Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Fisking Sullivan on Obama
Considering the origins of the practice of fisking, I figured Andrew Sullivan wouldn't mind (and might even appreciate) if I offered some points of contention with his Newsweek apologia for the president. I'll ignore the sections on health care and the economy -- since no one would confuse me with a specialist on either subject -- and stick to the sections on national security.
On foreign policy, the right-wing critiques have been the most unhinged. Romney accuses the president of apologizing for America, and others all but accuse him of treason and appeasement.
Well, here Sullivan and I are in agreement. I would like to chalk all of the craziness up to election year politics, but some of the rhetoric in these Republican primary debates has been downright scary.
Instead, Obama reversed Bush’s policy of ignoring Osama bin Laden, immediately setting a course that eventually led to his capture and death. And when the moment for decision came, the president overruled both his secretary of state and vice president in ordering the riskiest — but most ambitious — plan on the table. He even personally ordered the extra helicopters that saved the mission. It was a triumph, not only in killing America’s primary global enemy, but in getting a massive trove of intelligence to undermine al Qaeda even further.
The president deserves real and enduring credit for his bold decision to launch the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, but let's not overstate the case here. Sullivan makes it sound as if the president was the de facto J3 for JSOC. (That was actually Rich Clarke, if anyone at home is looking to assign credit.) The raid that killed Osama bin Laden was a great victory for the United States, but if victory truly has a thousand fathers, plenty of others deserve credit -- including George W. Bush, who was the president as JSOC and its allies in the intelligence community built up many of the capabiltiies that allowed them to track and kill bin Laden. Bush most certainly did not "ignore" bin Laden. Ultimately, the raid was enabled because the United States caught a break on intelligence. And does anyone think that George W. Bush, if given a similar break, would not have made similar decisions?
If George Bush had taken out bin Laden, wiped out al Qaeda’s leadership, and gathered a treasure trove of real intelligence by a daring raid, he’d be on Mount Rushmore by now. But where Bush talked tough and acted counterproductively, Obama has simply, quietly, relentlessly decimated our real enemies, while winning the broader propaganda war. Since he took office, al Qaeda’s popularity in the Muslim world has plummeted.
There are several factors that have been driving al-Qaeda's decline in popularity -- a decline, like the economic collapse, that preceded the Obama Administration. Al-Qaeda's own missteps have been one factor, as have been the rise of moderate Islamist groups who have come to power through elections, not bombs. Will McCants discusses the threat moderate Islamists pose to al-Qaeda in this Foreign Affairs piece, and I discuss al-Qaeda's various own goals in my chapter in this book.* Finally, the drone campaign initiated by President Bush and intensified by President Obama has unquestionably degraded al-Qaeda's leadership. But we have no way of measuring second and third-order effects and have not begun to even ask questions about what they might be.
Obama’s foreign policy, like Dwight Eisenhower’s or George H.W. Bush’s, eschews short-term political hits for long-term strategic advantage. It is forged by someone interested in advancing American interests—not asserting an ideology and enforcing it regardless of the consequences by force of arms. By hanging back a little, by “leading from behind” in Libya and elsewhere, Obama has made other countries actively seek America’s help and reappreciate our role. As an antidote to the bad feelings of the Iraq War, it has worked close to perfectly.
Over the past 60 years or so, the nations of Europe have been "free-riders" off U.S. military strength. There is no evidence, though, to suggest that as the United States takes a backseat in regional security, European defense spending will increase or European nations will take on more responsibility. The nations of Europe, in the words of one defense intellectual, showed up to a gunfight in Libya with knives.** The United States brought the guns. And the ammunition. And all the taregting. And all the in-flight refueling. And the ISR. This is not a rebuttal of Sullivan's point but rather a word of warning to those who believe that Europe will opt to "defend itself" if the United States reduces its leadership role.
The Iraq War—the issue that made Obama the nominee—has been ended on time and, vitally, with no troops left behind. Defense is being cut steadily, even as Obama has moved his own party away from a Pelosi-style reflexive defense of all federal entitlements.
