Gatesgate

[Nbadan]

Gatesgate: Why Obama was right to Distrust his Generals on Afghanistan

Among the charges in former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’s memoirs against Barack Obama is that the latter did not trust his generals, did not adopt the Afghanistan War as his own, and was skeptical of the Pentagon plan for a troop escalation and a big counter-insurgency push.

It is now forgotten that Obama came into office in January of 2009 undecided about what course to pursue in Afghanistan. He had opposed the Iraq War and was clearly intent on getting out of that country (which was just as well since there was no prospect that an American troop presence would ever have resulted in social peace there). But on Afghanistan, Obama had more of an open mind. He wanted to destroy al-Qaeda, and putting resources into that fight might require a base of operations in Afghanistan.

According to Bob Woodward, Obama asked the Pentagon for three possible plans — a minimalist one, a medium one and a maximal one.

~snip~

Gen. David Petraeus and others in the Pentagon, as well as Bob Gates himself, did not present Obama with the three plans. Months went by. It got to be October of 2009, and Washington began carping that the new president had no Afghanistan policy. The Pentagon in the end only gave Obama one plan, a plan for a troop escalation of 40,000 and an open-ended big war that would serve as a social engineering laboratory for David Petraeus’s theories of counter-insurgency. Petraeus, like T. E. Lawrence before him, came to believe that he was far more central to the story than he was. The Iraq “surge” of 2007 involved disarming Sunni guerrilla groups first, allowing the Shiites to ethnically cleanse them in Baghdad. The monthly death toll started coming down because the civil war in mixed neighborhoods couldn’t be pursued when the neighborhoods weren’t mixed any more. Petraeus saw the sole explanation of the falling death toll rather as the impact of his counter-insurgency principles.

http://www.juancole.com/2014/01/gate...ghanistan.html

We lost two wars the moment W invaded Iraq, and there's not a damn thing Obama could have done about it except for bringing an end to it.

[boutons_deux]

Robert Gates Double-Crosses Obama

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates is slamming President Obama in a new memoir, accusing him of lacking enthusiasm for the Afghan War. But perhaps Obama’s bigger mistake was trusting Gates, a Bush Family operative with a history of dirty dealing, writes Robert Parry.

As a young CIA official in 1980, Gates was implicated in secret maneuvers to sabotage President Jimmy Carter’s negotiations to free 52 U.S. hostages then held in Iran, a failure by Carter that doomed his reelection.

Gates was identified as one of the participants in a key October 1980 meeting in Paris allegedly also involving William Casey, who was then Reagan’s campaign director; George H.W. Bush, a former CIA director and then-Reagan’s vice presidential running mate; Iranian emissary Mehdi Karrubi; and Israeli intelligence officers, including Ari Ben-Menashe who later testified under oath about what he witnessed.


http://consortiumnews.com/2014/01/08...crosses-obama/

[boutons_deux]

Robert Gates’s Blame-Shifting Memoir


A core myth about Robert Gates was that he was an “adult” who would bring wisdom and order to the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. But the reality was always different as his score-settling memoir reveals, writes ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar.


http://consortiumnews.com/2014/01/10...ifting-memoir/

[boutons_deux]

The Robert Gates Books Shows Exactly Why Obama Is a Good President

While the media is obsessing over whether or not Joe hearts Barack or any of the other nonsense, they missed the point that Gates was not happy with the president because he wanted his people to keep an eye on the Pentagon. After years of listening to George W. Bush tell us to believe the generals, it is comforting to have a president who won’t let the Pentagon roam unsupervised.

What Gates called micromanagement and meddling was actually executive oversight. If I was Gates I would not have liked it either, but this is what a good president is supposed to do. The trust us we know what we are doing stuff is what got us into Iraq.

Obama is a good president because he is doing exactly what he said he would do with the military when he was running for president in 2008. The fact that the Obama White House is centralized and focused on domestic politics doesn’t make it much different from any other White House. I would also argue that the same strengths and weaknesses in the administration were visible during the president’s first presidential campaign.There haven’t been any surprises with Obama. For those who paid attention, they got exactly what they thought they would be getting out of an Obama presidency.

