Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)"The Pentagon: Barack is taking it over." [View all]
"when President Obama crossed the Potomac last Thursday, he was on a mission to reclaim enemy territory."
Obamas power grab at the Pentagon
By Michael Hastings
January 10, 2012
Barack Obamas decision last week to cut the defense budget by $487 billion over the next 10 years was met with cries of derision from his critics (inexcusable, said GOP front-runner Mitt Romney) and shrugs of acceptance from his supporters. The reductions two headlines: 1. One hundred thousand troops are being chopped from the Marine Corps and Army; 2. The entire U.S. foreign policy focus will begin to shift from the Near East to the Far East (anxieties about China having replacedor at least settled alongsideour permanently ingrained fears of Middle Eastern terror). The cuts themselves, though, are less significant as fiscal policy than as a statement about President Obamas relationship with the Pentagon: Barack is taking it over.
-snip-
The tension between the president and his generals reached its climax in June 2010 in the weeks after I published a Rolling Stone story exposing the contempt the military leadership had for their civilian counterparts. The president fired McChrystal and replaced him with General David Petraeus (tying Petraeus to the fate of the doomed mission, an association that Petraeus had wanted to avoid, according to McChrystal). Within the next year, Defense Secretary Robert Gates would retire as well (but not before Obama twice overruled his adviceon Libya and the Bin Laden raid) and was replaced by Democratic ally Leon Panetta. Petraeus came home from Kabul in June 2011, and was quickly defrocked and installed at the CIA (preventing the popular generals potential and oft-rumored run for the presidency, another outcome the White House wanted to avoid). When Petraeus pushed to move troops to eastern Afghanistan, rather than bringing them home, Obama overruled him, prompting General John Allen (the man there now) to admit the president was no longer following the militarys advice. Either by accident or by design, the young president had neutered his formidable opposition. The celebrity generals were gone, a friendly Defense Secretary was in and a string of what were perceived as foreign policy successes had been accomplished.
There were other signs of the presidents new confidence. Tucked into Obamas defense strategywhich he unveiled the same day as the cutswas another not-so-subtle rebuke of the militarys much beloved counterinsurgency doctrine, which accounted for much of the $1.2 trillion poured into Iraq and Afghanistan. The new defense strategy called for limited counterinsurgencya concept akin to being slightly pregnant, as Wireds Spencer Ackerman observed. Keeping a reduced counterinsurgency initiative was a sop to the brass who had built their careers on the past decade of war, but not a convincing one. It was a stronger signal that the true lesson of the past decade was to not get involved in nation building debacles. For the Armys four stars to suggest Americans should treat the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan as a rich source of lessons for future war is tantamount to insisting the 1915 Gallipoli Campaign or the 1920 Sunday shoot-up of Irish civilians by British Soldiers at Croke Park in Dublin were successes, retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor told me in an email. A smaller defense budget is not only inevitable; its a national economic necessity. Theres even a possibility that President Obama might double the size of the cuts, taking out a total of $1 trillion. It seems hes no longer intimidated by the crowd.
-snip-
Which, come to think of it, is perhaps the biggest threat to Obamas newly restrained military. The overblown Iran rhetoric could easily hamstring a president from either party, narrowing the debate to solely military solutions. And a front-running Mitt Romney has already said he wants to increase the size of the militarythe kind of insane, fiscally irresponsible promise that will fill the airwaves over the next 11 months should he get the nomination. All of that threatens whats under wayreducing the 51st state to the size of Guam, or maybe the Virgin Islands. If we did that by 2020, wed save a bunch of money. And wed likely save a bunch of lives.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/01/10/obamas-power-grab-at-the-pentagon/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
19 replies, 3121 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (39)
ReplyReply to this post
19 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I seem to recall that the Pentagon answers to some guy called the Commander in Chief...
rfranklin
Jan 2012
#1
I doubt very much if SOS Clinton is intimidated by anyone....much less Pentagon brass.
PragmaticLiberal
Jan 2012
#6