The defense cuts on the table at the moment make sense. If we go into sequestration, they become really stupid, really fast. This is the fault of the U.S. Congress and not the president. (It's not the president's fault that Republicans in the Congress opted for lower taxes over defense spending.) With regard to the Iraq War, let me make two points: (1) The war is not over. It has not ended. U.S. involvement, rather, has ended. (2) The Bush Administration negotiated the Status of Forces Agreement that ended the U.S. involvement. It deserves credit for having done so.
I railed against him for the better part of two years for dragging his feet on gay issues. But what he was doing was getting his Republican defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs to move before he did. The man who made the case for repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” was, in the end, Adm. Mike Mullen.
I am no specialist in gay rights or Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but I thought DADT was a silly policy and do not mourn its passing. I guess the president deserves credit for ending it, but I think all the new policy does is reflect the norms of this generation of U.S. servicemen and servicewomen -- as opposed to the more conservative norms of earlier generations.
Yes, Obama has waged a war based on a reading of executive power that many civil libertarians, including myself, oppose. And he has signed into law the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial (even as he pledged never to invoke this tyrannical power himself). But he has done the most important thing of all: excising the cancer of torture from military detention and military justice. If he is not reelected, that cancer may well return. Indeed, many on the right appear eager for it to return.
I too opposed the way in which the administration went to war in Libya -- though, I must admit, things turned out a lot better than I thought they would. And I really have no issue with the rest of what Sullivan says. Though I think the loser in the 2008 presidential election, John McCain, deserves some credit of his own for partnering with human rights lawyers to set new standards for interrogation and detention.
*I was paid a flat fee for that chapter, so if you buy the book, I will not receive any royalties. I just wanted to be clear about that since I am linking to a product of my own.
**I was trying to remember where I heard this construct used. Oh, yeah -- in a discussion with Tom Ricks.
UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan responds to my criticism.
Andrew [Exum] ignores the fact that Obama actually had a major fight with McCain in the debates in 2008 over whether he would unilaterally launch a mission into Pakistan to get the guy, without Pakistan's approval. McCain and the rest of the right cited this as evidence of Obama's naivete and incompetence in foreign policy. Obama set a new course in early 2009 - and did exactly what he said he'd do. Here's what we know of Bush and Bin Laden. He let him escape in Tora Bora; in 2002, he said this on Bin Laden.
Allow me to add a little bit to the historical record. I have a very small amount of personal experience with special operations in Afghanistan during the Bush Administration years. Cross-border operations into Pakistan were never explicitly ruled out. Rather, they were treated with all the gravity they deserved. Yes, you can go into Pakistan if it means killing or capturing Osama bin Laden. But if you go into Pakistan, crash a helicopter or get into a gunfight with Pakistani police and don't get bin Laden ... well, you can imagine what the costs would be to U.S. policy in the region. That was the logic in 2004, and as far as I can tell based on subsequent research, that remained the logic in 2011 and even today. I firmly believe, based on both personal experience and subsequent analysis, that George W. Bush was committed to capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. Were resources that could have been used toward that end diverted to deal with a worsening situation in Iraq? Absolutely. Did the administration's decision to invade in Iraq in 2003 take our focus off of al-Qaeda? Absolutely. But to argue that President Bush "ignored" Osama bin Laden is to overstate the case.
And if President Bush made public statements that he didn't really care about Osama bin Laden, I support those. Those were smart statements to make in public -- lest Osama bin Laden be turned into even more of a folk hero in the Muslim world than he already was. The longer the narrative was about "the United States versus Osama bin Laden," the longer bin Laden was a heroic figure who -- alone among Muslim leaders -- stood up to the great hegemonic power. Once that narrative went away, the Muslim world had to confront the ugliness and horrors of al-Qaeda's actions. And it didn't like what it saw.
As far as what Sen. McCain argued, well, I cannot defend that. But my point was about George W. Bush.