The media is using a book that is highly critical of all of Washington to attack Obama, but once again they got it wrong.President Obama is far from perfect, but he is doing exactly what the voters sent him to Washington to do. Robert Gates didn’t like some it, the media is still grinding the anti-Obama axe, but the excerpt from this book shows why Barack Obama has been a good president with even better intentions.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/01/...iticus+USA+%29

[EVAY]

B_d, I read the article in Consortium news that you linked. I have never read anything from that source before, but I do know that what the author of that article says about the secret negotiations between Reagan's representatives and the Iranians regarding the hostage release prior to the election wherein Reagan was first elected is absolutely spot on. I have always considered that action to be absolutely treasonous, not because it resulted in Carter's election loss (he really was not a very good president) but because it resulted in the election of a man (Reagan) who was willing to trade the well-being of 52 American diplomatic hostages for his own political gain. I don't know how it was never revealed as a horrid scandal of the first order.

Having said that, I am tempted to believe the other things in the article, which, if true, certainly make me rethink my impression of Robert Gates, who I have always rather admired prior to this time. I intend to read his book and see what I make of it, but off hand it seems to me that he is ing about the traditional things that Pentagon people always about, i.e., civilian oversight. Moreover, Gates was one of the many (along with Biden) who opposed the Bin-Laden raid.
So he certainly cannot be presenting himself as omniscient on these things, at least not realistically.

It should surprise no one at all that Obama wanted no part of either of the wars, because that is who he is. He never pretended to be otherwise. (except of course for that idiotic comment about a red-line in Syria).

[boutons_deux]

B_d, I read the article in Consortium news that you linked. I have never read anything from that source before, but I do know that what the author of that article says about the secret negotiations between Reagan's representatives and the Iranians regarding the hostage release prior to the election wherein Reagan was first elected is absolutely spot on. I have always considered that action to be absolutely treasonous, not because it resulted in Carter's election loss (he really was not a very good president) but because it resulted in the election of a man (Reagan) who was willing to trade the well-being of 52 American diplomatic hostages for his own political gain. I don't know how it was never revealed as a horrid scandal of the first order.

Having said that, I am tempted to believe the other things in the article, which, if true, certainly make me rethink my impression of Robert Gates, who I have always rather admired prior to this time. I intend to read his book and see what I make of it, but off hand it seems to me that he is ing about the traditional things that Pentagon people always about, i.e., civilian oversight. Moreover, Gates was one of the many (along with Biden) who opposed the Bin-Laden raid.
So he certainly cannot be presenting himself as omniscient on these things, at least not realistically.

It should surprise no one at all that Obama wanted no part of either of the wars, because that is who he is. He never pretended to be otherwise. (except of course for that idiotic comment about a red-line in Syria).

Tricky /Repugs also sabotaged the 1968 Paris VN peace talks, prolonging the war another 7 years.

[spursncowboys]

So attack the messenger, and not the message?

Is Gates lieing about everything in his book? Or just the things that put BHO in a bad light?

Obama/Hilary did not admit to going against the Iraq surge for political reasons?

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...trending_now_1

I shared Obama's concerns about an open-ended conflict in Afghanistan, but I was deeply uneasy with the Obama White House's lack of appreciation—from the top down—of the uncertainties and inherent unpredictability of war. "They all seem to think it's a science," I wrote in a note to myself. I came closer to resigning that day than at any other time in my tenure, though no one knew it.

Is this incorrect? Is he lieing?

That Sunday meeting was unlike any I ever attended in the Oval Office. Obama said he had gathered the group principally to go through his decisions one more time to determine whether Mullen and Petraeus were fully on board. The commanders said what he wanted to hear, and I was pleased to hear my proposal being adopted.Then came an exchange that is seared into my memory. Biden said he was ready to move forward, but the military "should consider the president's decision as an order."
"I am giving an order," Obama quickly said.
I was shocked. I had never heard a president explicitly frame a decision as a direct order. With the U.S. military, it is completely unnecessary. As secretary of defense, I had never issued an "order" to get something done; nor had I heard any commander do so. Obama's "order," at Biden's urging, demonstrated the complete unfamiliarity of both men with the American military culture.

