435650569454583.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDD...
That President Obama is engaged on the strategic level in AF/PAK is completely appropriate. His posture stands in direct contrast to President Bush who was disengaged at the strategy level and only somewhat less disengaged at the tactical (and political) level in both AF and IRAQ.
It is refreshing to learn that this President is not being led around by his generals or his SECDEF, but rather is willing to listen and learn and make strategic decisions that also take into account the political circumstances and consequences (his left, his right, his middle) both at home and abroad. To integrate the various elements of national security (traditional military threats, non-state terror, nat'l and global economy, environment, political, cultural tools) into a coherent strategy is like a breath of fresh air.
I don't mean to imply that just because President Obama is looking at Af/PAK through the lens of complexity means that he will get it right. He may not. I just believe he has a better shot than the former president had at doing so.
MikeDC
"But the evidence is that he's not making it a much of a priority at all. Despite his vigorous campaign promises to the contrary. For a man elected because he was supposedly intellectually curious, he seems remarkably uninterested in the core competency of his job."
I'd appreciate more evidence to support your assertion. Are you there at the President's Daily Briefings? Are you with him at the Principals' meetings on Af-Pak issues? Do you know how much time he spends on Af-Pak issues? Granted, you're not, but what secondary literature leads you to believe he is uninterested in what occurs in that domain? Finally, what makes Af-Pak, as opposed to other issues, the core competency of his job? You might not like how the President communicates with the theater commander, but is that the same as an indictment of his [the President's] intellectual curiosity?
The President is not compelled to make Af-Pak the central issue of his presidency; the President is permitted to trust in the chain of command he has appointed. Failure to communicate with the theater commander on a regular basis does not constitute dereliction of duty. In fact, doing so has acquired a negative connotation. Do we desire the President to micromanage the war? The President has limited time and energy to deal with all issues that cross his metaphorical desk. No matter the importance of Af-Pak, it is, ultimately, but one more issue. Why do we have so little faith in his subordinates, or his subordinates' ability to make decisions without his input, or to convey adequately issues requiring his input, that we require the President confer with the theater commander on a personal and regular basis? Does McChyrstal require or request such attention?
ADTS
Has anyone thought to ask whether McChrystal sought greater communication with POTUS and was denied? It seems to me that this is potentially a diagnosis in search of symptoms. If this is an acceptable arrangement for both men, then the burden ought to be on critics to show what the ill consequences are that have ostensibly flowed from it. Not sayings a case can't be made (eg. was the leak avoidable, etc?), but you have to say what your case is. Otherwise IMO they should be given the benefit of the assumption that the working arrangement is what is suitable to both men, as there isn't any reason I am aware of to believe either couldn't request an adjustment if it was not.
What are the operational details that critics contend POTUS, contra his judgment, must hear directly from the mouth of the country CINC, and what is the input they believe the country CINC, apparently (barring evidence to the contrary) contra his must hear directly from the lips of POTUS?
Test - previous comment swallowed.
Actually my last comment was wrong, wasn't it; McChrystal has the SECDEF, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs AND the Centcom commander above him. The correct analogy would be how often did FDR feel the need to talk personally to Patton or Bradley?
I'd appreciate more evidence to support your assertion...
This is pap. We're sitting here arguing about the indefensibility of the President not talking to McChrystal. I cited further evidence of insufficient prioritization in the article. And there's plenty of evidence... the President's nearly minute by minute public communications, that haven't talked to the American people one bit about what the strategy is. While he spent huge amounts of time talking to us about health care, cash for clunkers, nuclear disarmament, etc.
Time is finite, and he's spent his time this summer on other subjects.
The President is not compelled to make Af-Pak the central issue of his presidency;
Perhaps not, but he's compelled by his constitutional duties and some basic sense of morality to make a primary area of focus an on-going war in which Americans are dying. Especially since it appears to be the President and excutive that are calling into question the strategy and leadership he's put into place, before it's been fully implemented.
The President has limited time and energy to deal with all issues that cross his metaphorical desk. No matter the importance of Af-Pak, it is, ultimately, but one more issue.
Um, no. It's one of only two issues where we're actually engaged in combat, thus executive decision-making and ongoing attention (not micro-management) are of crucial import. This is especially true in Afghanistan, where the President recently laid out a new strategy and agreed to a new commander only months ago, and is now considering further changes.
He.is.throwing.you.under.the.Bus.
"I wish he would spend the time that he is spending on the Olympics on AF/PAK...."
Probably with as much success.
My favorite (although I don't agree, but it's hysterical)...from FastEddiez
"....spit swapping, poop centric COIN took place..."
ROLF
I actually support COIN (just not dogmatically) but that's a great line....
Add your comment