Good Analysis. My one point
Good Analysis. My one point of respectful disagreement (one of our actual few) is that Obama's worst foreign policy decisions so far was to send more troops to A'stan. Without bloodying noses back and forth, I would submit that the lesson learned is that We (defense thinkers) need to spend more time studying revolution instead of trying to counter insurgencies colonial style.
Take a look at Revolution 2.0 if you haven't already read the book.
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/revolution-20
Mike
Someone needs to go back to
Someone needs to go back to Wikipedia and look up the definition of "fisking". That was more like a wink and a nod if not a French kiss!
"The defense cuts on the
"The defense cuts on the table at the moment make sense. If we go into sequestration, they become really stupid, really fast. "
Haha. Good one. Even in sequestration, military spending will be higher than at any point between 1991 and 2007 (and you may remember that we fought a hot war in Iraq during that period).
There's a theme here: "I'll
There's a theme here:
"I'll ignore the sections on health care and the economy -- since no one would confuse me with a specialist on either subject -- and stick to the sections on national security
Now, our military actions in the Middle East and Central Asia are directly related to fundamental economic issues in the United States - control of oil revenue, support for the value of the petrodollar, recycling those petrodollars back into the U.S. economy via foreign investment deals with Saudi oil sheikhs, who - getting even closer to "national security issues" - use a lot of that money to buy U.S.-manufactured weaponry.
This is a taboo topic for the U.S. media - the corporate media and the think tank / private foundation / 'non-profit' media (this here is the latter). However, this is the current central agenda in Afghanistan - opening up the "New Silk Road" by cutting a deal with the Taliban which will allow Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan (or rather, U.S. corporations holding stranded gas/oil assets) to ship their product out to global markets without going through Iran or Russia.
This essentially involves sacrificing the lives of U.S. soldiers to fatten the purses of bloated corporate executives and dividend-hunting shareholders, who often hide their profits in the Cayman Islands or blow the cash on private jets and golf club memberships, etc.
Can't talk about these curious links between 'national security' and 'the economy', can we? How about health care for military veterans, at least?
Fisking or Fisting? One
Fisking or Fisting? One could argue both.
"Bush most certainly did not
"Bush most certainly did not "ignore" bin Laden."
Really??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4PGmnz5Ow-o
"Larry, I'm not going to go
"Larry, I'm not going to go there and here's why: because Pakistan is a sovereign nation. I think the Pakistanis would want bin Laden out of their hair and out of their country and it's causing great difficulties in Pakistan itself." - John McCain, saying he wouldn't do what Obama did to get Bin Laden, July 28, 2008
Asserting and enforcing one's
Asserting and enforcing one's ideology and advancing American interests are not necessarily mutually exclusive. More vape, Sully.
You said in response to
You said in response to Sullivan's response:
"As far as what Sen. McCain argued, well, I cannot defend that. But my point was about George W. Bush."
And your point about Bush was that he would have done something similar? Seriously? Do you guys who are suppose to know the facts actually know them? Here is a link to a July 2006 NYT article titled "C.I.A Closes Unit Focusing On Capturing Bin Laden." It reports that Bush closed that unit in late 2005, no doubt because he had successfully won re-election and was tired of keeping up the pretense of being concerned about Bin Laden. In fact, another reader posted a video proving that Bush was unconcerned about Bin Laden just a year after the 9/11 attacks and his actions while in office definitely prove that truth, don't they?
How exactly would Bush have done something similar if he officially gave up on trying to capture and/or kill Bin Laden in late 2005, Mr. Exum?
President Obama made Bin Laden a TOP priority almost immediately upon taking office and even amped up the search for him and succeeded just two years later on what was essentially a cold case file almost a decade old. That along with the Republican talking points during the 2008 campaign that going into Pakistan was "naive" and wrong proves that not only would it have not been done under McCain, but also not under Bush...which is glaringly obvious since Bush officially gave up and threw in the towel on EVER finding Bin Laden. Here is the NYT link and it would be nice if you were better informed with facts when giving your opinion:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html
Oh, and why didn't you
Oh, and why didn't you address this from Sullivan's reponse...since you're only commenting on what Bush would have done:
"In 2006, Bush stenographer, Fred Barnes, talked about the issue with Bush:
“Bin Laden doesn’t fit with the administration’s strategy for combating terrorism.” Barnes said Bush told him that capturing bin Laden is “not a top priority use of American resources.”
