Obama and the Generals
Tom Ricks reports that “General Odierno’s objections to the timing of the release of a new round of photos of detainees being abused in Iraq were decisive” in Barack Obama’s decision to flip-flop. He remarks:
I wasn’t so taken aback in February when he went along with his generals and abandoned his campaign promise to withdraw a brigade a month from Iraq this year, and instead endorsed a plan that kept troop levels there pretty steady this year. But to get rolled twice — well, he must think he is running up some pretty big chits with them. I know he is trying to do the right thing but at some point he is going to have to say, My way or the highway.
I think you can probably put slow-walking change on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in the same box. But is Obama really going to have to say something like that at some point? Realistically, the political damage to a Democratic President of off-the-record grousing by the brass could be large. With major health care and energy reforms live in congress, I think generals will be getting things “their way” for a while yet.
30 Responses to “Obama and the Generals”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 16th, 2009 at 8:55 am
I too am not completly happy with some of MR Obama’s descisions.And yes. the “don’t ask / don’t tell ” law should be repealed.
But he has not been in office for 6 months yet.And he has tried to reform the defence budget more than any previous president in recent history.
Considering that the generals were sick of buying weapons that they did not want ,but were forced to do so by congress. I think MR Obama may soon be in a better bargining position to overturn laws like don’t ask/ don’t tell. as for the torture photos debate. I am withholding judgement of MR Obama until i see how this plays out. He does tend to play the long game.
I think a little patience is in order.I certainly do not worship MR Obama, and i consider myself a free market conservative. But people should realise that he can not change things overnight.
May 16th, 2009 at 9:01 am
[...] It’s just you, me, and Uncle Sam. And before I leave you, you’re gonna find out that me and Uncle Sam are one and the same. Ah. I believe this is the first time I see someone in semi-mainstream US media all but suggesting that in the US the military is running the state. [...]
May 16th, 2009 at 9:15 am
John Cole is a must read on this.
May 16th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Pete Townshend saw Obama coming:
There’s nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
May 16th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Mr. Obama, how about you just cut and paste this into the Federal Register and plug “gay” into the appropriate places. Match Truman’s stones for a change.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EXECUTIVE ORDER 9981
Whereas it is essential that there be maintained in the armed services of the United States the highest standards of democracy, with equality of treatment and opportunity for all those who served in our country’s defense:
Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority invested in me as President of the United States, and as Commander in Chief of the armed services, it is hereby ordered as follows:
1. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. This policy shall be put into effect as rapidly as possible, having due regard to the time required to effectuate any necessary changes without impairing efficiency or morale.
2. There shall be created in the National Military Establishment an advisory committee to be known as the President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services, which shall be composed of seven members to be designated by the President.
3. The Committee is authorized on behalf of the President to examine into the rules, procedures and practices of the armed services in order to determine in what respect such rules, procedures and practices may be altered or improved with a view to carrying out the policy of this order. The Committee shall confer and advise with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and Secretary of the Air Force, and shall make such recommendations to the President and to said Secretaries as in the judgement of the Committee will effectuate the policy hereof.
4. All executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government are authorized and directed to cooperate with the Committee in its work, and to furnish the Committee such information or the services of such persons as the Committee may require in the performance of its duties.
5. When requested by the Committee to do so, persons in the armed services or in any of the executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government shall testify before the Committee and shall make available for use of the Committee such documents and other information as the Committee may require.
6. The Committee shall continue to exist until such time as the President shall terminate its existence by Executive Order.
Harry S Truman
The White House
July 26, 1948
May 16th, 2009 at 9:58 am
This is why Washington and the entire intelligence, national security, and foreign policy establishment is such a failure.
Right, so the solution is to pay the intelligence, national security, and foreign policy establishment even more deference. Because that’s the problem with Washington, this darn “democracy” and “civilian control of the military” stuff keeps getting in the way.
Rather than earnest public servants with the nation’s best interests at heart, what often is most important is not the best policy, but what the results will be in the cock measuring contest at the end of the day.
