Petraeus v Obama [View all]

[H2O Man]

“ ‘So what’s my option?’ the president asked his war cabinet, seeking alternatives to the Afghanistan commander’s request for 40,000 more troops in late 2009. ‘You have essentially given me one option. ….It’s unacceptable.’ …

“General David Pertaeus, the new Afghanistan commander, thinks time can be added to the clock if he shows progress. ‘I don’t think you win this war,’ Petraeus said privately. ‘This is the kind of fight we’re in for the rest of our lives and probably our kids’ lives.’ “
-- Bob Woodward; Obama’s Wars; Simon & Schuster; 2010.


This is my second essay on the Petraeus “scandal.” The first, “Intelligence vs. Counterintelligence,” posted a couple of days ago, sought to provide context for the current events by comparing them to past incidents of internal conflict in Washington. (I also enjoyed reading an O.P./thread that attempted to connect some of the players in the Petraeus case by “following the money.” )

Today I think it might be worth reviewing some of the information from Woodward’s book. This is not because I consider him a gifted source -- quite the opposite. Woodward had an agenda in writing this book: to undermine President Obama, by focusing on the military generals’ mistrust of him. A single sentence from Jonathan Alter’s book, “The Promise: President Obama, Year One” highlights the difference in approach found in a book that supports Obama:

“The president might have been annoyed at Petraeus for the foot-dragging approach to Afghanistan, but he owed him a debt of gratitude for Iraq.” (Simon & Schuster; 2010; page 387)

One could disagree with my interpretation of even the title of Woodward’s book, which suggests that President Obama “owns” the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and bears sole responsibility if they are “lost.” While both of these wars were lost by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the theme of Woodward’s book is that President Obama is pursuing a dangerous policy in Afghanistan, which the patriotic generals oppose.

The quote at the top is taken from the front flap of the book. A fuller version is found on page 332-333. It documents that while he gave lip service to agreeing with Obama, that Petraeus had no intention of following orders from the constitutional civil authority of the President as Commander-in-Chief. The general disregarded President Obama’s plans for number of troops committed, military tactics, length of American involvement, and the desired outcome.

On pages 361-362, Woodward notes that the Petraeus wing thought that the “White House” tended “to leave Petraeus twisting in the wind. An aide tells Petraeus that “they knock you down every chance they get.”

“ ‘They’re fucking with the wrong guy,’ Petraeus said.

The general was not alone. Even after President Obama had laid out his commands very clearly -- on troops committed, military tactics, length of American involvement, and desired outcome -- and demanded that others either commit to support him, or to step aside, others sought to undercut him. And it went beyond the generals.

At a dinner that Secretary Clinton arranged for Karzai, Robert Gates told those gathered, “We’re not leaving Afghanistan prematurely. In fact, we’re not leaving at all.” (page 354)

More, republican Senator Lindsey Graham called General Petraeus shortly after President Obama had made his plans public, and discussed the need to “fix” it. (page 337)

There are things going on in Washington, DC, that are far more serious than jackasses like Hannity or Rush insulting Barack Obama. It is, I believe, a coordinated effort to damage his ability to institute meaningful changes in this nation. There is a group that not only wants to re-write history, they want to control events today in a manner that allows them to pre-write the future. I also think that there are loyal public servants who are working to both support and protect Obama. And I suspect that Petraeus has found that to be the case, too.