Andrew Sullivan
Can your defense of the Bush record in regard to Bin Laden be more, to use Sullivan's word...DUMB? I'm new here and I just noticed the name of your blog/website. That's a joke, right?
With respect to cuts in
With respect to cuts in defense, I would note that my service, the USAF, has been declining in terms of overall personnel end strength and number of aircraft in the fleet continuously since its high point in FY85. Even from FY01 to FY11 the number of personnel declined by 57,926 (9.5%) and we lost approximately 900 aircraft (14.6%), while the average age of aircraft in the fleet increased by 24% to 26.6 years. USAF today is smaller and older than it has ever been and those trends show no sign of slowing in the future.
You say: "Over the past 60
You say: "Over the past 60 years or so, the nations of Europe have been "free-riders" off U.S. military strength. There is no evidence, though, to suggest that as the United States takes a backseat in regional security, European defense spending will increase or European nations will take on more responsibility. The nations of Europe, in the words of one defense intellectual, showed up to a gunfight in Libya with knives. The United States brought the guns. And the ammunition. And all the taregting. And all the in-flight refueling."
"Free riding" by "allies" is rational and inevitable, since it will be the US that decides whether there will be military action, when it will begin, what form it will take, when it ends and on what terms. Insofar as the US and its allies are democracies, their governments must justify their action to their electorates. The US spends more on defence than the rest of the world put together (almost), its military contribution will always be the biggest, the US electorate will not be willing for other countries to have much say on how US force is used. The electorates in the allied countries will not long support more than token contributions to a US dominated enterprise.
Without shared control, there will be no shared sacrifice.
Dear Abu Muqawama: I think
Dear Abu Muqawama: I think you've inadvertently gone astray in the two posts above (including your response to Sullivan). The first half of Sullivan's essay is simply an effort to recognize reality, in contrast to the fantasy world of the GOP. His rhetorical opponents say and possibly believe things that simply aren't true -- such as the idea that Obama has raised taxes, when in reality he along with Congress has cut them. Another example is Romney's statement that economic conditions are worse than on Obama's inauguration date. Or Rick Perry saying Obama has perpetuated anti-Christian discrimination, or has shown "disdain for the military." This is Alice in Wonderland stuff! As the current New Yorker's Comment section shows, the modern GOP has always tolerated this kind of stuff from backbenchers, but not from actual presidential candidates like Eisenhower, Taft and Nixon.
Your posts slide into this Obama v. Bush debate; there will be plenty of time for this type of historical debate once the GOP nomination and general election is over. Sullivan is dealing with the more important questions of (i) Obama v. Romney and the GOP field; and (ii) Reality v. the GOP field. I can't speak for him, but my guess is that he would agree with many of your nuanced points, and include them if he were writing a longer essay for Foreign Affairs as opposed to a 3000 word piece for Newsweek. - James S.
"Over the past 60 years or
"Over the past 60 years or so, the nations of Europe have been "free-riders" off U.S. military strength. There is no evidence, though, to suggest that as the United States takes a backseat in regional security, European defense spending will increase or European nations will take on more responsibility..."
Dear America:
We won't ask for your help in future Libyas, if you don't scream for five years solidly about treason and betrayal and surrender when we refuse to help you in future Iraqs and Afghanistans.
Deal?
Regards,
Europe.
Exum, America is split 50/50.
Exum, America is split 50/50. Politics is about market share and differentiation.
