Petraeus is the de facto war czar
Wednesday, September 12, 2007 at 12:12PM ARTICLE: 'Bush to Endorse Petraeus Plan: Democrats, Some Republicans Seek a Faster Withdrawal,' By Michael Abramowitz and Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post, September 12, 2007; Page A01
There is an odd sort of passivity here with Bush: Crocker and Petraeus running the most important foreign policy issue, with Gates and Rice and the NSC nowhere to be seen. No Cheney, and Bush just saying he's following orders. It's weird, but we finally have our "czar" and it's Petraeus, because Bush's entire foreign policy seems to have shrunk to that.
It's sort of sad to see the presidency reduced to that, but I guess it beats the alternative. But hell, even Carter left more intact than Bush will.
I mean, what can Congress oppose right now in Bush's foreign policy other than attack Petraeus head-on? There's virtually nothing left, except the administration's ratifying other countries' nukes (India, NK, arguably Iran).
I see why Newt wants to rewrite history ...
Reader Comments (11)
Maybe Petraeus should weigh in on tax policy and seatbelt laws, too. And why not? He is the first Bush appointee to attempt to solve a problem by methods other than tax cuts, Jesus and a big stick.
If only senior administration officials had done this little in their first term.
Bush, heart in the right place, brain seemingly off on vacation...reasonably close to the strategic aim but has the wrong arrows in the quiver. Still, shooting in the generally correct direction...but Robinhood he is not.
The only way Bush can be historically responsible for a lever of change in the mid-east is to go with Petraeus. Given the point we are at I would too. That was yesterday - this is today. Learn, adapt, and overcome your own unconscious incompetence! Maybe you’re not as dumb as everyone thinks - hopefully.
In terms of globalization, he did the right thing. He just did it badly, very, very badly. A sales person and a good leader he is not.
Where is Lombardi when you want him? Patreaus?
Everyone wants to follow a real leader.
I heard Patreaus’ speech to the House of Representatives and stayed with the TV coverage through the question and answer period. It seemed to me that every time the general was asked to go beyond expressing his views and knowledge of mission, methods, conditions, results, and problems in Iraq, his response was to direct the questioner to an authority that Patreaus thought had the responsibility and the expertise to express the appropriate response, even on some clearly military matters. On the seam issue of troop withdrawal rates he was clear to say that his proposed schedules were tentative and were presented as suggestions to appropriate foreign policy makers based on his best estimates and projections of conditions in Iraq in relation to the mission assigned to him in Iraq. Crocker was just as professionally disciplined and focused as Patreaus. In foreign policy Crocker restricted himself to matters pertaining to his diplomatic assignments in Iraq, his assignment previously in Pakistan, and to his assigned meetings with Iran in relation to Iraq. (It’s interesting that opinion makers in the news are blaming Patreaus for avoiding responses that would have been expressing foreign policy judgments.) I can imagine only slightly less observance of clearly- defined lines of appropriate authority when Patreaus and Crocker meet in private with Bush, Gates, rice, and others.
The pre-emptive, "Big Bang" strategy was a product of the Bush-Cheney-Rice-Rumsfeld approach to the world. Bush was the front-man, Rice and Cheney were the brains, and Rumsfeld controlled the action. There's still 13 months to the next election. Are those inscrutable brains off planning another little project to bring the Administration back to prominence? Why are so many reservists now on active duty, and what ever happened to the two-war doctrine of Pentagon preparedness?
Do I sound paranoid? Maybe it's 5GW. Anyway, how would we know the difference?
There are real enemies, real evils and real work to be done in the Middle East. There is no single "the strategic aim." There problems on top of problems that will take hundreds of years so work through. Saying that Bush's "heart is in the right place" shows just how misguided people have become. We need leaders whose brains are in the right place. I don't want to have a beer with them. I want them to win.
Simple........4GW warfare.
It's taken four years and a lot of mistakes, but we're finally learning to do COIN. If it's over over there in another four years that will be something to be very proud of. COIN warfare takes time.
Think what a Muslim country with a reasonably democratic government and the oil reserves of Iraq could become? A real example of connectivity to other ME countries.
This comment comes off like a tantrum.
Remember the remarks in various places about COIN ending up an effort on a 9-year time scale. If we mark 2003 as the beginning, we still have another 5 years or so. That's at least one more presidential administration here in the US, and untold casualties abroad. While keeping pressure on the mil-pol logistics of peacemaking in Iraq, the general has a tough job ahead to stem the flow of insurgent support from Iran and Syria (and anywhere else it's coming from). The types of people who would seek out Tom's blog here are the same as those who are most frustrated with the most recent reports from Iraq and with the president's, and Congressional, inaction. Venting is reasonable, and criticism is reasonable, as long as we remember who the real targets are. Our elected reps need to evolve with the situations that they have helped create, and make some visible efforts to see those through to the desired end.
Hey Tom, do you think there's enough controversy and confusion over this post topic to make a decent weekly column? Lots of good information and opinion straight out of the comments alone...