Obama and Petraeus: A wary relationship

9 Nov

Re-blogged from Washington Post, this article from 2010 reviews Bob Woodward’s book, “Obama’s Wars” which discusses the friction that existed between Obama and Petraeus. In light of the CIA Director’s admission of an extra-marital affair, his resignation from his job and its timing coincident with Obama’s re-election, something seemed suspicious. I think his resignation is a good thing. As you read “Obama’s Wars” you will find that Petraeus was a favorite General of Bush and didn’t seem too keen to agree to a pull out deadline, from Afghanistan, that Obama favored. Petraeus testified in front of the Congress in March 2011 that the “Afghanistan Gains Are Fragile”.

“There is, I think, the growing recognition that you cannot allow poisonous snakes to have a nest in your backyard, even if they bite the neighbor’s kids,” Petraeus said.

Senator John McCain of Arizona, the top Republican on the panel, echoed military leaders’ recent cautions that the U.S. needs to be prepared for increased fighting, and for more casualties, as the Taliban tries to regroup after the winter.

He appealed again for President Barack Obama to reconsider plans to begin withdrawing troops in July. The “wisest course,” McCain said, may be to move forces no longer needed in some locations to places where they may be pivotal.

“We should not rush to failure and we should cultivate strategic patience,” he said. “Our country, and especially this Congress, must remain committed to this fight.”

I think this extra marital affair of his was not something that just came out. I think Petraeus was biding his time for a Romney win. If Romney won, Petraeus would have stayed and his affair would have stayed hidden forever. Anyway, I am glad that this guy is out. We need people who want peace, not the ones that want war. Hey, I didn’t check but did the warmonger John McCain get re-elected again? ~ AJ

 

Obama and Patraeus: A wary relationship

Dan Balz

Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 1, 2010; 12:03 PM

Everyone believes the most important relationship in Washington next year will be between President Obama and House Republican Leader John Boehner. A case can be made that equally important will be the relationship between the president and his commander in Afghanistan, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus.

Bob Woodward’s powerful new book, “Obama’s Wars,” underscores the delicacy of the relationship between Obama and Petraeus by highlighting the tensions that have long existed between the two ambitious and competitive men.

In Petraeus, Obama is dealing with perhaps the most recognized and acclaimed general of this generation, a skillful bureaucratic infighter who also has an almost unique ability among senior military officers to communicate outside normal channels through the media.

Woodward offers this example. At one point during the Afghan review, Petraeus awoke to a newspaper column critical of the counterinsurgency strategy. To counter the criticism, he phoned another columnist to make the case for it. “Obama and several of his staffers were furious,” Woodward writes. “It angered Obama that Petraeus was publicly lobbying and prejudging a presidential decision.”

Obama and Petraeus have dealt with one another warily since the president was a candidate. Obama was a vocal opponent of Iraq war, opposed Bush’s troop surge policy and favored a fixed timetable for withdrawing troops. Petraeus was seen as Bush’s favorite general and the architect of the strategy employed under the surge policy.

Their first meeting came in the July 2008 when Obama was visiting Iraq as a candidate. They were photographed together in a helicopter. Both were smiling, but their meeting was a standoff. Petraeus made the case for the surge and for flexibility on withdrawing troops. Obama said that, if he became president, he would deal with Iraq in a broader context, meaning he would listen to Petraeus’s advice but not necessarily take it.

Both can claim they got their way on Iraq. The surge was judged a success, adding to Petraeus’s prestige. Obama has been grudging about acknowledging that he misjudged its potential to reduce the violence. But Obama was able to announce in August that he had kept his campaign promise to remove all combat forces.

They are now comrades in arms in Afghanistan, looking toward a July 2011 deadline that is supposed to begin the drawdown of U.S. forces there. The coming year could bring a test of wills between a strong-minded president determined to avoid a lengthy commitment in a war that is already nine years old and a strong-minded general who does not want to be rushed by deadlines or timetables to accomplish what he has set out to do.

In Iraq, Petraeus was the face of the surge policy, in large part because no one else in the government at the time, especially Bush, had the public credibility to do so. It’s doubtful Obama wants Petraeus to be so dominant a figure with regard to Afghanistan.

That Obama and Petraeus find themselves in this position is, of course, an accident of history. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal was to have been the commander in Afghanistan, with Petraeus commander of the U.S. Central Command. But damaging comments by the general and his aides in a damaging Rolling Stone article forced Obama to relieve him of his command.