The GOP is balancing the DNC's claim that Bush caused all of America's problems. Now the DNC is using Congress to make POTUS look better. There is a hazard for all Americans in that strategy, we lose by winning. The winner gets a little more influence in the decision process. Most Americans know that the problems facing America is caused by both parties combined. You have to stay mindful that the words used in these political campaigns are not the voices of individuals, but of the highly paid political consulting machines paid for with millions of campaign funding.
At the end of the day it will always be about American jobs and GDP growth. The problem is that growth has de-linked itself from US treasury tax revenue; globalization was the enabler. America's history was based on a different business model and today's corporate strategy is not concerned about nationalism, they are in it for the profit not community. Profit has always been the focus of business, which is not bad; it is when profit walks in lock step with off shoring and globalization the middle class suffers. America is a free country and companies are free to offshore the entire job based US treasury tax revenue. Unfortunately, that business plan is in direct conflict with a strong America.
This is a link to HBS's "Prosperity at Risk". The readers can draw their own conclusion.
http://www.hbs.edu/competitiveness/pdf/hbscompsurvey.pdf
The usual response is that Americans are not competitive or they lack education. I know a lot of people who came out of Big Ten Universities whose only fault is that they were in the wrong industry at a bad time. We are talking about the high-tech industry. These high-tech employees built technology, but industry has created a perception that the older people are behind the times because Federal Law does not allow age discrimination reducing overhead is the real issue. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy that schooled people lack skills industry off-shored the ability of employees to stay engaged. The license for the computer aided design tools are too expensive for individuals to purchase especially if they are stocking shelves at Wal-Mart with Chinese made product. The dirty secret is that when industry out-sourced they got rid of their “On-the-Job” training department to Universities. Small business cannot afford on the job training. Today's industry wants an employee to come in the door running. Off shoring leaves younger employees cold too. University tuition is a dis-abler and supports too many University administration agendas.
As Americans we have to make a decision about how where we employ people. For me it is easy, consumers make that decision every day when they purchase product. Buy the USA made label if you want your child in kindergarten to get a better public financed education. Buying USA can improve your community’s infrastructure.
The American jobs are connected to American National Security, that linkage cannot be broken without destroying the fabric of our communities. The alternative is to borrow our future from the money we give to China.
When Obama came into office, he spent two years on health care. The divisions that ObamaCare caused were excessive. The banking problem was linked to mortgages and bad loans, both parties owned the decisions that created today's economy. To validate that thought all you have to do is look at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Obama has focused on issues that reminded Americans of the their differences. Both parties are doing the same it is about special interest not core national issues.
I am not interested in Government welfare. Unfortunately, it is harder these days to be a slave to industry. It is not about education, it is about priority. The priority should be on those issues that Americans have a mutual interest. One of the largest threats to America is not Al Qaeda, or lack of ME oil, the largest threat to American Security is off shoring of American jobs. America has no future it is it not employed on US soil.
The tax code is the threat to America's future. It makes off shoring American jobs a corporate profit center. The tax code gives employers a work-around the human cost of manufacturing. I can not think of a better win-win for both political parties. More US jobs means a broader US tax base which enables lower individual taxes, more tax revenue enables social programs. Now there is cash for education. The conclusion of the HBS study says that Harvard alumni will off shore more, yet want more money for better public education at the grade school level. These alumni are in the mainstream of the off shoring decision, why are they off shoring US grade school education?
American is diverging, politics that split us only serves a party, and a leader that brings us together has proven their interest in American National Security.
The more we focus on social issues that divide America, the more we are divided within as individuals.
Solution has to start within ourselves.
the de facto J3 for JSOC.
the de facto J3 for JSOC. (That was actually Rich Clarke, if anyone at home is looking to assign credit.)
Want historical irony? We got it.
I think it is a mistake, when
I think it is a mistake, when defending Bush, to bring up his method of intelligence gathering in the early days, even it it did produce one or two things helpful. The real issue is, if he hadn't stepped into the world of torture, and had relied upon intelligence gathering that has won us many wars, especially WW II, against a state that tortured to the ultimate, we would have gotten more and better intelligence, and very probably would have been much farther along in our war on terrorism.