Is this a debatable part that is not true?

Mullen and I repeatedly discussed with the infuriated president what he regarded as military pressure on him. "Is it a lack of respect for me?" Obama asked us. "Are [Petraeus, McChrystal and Mullen] trying to box me in? I've tried to create an environment where all points of view can be expressed and have a robust debate. I'm prepared to devote any amount of time to it—however many hours or days. What is wrong? Is it the process? Are they su ious of my politics? Do they resent that I never served in the military? Do they think because I'm young that I don't see what they're doing?"

This seems genuine and with knowing how much Gates is about history, shows his attempt to show the whole picture. Shows a humanity level of Obama wanting to do the best. Being around nothing but yes men and wanting honesty on why people are against his view. But is this a lie as well?

[spursncowboys]

For the first several months, it took a lot of discipline to sit quietly at the table as everyone from President Obama on down took shots at President Bush and his team. Sitting there, I would often think to myself,Am I invisible?During these excoriations, there was never any acknowledgment that I had been an integral part of that earlier team. Discussions in the Situation Room allowed no room for discriminating analysis: Everything was awful, and Obama and his team had arrived just in time to save the day.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

][/SIZE]Obama is a good president because he is doing exactly what he said he would do with the military when he was running for president in 2008.

what a crock of

[spursncowboys]

I've always respected Gates. When he went after the Pentagon for waste, I was astonished. No one ever goes after them. Their huge entourage of high paid people and high ranking military official working as over paid secretaries and chia boys. When Bush asked him to come on, I heard all about how he isn't a yes man. He will speak his mind and in doing so, will give bush a different perspective. Bush accepted it because he had to IMO. Congress wouldn't have approved a yes man, in 06. However, Obama wasn't in the same position as Bush. Obama wasn't cornered to really appreciate a Gates kind of voice in the situation room. That is why I completely believe Gates' recollection.

[ChumpDumper]

Some drama queening by Gates there.

[scott]

So attack the messenger, and not the message?

Is Gates lieing about everything in his book? Or just the things that put BHO in a bad light?

Obama/Hilary did not admit to going against the Iraq surge for political reasons?

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...trending_now_1

Is this incorrect? Is he lieing?



Is this a debatable part that is not true?

This seems genuine and with knowing how much Gates is about history, shows his attempt to show the whole picture. Shows a humanity level of Obama wanting to do the best. Being around nothing but yes men and wanting honesty on why people are against his view. But is this a lie as well?


[/FONT][/COLOR]

I don't see what part of any of this is particularly damning to anyone.

[Wild Cobra]

Gotta love revisionist history.

[boutons_deux]

As Parry pointed out, Gates was at the CIA when it and NSA started producing "facts" that fit St Ronnie/Repug ideology, just like head bullied the NSA/CIA into tying Saddam to 9/11, etc, etc.

[spursncowboys]

I don't see what part of any of this is particularly damning to anyone.

What is your definition of damning?

What is your opinion of Obama and his job performance, on a scale of 1-10?

[spursncowboys]

scott: Clinton admitting that she opposed the surge, which saved 100's and possibly 1000's of American lives, loses a substantial amount of electoral points, IMO. Also I find it immoral.

Now if your view on Obama is still really high, then yeah this won't change anything.

[ChumpDumper]

scott: Clinton admitting that she opposed the surge, which saved 100's and possibly 1000's of American lives, loses a substantial amount of electoral points, IMO.

From whom?

Is the average voter really that influenced by military strategy in Afghanistan?

[boutons_deux]

"the surge, which saved 100's and possibly 1000's of American lives,"

bull . one of the reasons the surge was unsurged was the huge (gratuitous) e in US military deaths. The US military went out looking for trouble and they got it. The surge was totally unnecessary as the violence had already been decreasing for many months.

[spursncowboys]

From whom?