What about when the earnest public servants start measuring cocks? DADT?
The problem with Washington is not just that Bush was stubborn–there are deep institutional pathologies in our government–both the politicians and the civil servants. It’s like Catholic Church last decade–the problem wasn’t just the couple of pedophiles, the problem was all the clergy surrounding the pedophiles who ignored and enabled them. If the “earnest public servants” were worth listening to, Bush/Cheney wouldn’t have been able to do as much damage as they did.
May 16th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Gen. Odierno strikes me as kind that is contemptuous of any civilian authority over the military. His backing by Petraeus makes him invulnerable, in all liklihood, since the media is completely ready to pronounce that any general has more authenticity and authority than POTUS.
This isn’t a new phenom. Since Truman kicked McArthur’s ass out of command in Korea, we have been subject to extortion by media leak from any commanding general, from Westmoreland on on (including Colin Powell). The line between indendent advice to the Sec’y of Defense, Chair of the Joint Chiefs, and Potus on one hand, and rank insubordination on the other hand is certainly blurred.
I lay much of the blame on the civilian executives: they trot out the Generals to inflate and underline decisions thus making the Gens/Admirals into co-equal figures. It is time for those in military command to be expected to keep their damn opinions out of the news (leaked on background, or direct statements) or banishment will surely follow.
May 16th, 2009 at 10:48 am
I am disappointed that President Obama (I STILL feel pretty good saying that and not “President Bush”) hasn’t done everything I’d hoped. But when I get really down, I just think of the difference had McCain been elected. Makes me feel better, til I have to go back to the realization that, no matter what, things haven’t been done.
It’s hard to be disappointed in the President you voted for, yet still feel that he was the best possible choice. It’d be nice if we could finally have an actual liberal President for once, because Obama sure isn’t that.
May 16th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Is this one more time when the Democrats hope that by passing the buck on foreign policy they can get the political cover needed to win on domestic policy?
If so, it’s a loser of a strategy. See October 2002 and the Daschle/Gephardt push to get the Iraq War voted up so they could have a few weeks to campaign on healthcare and social security before the midterms.Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was the same thing. A way out of a fight with the military at a time when the Clinton domestic agenda was the big thing.
These plays are out of the Cold War era when Democrats tried to defend against Republican harges of being soft on communism and then come back to the New Deal as their offense. Vietnam ended up killing the Great Society, and Afghanistan/Iraq could well do the same for this round in the healthcare fight.
The counter-example is Carter who made peace in the Middle East but lost because of the Hostage Crisis. Carter initially didn’t want to let the Shah into the US, but did so after heavy lobbying form Kissinger about how it would make the US look weak to abandon a friend.
Giving in to the right on one front has not worked as a means to challenge them on another.
May 16th, 2009 at 11:26 am
During his campaign, the President had called Guantanamo “a sad chapter in American history”.
This closure will not happen : Guantanamo will remain in operation for at least the greater part of the mandate of Obama.
Last week, May 8, the Obama administration has quietly warned the press that the military commissions were to resume their work. The pro-Obama medias and blogs have accepted, without question, the explanation of the administration – that new procedures would allow the commissions to be suddenly more respectful of the rights of the man.
Although the new rules are not yet known, making a filtered ( “ban on the use of evidence obtained under torture, limit the admissibility of hearsay evidence, more than freedom to choose his lawyer,” said Peter Finn from the Washington Post) we can be summarized in four words :
Exactly. Like. Under. Bush.
The decision to restart the military commissions is already taken. To keep Guantanamo in operation is not yet official, but it is probably imminent as evidenced by the following facts.
First, Obama has already decided several times on issues of national security, to take over the policies of his predecessor. It usually takes advantage to claim that there is a difference and to criticize that of which he takes all the conclusions, but this does not change the facts.
The timing and modalities of the withdrawal from Iraq by Obama are exactly those that Bush had decided before he took office. The program of listening without prior court decision, American citizens talking with known terrorists based in foreign countries, was maintained, to the campaign promises of candidate Obama.
The program called “extraordinary renditions” (in which terrorist suspects are delivered for interrogation to countries allied to America, but where effective methods of interrogation may be used without any judge or journalist has never knowledge) is also still ongoing.
The maintenance of these two programs Obama has not led to any negative reaction of the press, ngo’s or any european beautiful souls.
President Obama was facing a choice : being a man of ideology, driven to please his far left basis. Or he could put security first and act as a Commander in Chief. He made his choice.
May 16th, 2009 at 11:27 am
I think there are two questions here. First, is Obama getting rolled or was he just not that committed to his campaign promises? Secondly, if he is getting rolled, is his political judgement sound?
I’m sure there are plenty out there who are certain they know the answer to both questions, but politics is pretty complicated and you these armchair strategists are awfully confident in their predictions. It looks like Obama is going to get some pretty dramatic changes to the defense budget at the same time as passing an enormous stimulus bill. Now he is going after healthcare. I think this is a situation where he really does have to pick his battles. He has senators from his own party filibustering his own executive nominees. It’s not exactly a friendly playing field. Maybe he should go in guns blazing and try to force this stuff through, but I don’t think it would work and I don’t think anyone can really claim confidence that it would. My biggest worry is that he’s not all that committed to these policies and he’s really just getting what he wants.
May 16th, 2009 at 11:31 am
I think that anything that gets in the way of leaving Iraq on schedule is going to be deep-sixed. If these photos might be used to recruit people for a return to violence in Iraq and, therefore, cause difficulties in withdrawing, then, Obama will oppose releasing them. The big goal wins the argument with Obama every time.
May 16th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Consumatopia,
No one is arguing that the president shouldn’t exert civilian control over the military; he should, and I disagree with his decision on the photos. But it’s toxic to conclude that whenever the president takes someone’s advice, he’s getting rolled, especially when that person is paid by the taxpayers to give him advice. The problem with Obama’s decision is that his reasoning is flawed (the photos are bound to come out, sunshine is the best disinfectant, etc.). So far as I can tell, the problem is not that some general made the president his bitch.
May 16th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Occam’s Razor sais:
ObaFuckFraud is and has always been a two bit lying ghetto pimp.
And don’t pretend that you weren’t warned YEARS ago.
But hey, maybe this time he’ll let you use a bit of lube.
May 16th, 2009 at 11:48 am
I think we should keep in mind that Obama hasn’t really been all that friendly towards the GLBT community. He was never really for gay marriage, and throughout the primary campaign I felt he would rather avoid discussing gays at all, that he felt he had bigger fish to fry. And while he’s got some pretty big fish for the pan, he could do a lot more for gays in our country.
Remember, Obama is a moderate, not a liberal. He just looks liberal because the USA is so hard right.
May 16th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
I won’t be voting for any Democrats until they are willing to stand up to the military.
Pathetic fucking pansies. He ignores those of us who supported him and sides with a bunch of torturers in the army. Fuck Obama and fuck the democrats.
May 16th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Think of the security & defense establishment as a political party in its own right, and you’re watching the inevitable chopping and changing that comes with coalition government.
Pace Fleur Delacour above, Obama’s not engaged in some belated embrace of Bush Thought, the One True Way. He’s just trying to prevent the generals from bailing out of his governing coalition and calling for new elections.
May 16th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
But it’s toxic to conclude that whenever the president takes someone’s advice, he’s getting rolled, especially when that person is paid by the taxpayers to give him advice.
But nobody’s arguing “whenever”, we’re arguing this particular moment, these particular people, these particular institutions. Given that the last few years have been a history of liberals getting rolled by warmongers, given the huge gulf between Obama the candidate and Obama the president (or even between Obama Day 1 and Obama Day 117) on deployments, secrecy, detainees and civil rights, given the poor track records of the institutions giving the advice, and given the stupidity of the advice, then, yes, I do think it is reasonable to characterize this as Obama giving into pressure rather than seeing the light of reason. It’s not certain–it’s possible Obama was just lying before, or he’s just stupid now. Getting rolled seems like the most benign interpretation of his actions.
May 16th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Matt Y is wrong about DADT in a way that makes me want to throw a shoe at him. Obama does not ahve the constitutional power to repeal a statute. Truman could end racial segreation in the armed forces because Congress had not established it by statute. DADT having been enacted by statute, the president does not have the power to end the policy. the president is Commander-in-Chief, but Congress has the constituional power to prescribe regualtions for the armed forces.
What’s frustrating is that this is exactly the same Yoovian issue as whether Bush had the Constituional power to authorize torture. We can’t take the position that the President has plenary power to overrule Congress to do things we like, but not to do things we don’t like.
May 16th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
What’s frustrating is that this is exactly the same Yoovian issue as whether Bush had the Constituional power to authorize torture.
No, it’s not. There’s huge difference between failing to enforce a Congressional regulation and outright doing something Congress has forbidden. Suspending DADT would not be like Yoo, but would be like Obama declining to prosecute Yoo.
May 16th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Consumatopia: the difference between actively violating a law and not enforcing a law doesn’t change the problems associated with the executive’s getting to pick and choose which laws “really” apply.
May 16th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
The characterization that Obama got ‘rolled’ by the military is a bit unfair in this case. It would be one thing if this leak came out *during* the decision making process (which, btw I agree would be entirely improper and a firing offense – which both Democratic and Republican presidents have done).
But coming out afterwards, I just see it as a ‘first draft of history’. Obama was going to make a decision, got professional advice, and decided to go with that advice. I mean, that’s how the system works. The implication in Rick’s piece and from some above is that if Obama would have made the opposite decision, the military *wouldn’t* have said ‘yes, sir’.
And what rea said. DADT has been codified under Congresss’s Art 1 sect 8 power to “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;” – a clear majority in the house and soon to be filibuster proof majority in the Senate (once Franken gets done) should be enough to do whatever the Democrats want to do.
May 16th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Consumatopia: the difference between actively violating a law and not enforcing a law doesn’t change the problems associated with the executive’s getting to pick and choose which laws “really” apply.
The president explicitly has the power to pardon people. Prosecutors already have discretion in when they chose to bring charges. Those are quite different from claiming a right to authorize law breaking in advance, and the potential for lawlessness is much greater with the latter.
The difference between actively violating a law and not enforcing it is the difference between what the Constitution actually says and completely annihilating the Constitution.
May 16th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Matt is right.
Note: the following is cynical political observation. Moralists and idealists should stop reading.
1. Releasing the photos is a loser. A Democrat President releases photos that bring shame and dishonor on America? Please. Obama’s play is to fight releasing the photos until appeals run out and he has no choice.
2. Gays in the military? Why release that firestorm when the base is still happy and such a high percentage of the country still think good soldiers should have to take showers with homosexuals?
3. Brigade a month was promised to win the election. Americans still think Democrats are squishy. Obama will get out of Iraq, but slowly.
Obama is a politician, not an ACLU lawyer or a preacher. He is not a man who wants to lead and then look over his shoulder and see that no one is following. An historical analogy is FDR, whose wife was truly enraged by our despicable treatment of blacks. Did Roosevelt take a single political risk to address the evil of American apartheid? Was Lincoln an abolitionist? He certainly knew slavery was evil.
Presidents are politicians. People who expect them to be idealists or moralists simply do not understand the compromises that have to be made to get the job.
With that said, Obama so far is a pretty good president. Unlike Bush, he seems to remember that although he was elected by Democrats his duties are to the country as a whole. His efforts to address the economic crisis are not my preference (I would have let those fat cats fail) but they will probably be reasonably effective. He is re-building foreign relationships. The new military budget is a step in the right direction towards an eventual reduction (that is why the right is so fried). He remains popular. When forced by the courts to release the torture memos he redacted less than he could have.