Just like to point out that
Just like to point out that America isn't out of Iraq. Maybe our service members are returning but the due to the changing make up and nature of our military we are still engaged in Iraq. This is being done by thousands of contractors who are not just protecting State Department officials but also taking active military roles. So while it might be out of sight out of mind Americans are still in harms way. Maybe they arent wearing the uniform but they are serving out country in a miltiary role and deserve our support and acknowledgement.
Regardless of what Wikipedia
Regardless of what Wikipedia says, "fisking" does not come from some guy named Fisk in 2005. There is a command in UNIX "fsck" or "filesystem check." it is the command you run when you are checking data for corruption, and it implies a very careful review of everything. It is common for programmers to use this term in that sense.
The website carefully chooses
The website carefully chooses the winners based on data analysiscom/2/10371316 billion to construct, making it the most expensive sports stadium ever
The bias in your writing and
The bias in your writing and your association and defense of "warmongers" keeps you from seeing the truth. This is so evident by those who are used as tools to do the dirty work for cheap body bag pay, while their masters make money off there souls. This whole Afghan cluster F@#*$ has been one big boner from the start. All lies and a big joke. Sadly, troops and Afghan civilians have had to pay the price. The USSR invaded Afghanistan and fought there for almost ten years before they limped back home. That the US would do the same and expect a different result is sheer stupidity. Think about it from a military point of view, but not related to the USA. You have a super power like the Russians invade that country and pound the hell out them. Then you have the super power USA, together with other NATO countries fighting for over ten years....and still they are losing.. These Afghans must be gods! They, living in stone huts and sleeping on floors, are invincible! Actually it comes down to a military principal that goes back thousands of years. We in the USA need only go back to the sixties (Vietnam war) or to the American Revolution when we had to fight the "superior" armies of the British super power. It starts with fighting on your home ground and that you are fighting an invader attacking force. You have the advantage that it is your home ground that you are defending and that you are willing to die for your land, your home, your family, your neighbor. Here is where you have already won the battle,even before it has begun. The attacking forces are just paid boot-lickers. The British Red Coats did not want to die in this "god forsaken land". They wanted to be back home, with there families, and in there comfortable homes. You would do well to read the British account of the fighting. It should be noted that the British called those who resisted and fought back , "INSURGENTS". Yep, that is what and who you are fighting in Afghanistan. Just ordinary people who are defending 'family , home, and country". Did you know that the Pentagon was trying to advise LBJ to use nukes in Vietnam in an attempt to "win". Bare foot people, living in grass huts and yet still able to kick the US super power's ass!. And just to make sure that your realize that you, our troops and the public has been "played" by the Masters. The use of depleted uranium in shell rounds, etc has polluted most of Iraq and much of Afghanistan with radioactive dust that will be there for the next several hundred years. so much for that "con" about nation building or winning the hearts and minds. What bull shit! So most of the troops have some of that dust squirreled away deep in their lungs and circulating in their blood stream. God only knows the hell that it will cause the Iraqi and Afghan people . Kind of like Agent Orange (dioxin) that continues to poison and harm people in Vietnam due to the US military's use over most of that country. Maybe that is why Obama is in the process of slashing medical benefits for active and retired military. Cancer is awfully expensive. I am a little older than you so I remember some old stories where humans try to make deals with the devil and think that they can out smart him. In the end , they show that they were never any competition .www.bush-it-usa.com Now, just who is the real Evil Doer ?
The quality of Ladin bin
The quality of Ladin bin Chomsky's writing and analyses has taken a dive in recent days, and what the fuck with him using the nom d' plume, scott patrick. I understand most academics are not that creative, but scott patrick is barely a step above "John Smith." Come on man, put in a bit of effort, the warmongers put it in for you.
The underlying misconception behind difficulties, and cluster fucks is the identification of anti-terrorism efforts as a war on "terror". It makes about as much sense as a war on "flanking," or "full frontal assaults," or "carpet bombing," or...point made?
Add your comment