Comments on: This Is Not Obama’s War

By: Jack Goodman

Jack Goodman — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 00:40:37 +0000

Matt, a very fair and balanced assessment. I’d love to be a fly on the wall the next time you have lunch with Woodward.

What we are really talking about here is leadership. I’ve seen very little from the White House. Much as I hate to admit it, I think W would have done just what you say: fire the generals who wouldnt go along. In fact, I think that he did just that with General Sinsecki (sp) who told him he needed 3 times as many troops to invade Iraq.

Jack

By: Matthew Dickinson

Matthew Dickinson — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 22:10:37 +0000

Peter – I’m not sure whether that’s the case or not. I do think it is harder for someone who has not served in the military to stand up to military advisers. In this vein, some argue that Clinton’s decision to compromise on allowing gays to serve openly in the military was driven partly by his feeling that he didn’t have the credentials to buck the generals. In Obama’s case, I think the situation is further complicated by the near reverence with which Petraeus is viewed by some members of Congress. Remember as well that Petraeus is a skilled bureaucratic infighter, and that he had strong backing from the civilian side of the Pentagon. Finally, I think Obama sees virtue in attracting bipartisan support for his prosecution of the war on terror – hence the decision to retain Gates. And Gates strongly backed the Afghanistan surge.

By: Peter Rothschild

Peter Rothschild — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 21:53:32 +0000

Matt,

Do you think that a Democrat President is handcuffed and haunted to a greater degree than a Republican President by the attacks of Joe McCarthy regarding “losing China” in the 1940s?