Here comes Bob Woodward

[Uzybone]

Woodward Book Portrays Obama Aides’ Battles

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/world/asia/22policy.html?hp


"WASHINGTON — Some of the critical players in President Obama’s national security team doubt his strategy in Afghanistan will succeed and have spent much of the last 20 months quarreling with one another over policy, personalities and turf, according to a new book.

The book, “Obama’s Wars,” by the journalist Bob Woodward, depicts an administration deeply torn over the war in Afghanistan even as the president agreed to triple troop levels there amid suspicion that he was being boxed in by the military. Mr. Obama’s top White House adviser on Afghanistan and his special envoy for the region are described as believing the strategy will not work.

The president concluded from the start that “I have two years with the public on this” and pressed advisers for ways to avoid a big escalation, the book says. “I want an exit strategy,” he implored at one meeting. Privately, he told Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to push his alternative strategy opposing a big troop buildup in meetings, and while Mr. Obama ultimately rejected it, he set a withdrawal timetable because, “I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party.”

It also reports that the United States has intelligence showing that manic-depression has been diagnosed in President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan and that he was on medication, but adds no details. Mr. Karzai’s mood swings have been a challenge for the Obama administration.

As for Mr. Obama himself, the book describes a professorial president who assigned “homework” to advisers but bristled at what he saw as military commanders’ attempts to force him into a decision. Even after he agreed to send another 30,000 troops last winter, the Pentagon asked for another 4,500 “enablers” to support them. The president lost his poise, according to the book. “I’m done doing this!” he erupted. To ensure that the Pentagon did not reinterpret his decision, Mr. Obama dictated a six-page, single-space “terms sheet” explicitly laying out his troop order and its objectives, a document included in the book’s appendix."


Please get out of Afghanistan.

[Mass]

1. And stop giving access to Woodward. Dont you yet know that he is a GOP shill.

[rug]

2. So, how much of the Democratic Party was he willing to lose?

[vaberella]

6. Obviously all. n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

3. Karzai is a stooge from Bush and Cheney

used by criminals

[Pirate Smile]

4. Here is the Washington Post article:

Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan war

By Steve Luxenberg
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 22, 2010; 12:11 AM

President Obama urgently looked for a way out of the war in Afghanistan last year, repeatedly pressing his top military advisers for an exit plan that they never gave him, according to secret meeting notes and documents cited in a new book by journalist Bob Woodward.

Frustrated with his military commanders for consistently offering only options that required significantly more troops, Obama finally crafted his own strategy, dictating a classified six-page "terms sheet" that sought to limit U.S. involvement, Woodward reports in "Obama's Wars," to be released on Monday.

"This needs to be a plan about how we're going to hand it off and get out of Afghanistan," Obama is quoted as telling White House aides as he laid out his reasons for adding 30,000 troops in a short-term escalation. "Everything we're doing has to be focused on how we're going to get to the point where we can reduce our footprint. It's in our national security interest. There cannot be any wiggle room."

Obama rejected the military's request for 40,000 troops as part of an expansive mission that had no foreseeable end. "I'm not doing 10 years," he told Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at a meeting on Oct. 26, 2009. "I'm not doing long-term nation-building. I am not spending a trillion dollars."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/21/AR2010092106706.html?hpid=topnews

[Mass]

5. Interesting how the two articles give a totally different approach.

The WaPo shows somebody decisive that makes his own strategy. The NYTimes shows someone indecisive.

[vaberella]

7. Wait until Huffpost gets into it.

That's what I've noticed about these writers. They all have a certain agenda. To me if he's making his own exit strategy that is decisive. However, the clowns at nytime had something else in mind.

[Pirate Smile]

8. They wanted to focus on the bickering between people - like that is the most important

issue. :eyes:

[vaberella]

10. HP is a hot mess. I learned long ago that they're definitely more tabloid than news. n/t

[BeyondGeography]

9. He's got nothing

Oh, members of the Administration occasionally say catty things about each other? Mutual disdain between the military and civilians? Big fucking deal.

There is no George Tenet slam dunk moment here (probably because the Obama Administration lacks a singular policy disaster for him to leverage, unlike his predecessor). So he's left with the normal stresses accompanying a difficult decision. No Drama Obama will make him far less money than *.

[vaberella]

11. Valid point.

You're right. However, I think what to take note of, is the way the various news articles are spinning the same topic. Some describe Obama as indecisive and relatively weak, as we see with the NYTimes article. Or you can look at the WSJ article which is making him out to be quite decisive in the face of military tyranny and opposition. I think they'll be more spinning that way and then it shows how the MSM will use and/or abuse that knowledge in a way to target the President.