Expecting a president to be a moralist is like wishing your cat was a dog. The best we can hope for is that Obama will remain popular enough to move the ball, and will choose some worthwhile cause on which to spend political capital. My bet would be health care. Don’t expect much in the way of gay rights or torture investigations. Again speaking purely politically, gay rights are generally moving the right direction on a social level, so why push? Torture is too big to keep in the bag. It is better to reluctantly watch it from the outside than to appear disloyal to half the country.
May 16th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
#24 makes some good points, but we should never quit pushing Obama to do these things. Sitting back and saying, “well, our leaders know what’s best for us” is best left to the right-wing. If we want DADT taken out, keep up the pressure. If we want those photos released, keep up the pressure. We don’t really know if Obama wants to get rid of DADT or release the photos. He may very well want to, but feels he doesn’t have the political cover to do so. If we keep pushing him, he’ll make the defenses, and when he runs out, he’ll relent. All because we kept the pressure on.
May 16th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
“Presidents are politicians. People who expect them to be idealists or moralists simply do not understand the compromises that have to be made to get the job.”
How about expecting politicians to keep their promises, and when they don’t offering us sensible reasons the change of heart? Is that being moralistic or idealistic? Really? Think about a family member or a business partner or a friend whom you can’t believe or who are continually offering self-serving reasons for doing what they want. Is it idealistic or moralistic to think that such behavior cannot be the basis of constructive relationship?
If you can’t take people at their word, not matter what their occupation, how can you trust them or believe their not acting out of pure self-interest? Just a question for all the hard-boiled political realists out there.
May 16th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
“he must think he is running up some pretty big chits with them.”
That’s funny, because they must be thinking, “Hey, this guy does what we tell him to do, even if it means retracting his campaign principles and pledges.” You do it once, that can be a chit. You do it twice, it’s a coincidence. You do it every time, and you’re just letting yourself get bossed around.
On a totally unrelated note, whatever happened to the “civilian control of the military” that we always heard about when Bush would go against the wishes of military leaders, or tell them to shut up when he wanted something done without opposition?
Or is that another example of “ways Democratic Administrations are different from Republican Administrations”?
May 17th, 2009 at 1:05 am
Odierno is one of the biggest fucking hacks in the military. He’s a complete fucking asshole and a major liar. I followed this jerk back in 2003 when he was in charge of chasing Saddam. He’s a fucking liar and an idiot.
For Obama to listen to this jerk is really disgusting.
Once again: suckers.
May 17th, 2009 at 1:15 am
#25 is 100% right. Politicians need constant pressure to do the right thing. They certainly won’t on their own. The louder the press, public, and blogosphere scream about the non-release of the photos the sooner it becomes politically expedient to release them.
#26 asks “How about expecting politicians to keep their promises, and when they don’t offering us sensible reasons the change of heart? Is that being moralistic or idealistic?”
Yes. “Expect” a politician to keep a promise only if the price of breaking it is higher than the price of keeping it. This is not the case with the photos or brigade a month or DADT.
May 17th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Excuse me? You are kidding, right? You could not possibly be that ignorant. The overwhelming majority of the defense budget – like that of the entire federal budget – is composed of what we used to call ‘must-pays’. It is nondiscretionary. We have a certain size force – set by Congress – they are paid a certain wage – also set by Congress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
There have been MANY attempts to reform the Defense budget over the years – going way back to Robert McNamara in the JFK/LBJ administration to my certain knowledge and most of them have been at least as comprehensive as what Obama has tried. Most successful at taking money away from the military actually was Carter (as a percentage of the total budget) creating a hole in defgense capability that had money poured back into it once Reagan was elected.
Hey, I don’t mind you liking Obama. I don’t mind you thinking he’s the greatest thing since sliced bread, but get your facts straight. Your opinion is your own and you are certainly entitled to it, but statements of fact ought to reflect reality.
Yours doesn’t.