You're Doing It Wrong (Civilian-Military Relations, that is)

[squorch2]

Obama Seeks Accord With Military On Iraq

The President of the United States isn't supposed to "seek accord" with the United States military.

 

[bubblehead]

The current President has a way of bringing two opposing sides together.

Besides, he is the President, not me. Who are we to say that he is or is not doing something wrong?

Let's let it play out and then comment?

 

[sevenhelmet]

Read the article. "Seeking accord" is just one AP writer's expression. So far, it seems as though he's actually listening to his military commanders and not simply drawing down Iraq to keep the code pinkers happy.

How is that wrong?

 

[squorch2]

Because his stated policy is that we're going to be gone in a year. It sounds like he's getting slow-rolled on that policy.

 

[m0tbaillie]

Because his stated policy is that we're going to be gone in a year. It sounds like he's getting slow-rolled on that policy.

I think he's playing it cool and, from what I've been reading, making sure they come up with the best strategy for with drawl before actually doing it. He's not just going to rush in there and hastily withdrawl over a hundred thousand people in the sloppiest fashion possible utilizing poor logistics.

 

[squorch2]

Right, but that's not his job - it's the combatant commander's job to figure out a way to carry out the orders he's given. (logistics, etc.)

 

[teabag53]

It's also his job to listen to his Generals and Admirals and and make the best decision based on their inputs. It seems we went screaming in there without listening to the inputs of those that said maybe taking taking some time and having a plan for staying a bit was in order. Perhaps he doesn't want the withdrawal looking like the Fall of Saigon...I don't know. Either way, let it play out and be glad he's seeking and acting on the input of his commanders.

 

[wink]

The current President has a way of bringing two opposing sides together.

Really, evidence please. I mean he sure did a good job of getting those rascally Republicans to come together on the stimulus bill didn't he?

Hey, he is the President and CinC. I don't disagree much with the comments above regarding the article. But please. He is what he is. And he is NOT an accomplished (notable record) statesman or senate floor negotiator or bipartisan. Maybe he will get there in a year or more. Personally, I don't think so.

 

[CWJones411]

How is this the wrong move? I won't make the mistake of telling a president how to do his job and it seems like he is trying to handle this situation so that it makes sense strategically and doesn't just look good politically.

 

[wink]

How is this the wrong move? I won't make the mistake of telling a president how to do his job and it seems like he is trying to handle this situation so that it makes sense strategically and doesn't just look good politically.

It is the right move. It is the smart and safe move. It is required precisely because the OBAMA draw down was political. It was the result of the political realities of Democratic primary and to a lesser extent, the general election. His position on an Iraq draw down was NOT arrived at after extensive consolation with senior active duty military leadership or the most confidential briefings. He simply was not privy to those things two or more years ago. His draw down plans were irresponsible and dangerous at the time of his proposal. Thankfully, things have changed in Iraq, because of a strategy he did not approve of. Proper consultation and caution will prevent disaster in spite of his loony left.

 

[Bevo16]

His draw down plans were irresponsible and dangerous at the time of his proposal. Thankfully, things have changed in Iraq, because of a strategy he did not approve of. Proper consultation and caution will prevent disaster in spite of his loony left.

Not only have things changed in Iraq, Obama's understanding of the situation has changed drasically over the past month or so. There is information that the President gets access to that is not shared with the junior senator from IL. His statements during the campaign were designed to get political support for his election. I don't tend to think very highly of those people who would vote for him based on his campaign promises...but I digress. Not only that, but those promises were made out of (what seems to me like) total ignorance of how the military operates and what the actual situation in Iraq was. The President has gotten one hell of an education over the past month, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he is taking the time to get advice from the people in uniform who are the experts.

The one thing that he needs to drop is the notion that he has concern about "breaking a campaign promise". I think that Americans are smart enough to know that campaign promises are not set in stone and that completing the mission in Iraq is a higher priority than just getting the hell out. Then again, maybe I am giving the average American to much credit.

 

[HokiePilot]

Don't worry, about breaking promises. It only took him 8 days to do it:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...five-days-of-public-comment-before-signing-b/

However, I don't consider however gathering more information and making a more informed decision about the military a bad thing.

 

[Slammer2]

...However, I don't consider gathering more information and making a more informed decision about the military a bad thing.

Unless you're a hollywood director making a military movie...

 

[RedFive]

Who are we to say that he is or is not doing something wrong?

Uh...that's the worst attitude I've ever heard. We pay his damn paycheck. We put him into office. No President, good or bad, is a god. If they screw up, we kick them out. If they do great, we elect them for a second term. Why do you think Clinton never made any moves without checking the polls first?

As an American, it's my right to opine on how well any of my representatives are doing their job -- and if I feel strongly enough one way or another, it's also my right to take action one way or another.

Anyways, I hope he will listen to the brass and make an informed decision.

 

[exhelodrvr]

Not only have things changed in Iraq, Obama's understanding of the situation has changed drasically over the past month or so. There is information that the President gets access to that is not shared with the junior senator from IL. His statements during the campaign were designed to get political support for his election. I don't tend to think very highly of those people who would vote for him based on his campaign promises...but I digress. Not only that, but those promises were made out of (what seems to me like) total ignorance of how the military operates and what the actual situation in Iraq was. The President has gotten one hell of an education over the past month, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he is taking the time to get advice from the people in uniform who are the experts.

The one thing that he needs to drop is the notion that he has concern about "breaking a campaign promise". I think that Americans are smart enough to know that campaign promises are not set in stone and that completing the mission in Iraq is a higher priority than just getting the hell out. Then again, maybe I am giving the average American to much credit.

During the capaign, either candidate Obama and staff were incredibly naive and ignorant, or extremely dishonest. (Much more so than what is typical, lest someone say "Everybody does that in campaigns.") I find myself hoping that it was the latter, which is a very sad state of affairs.