Is the average voter really that influenced by military strategy in Afghanistan?

That was the Iraq surge that her and Obama were against. But No to your question. However I think this will help in them losing the National defense vote and foreign policy votes. Jobs will probably be more important in the next one. But if the GOP learn how to market, then yeah this will impact.

[ChumpDumper]

That was the Iraq surge that her and Obama were against. But No to your question. However I think this will help in them losing the National defense vote and foreign policy votes. Jobs will probably be more important in the next one. But if the GOP learn how to market, then yeah this will impact.

So Obama gets elected easily twice while being on record against the surge, but Clinton won't for the same reason nine years after it started?

That's silly.

[boutons_deux]

"help in them losing the National defense vote and foreign policy votes"

Dems don't have those bubba red-state, war-mongering, murderous, interventionist Imperialist Muslim-hating voters anyway.

[spursncowboys]

So Obama gets elected easily twice while being on record against the surge, but Clinton won't for the same reason nine years after it started?

That's silly.

Obama never publicly stated he was against the surge, because it would benefit him politically.

[ChumpDumper]

Obama never publicly stated he was against the surge, because it would benefit him politically.

“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”
- then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., January 10 2007, discussing then-President Bush’s proposal for a surge of troops in Iraq

**

"I don't think there's been any doubt that if we put U.S. troops in that, in the short term, we might see some improvement in certain neighborhoods because the militias are going to fade back into the community. That's one of the characteristics of what we've seen. The problem is that we don't see any change in the underlying dynamic which is Shia militias infiltrating the government, Sunni insurgents continuing the fight, that's the essence of the problem and unless we say that we're going to occupy Iraq indefinitely, we're gonna continue to see problems. I would disagree the bombings and the deaths that have been occurring over the last several weeks, you hadn't seen any real significant difference over what we've seen in the last year.”
- Obama to Iowa's WQAD in March 2007

**

“Today, 1518 days after it began, the war in Iraq rages on, with no sign of a resolution. The Iraqi people appear no closer to the settling their differences. The Iraqi government is more divided and dysfunctional than ever. The Iraqi parliament speaks of adjourning for the summer, without addressing the major issues standing in the way of a ceasefire. And our brave young servicemen and women are still fighting and dying to police someone else's civil war… In January, I introduced a plan that already would have begun redeploying our troops out of Iraq, with the goal of removing all of our combat troops by March 31. But it also would offer enough flexibility to delay our exit in the event that the Iraqis responded with meaningful steps toward peace. I still believe in that approach, which the President vetoed earlier this month. Ultimately, I think it will become the framework for a bipartisan coalition the President can't resist.
“Today, I have reintroduced that plan.
“Tomorrow, I expect cloture votes on two other proposals. One is the Reid-Feingold plan, which would begin a withdrawal of troops in 120 days and end all combat operations on April 1. The other is Senator Levin's proposal, which would create standards and benchmarks for additional funding.
“I will support both, not because I believe either is the best answer, but because I want to send a strong statement to the Iraqi government, the President and my Republican colleagues that it's long past time to change course.
“Meanwhile, I'll continue to press for my own plan, and work to find the 16 votes in the Senate to pass it with a veto-proof majority and bring our troops home quickly, safely and responsibly.”
- Statement of Sen. Obama on May 15, 2007, before voting to withdrawal US combat troops from Iraq within four months, with all troops gone by March 31, 2008

**

“The surge is not working.”
- Obama for American website changed in July 2008

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...roops-in-iraq/

[boutons_deux]

Robert Gates’ Primal Scream

The furious, brilliant, bridge-burning memoir of the most effective cabinet secretary of our time.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/01/robert_gates_duty_the_defense_secretary_s_criticis ms_of_obama_and_bush.html

[ChumpDumper]

I was put off by the way the president closed the meeting. To his closest advisers, he said, “For the record, and for those of you writing your memoirs, I am not making any decision about Israel or Iran. Joe, you be my witness.” I was offended by his su ion that any of us would ever write about such sensitive matters.

-- Gates, writing about sensitive matters in his memoir

lol