Obama turned to Petraeus to take over in Afghanistan, in essence asking the general to take a demotion for the good of the country. It was regarded as a brilliant choice at the time and quickly doused a potentially larger controversy over Obama’s relationship with the military.

But the irony was not lost on some of the president’s closest advisers that, while Petraeus was the ideal person to replace McChrystal, he could present a more formidable obstacle to Obama in his desire to make next summer a genuine turning point in the U.S. mission in Afghanistan.

The damning portrait Woodward draws in his book is of a White House team constantly at odds with the military and a president repeatedly frustrated by what he and his advisers saw as the military’s effort to thwart his requests.

Obama’s ultimate decision called for a major escalation in the U.S. effort, sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. At the time, the number of troops was close enough to the 40,000 originally requested that it looked like Obama had yielded to the generals. Woodward’s book helps explain why, at the time, White House officials regarded the decision as the president resisting efforts at railroading by the generals.

The White House and the Pentagon have sent conflicting signals about the July 2011 deadline. Military officials, including Petraeus, have suggested there is considerable wiggle room. The president and Vice President Biden have tried repeatedly to suggest there will be big changes starting next July.

Obama and his team know that the Democratic base is already unhappy with the commitment to Afghanistan. What they need from Petraeus is both demonstrable success in a war that has not gone well and the assurance that he can vouch for the start of a genuine handoff to the Afghans. What is not known is what assurances Petraeus may have asked for in terms of making the decision as conditions-based as he likes.

Bush administration officials came to regard Petraeus not only as skilled inside player but ultimately a team player as well, despite his reputation for attracting attention to himself. That would suggest that come next summer he will find a way to satisfy his commander-in-chief – but perhaps not before another tense struggle with the White House.

About these ads

5 Responses to “Obama and Petraeus: A wary relationship”

  1. Stephen Friesen November 12, 2012 at 4:00 pm #

    Thank you very much for this blog, I had a feeling there must be some problem with the relationship and it was Obama’s re-election victory that sent Patraeus packing. This certainly explains it – simply the hope for war vs the hope for peace. (now everybody do pouty-face for the war mongers 2012)

    • AJ November 12, 2012 at 4:09 pm #

      Stephen,

      Welcome to my blog! That is exactly how I see it, the “hope for war vs the hope for peace” but I am sure Obama haters are thinking of new ways to blame Petraeus’s indiscretions on Obama as well! As they say,”Must be Obama’s fault!”

      • Stephen Friesen November 12, 2012 at 8:28 pm #

        Hi AJ :)

        I think it was only an election issue and is actually rather meaningless, it was ALL about defeating Obama and the American people. They’ve already seen the worst and overcame it and for the next 4 years Obama’s got nothing to lose. =)

        I think this victory for the American people is larger than we can imagine. They overcame so much, ALL the old tricks, all the media pessimism, all of it, to re-elect the right man.
        It looks to me that one of those tricks would be a distraction like “Benghazi”, which was a huge source of Republican ammo against Obama (towards the end it was the main source). It was a CIA safehouse that was attacked in Benghazi, it makes sense that the head of the CIA had some responsibility for failing to defend it, or worse.

        Patraeus was indeed waiting to see who won election, with big hopes that it would be Romney, that Benghazi would help do the trick, and that he’d get an extension on Afghan war. They failed.

        His resignation days after the election is nothing less than a falling-on-the-sword. This election is the war-lovers defeat. The pendulum rests HERE.

        They did the Patraeus removal with this sexy-sex scandal with the sexy eye-candy-girl to avoid real political disruption, to avoid appearance of dissent – because Obama always treated him with respect, and in his defeat on Tuesday Patraeus finally did the honorable thing so that America can go on smoothly. He took the sword.

  2. ralmonmeril November 13, 2012 at 10:04 am #

    I had not thought of it but it is quite an insight. This is probably a stronger reason why he leave, the affair and ‘the honorable thing’ excuse just comes up handy. If he really think solidly about honor, he should not start the affair in the first place or has resigned far earlier. His tactic is quite effective though.

    • AJ November 13, 2012 at 3:21 pm #

      ralmonmeril, welcome to my blog. I agree that this is not about honor. As one of the other articles, that I reblogged from buzzfeed, shows that the General might have had previous dalliances with other people as well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 121 other followers

%d bloggers like this: