I am the Afghanistan Blogging Fellow for The Seminal and Brave New Foundation. You can read my work on The Seminal or at Rethink Afghanistan. The views expressed below are my own.
One of the best parts of learning about foreign countries and their cultures is the sudden realization that these places aren’t actually foreign at all. You’re not studying an opaque alien world, you’re only looking in the mirror. As Americans, it fills us with hope to look across at, say, our progressive allies in Pakistan and note that they’re working hard, just like us, to correct and reform their country’s policies. But are we also capable of seeing the negative parallels? It’s all well and good to lecture the Pakistanis about total military subservience to a strong civilian government, but what about our own weak President and our own anti-democratic generals?
American military officials are building a case to minimize the planned withdrawal of some troops from Afghanistan starting next summer, in an effort to counter growing pressure on President Obama from inside his own party to begin winding the war down quickly.
With the administration unable yet to point to much tangible evidence of progress, Gen. David H. Petraeus, who assumed command in Afghanistan last month from Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, is taking several steps to emphasize hopeful signs on the ground that, he will argue, would make a rapid withdrawal unwise. Meanwhile, a rising generation of young officers, who have become experts over the past nine years in the art of counterinsurgency, have begun quietly telling administration officials that they need time to get their work done.
When something like this happens in Pakistan, we completely lose our s**t and call them a failed state, a tyrannical dictatorship, a collapsing nuclear-armed time bomb full of apocalyptic religious fanatics and corrupt, out-of-touch plutocrats. When it happens here, it’s called a "media blitz." Oh you know, General Petraeus is just out there to "counter the growing pressure" by the American people, and hopefully force the Commander-in-Chief’s hand on war making policy. The young officer corps is simply pressuring your elected politicians to give them more time to occupy foreign lands and engage in aggressive wars. Totally normal, everything is fine.
It’s time for Congress to wake up. Petraeus needs to be reminded of exactly who he works for. The generals don’t tell us what to do, we tell them what to do. This is not Pakistan, this is the United States, and if President Obama is too weak to preserve our civilian-military order, then Congress is obligated to enforce its constitutional authority over the power – and the purse – of war.
Petraeus is openly declaring that he did not go to Afghanistan to oversee a "graceful exit," apparently unaware that he’s not the one who gets to decide that. He’s even out of sync with the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates (h/t Steve):
"There is no question in anybody’s mind that we are going to begin drawing down troops in July of 2011," Gates told The Los Angeles Times.
But Petraeus, asked in a separate interview whether he could reach that juncture and have to recommend a delay to Obama because of the conditions on the ground, replied: "Certainly, yeah.
As Bernard Finel writes, it appears it’s time for Petraeus to "resign his commission and run for office." Only our elected representatives, responsible to us, can make the kind of decisions Petraeus is throwing around on Meet the Press. Civilians make policy, and if the generals fail to keep their noses out, they get fired:
The conduct represented in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general. It undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system. And it erodes the trust that’s necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan.
That’s President Obama, referring to his firing of General Stanley McChrystal. McChrystal wasn’t going on a "media blitz" and openly refuting the President, he just had a few comments in one article. Yet with Petraeus, Obama appears helpless and subservient to the general. McChrystal, it seems, was not an exception, but part of a wider pattern. We have a weak executive whose authority is being assaulted and hijacked by rogue generals. McChrystal lost the fight, but Petraeus pushes on toward a serious crisis in our country’s civilian-military order.
See, Pakistan’s rogue generals aren’t so distant and mysterious anymore, are they? We’ve got our own problems with weak civilian governments. Just like Pakistan’s President Zardari, we have Obama out there hocking a weak and ineffectual domestic agenda while the generals hijack our foreign policy. However, Americans are strongly empowered to immediately solve this civilian-military crisis, far more than our Pakistani allies.
We are already pushing Congress to end the war in Afghanistan, indeed the votes to block funding have tripled since just last year. And those congressional representatives too weak to stand up to the generals are in the process of being replaced by candidates with more backbone. One of those candidates is self-described "ass-kicking Democrat" Tommy Sowers in Missouri.
Sowers served in the military himself, in Iraq, and he has specifically cited congress’s obligation to exert its control over war policy – and that includes over the President and his generals.
I’m looking at this as a guy running for Congress, as a guy straight out of teaching the Constitution, as a guy frustrated by Congress delegating too much power to the executive. I wrote about this issue when the Afghanistan surge was being contemplated, asking, "Why is Congress mute on Afghanistan?" [...]
The question comes up as to why, nine years into the war, it’s taken Congress this long to assert their authority. [...] Critiquing the executive or military is something Members of Congress don’t want to do, because they feel they don’t have experience to do it. But I do.
He’s not kidding. Last week while Petraeus was preparing for his propaganda tour, Sowers penned an op/ed piece in McClatchy-Tribune papers blasting congress for neglecting their responsibilities and continuing the disastrous war in Afghanistan:
It is past time for Congress to make the difficult decisions about Afghanistan. Tax dollars spent building an Afghan military are dollars not spent toward defeating al-Qaeda. America’s limited security resources must be focused on hunting down and destroying al-Qaeda where it exists — in Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia — not where it was or could be one day.
This logistical reality becomes more expensive every day Congress waits. With the lowest number of veterans in Congress since World War II, Congress must believe it is unqualified to ask these logistical questions now. But nine years in, it is far past time for Congress to start thinking about Afghanistan as professionals, not amateurs.
Sowers is just one of the candidates running this year, there are dozens and dozens more. That doesn’t even include the members of congress we have already, and again, those numbers are expanding rapidly. While out-of-touch politicians fret over the voter "enthusiasm gap," activists across the country are practically bouncing out of their seats waiting for the election. They’re ready to raise money, knock on doors, and GOTMFV for any candidate – Tommy Sowers in Missouri, Elaine Marshall in North Carolina, Matt Campbell in Iowa – anyone wiling to stand up to the President, stand up to the rogue generals, and stand up for congress’ rightful authority over the powers of war.
Sure, it’s bad that Obama is weak and unable to control his generals. It’s bad that Petraeus is attempting to suppress democratic opinion. But Congress, and the people running for Congress, understand full well that this is a fight the American people are ready to have. We know what we have to do, and we’re already doing it.
Take a look at our latest video from Rethink Afghanistan:
We’ve heard this propaganda from Petraeus before, it’s nothing new. They’ve been shoveling this garbage on us for years. Now the majority of Americans are pushing for an exit, and no matter what any rogue general says, we’re ending the war in Afghanistan.
So let’s keep going and make sure that Congress stands up to these rogue generals. Make sure your representatives know that it is their responsibility to end the war. Make sure they know that the July 2011 timetable is not up for debate, even if the President is too weak to stick to it. The war is destroying our economy, it is making us less safe, and even our troops and their families have turned against it. It’s time for Congress to step in and end the war.
Plug in to the Movement to End the War



46 Comments

It’s insubordination or a quiet coup – keep the President afraid of a JFK repeat.
The larger question is whether General Petraeus should be making the Talk Show Rounds at all. I thought Mr. Gates was the spokes person for the Pentagon. If the General wants to express his thoughts, I suggest an appearance before Congress is the appropriate venue. President Bush started this quaky ritual and Obama is continuing to allow his Field General to outline the Administration’s policy and procedures. The last time I read the Constitution the Civilians proposed and the Generals implemented.
So true, but Congress has booted the ball so long, it doesn’t know how to pick it up anymore. Even the guy you tout, Sowers, essentially sends the message to Congress it’s all about the military and building U.S. intervention everywhere for the “war on terror”.
This echoes the news in the NY Times story the other day about U.S. interventions, via CIA and JSOC, spreading around the globe. And if anyone thinks that it can be limited to small groups of Navy Seals, they had better think again. It means more bases, more “advisers”, more targets and then more interventions.
The entire Pentagon and security apparatuses of the United States are out of control, they have suborned the mainstream media, and effectively cowed Congress. I support the work of Rethink Afghanistan, but we’re going to have to do a hell of a lot more than elect some pro-military vets who believe they think smarter to Congress.
Why do you assume Patreaus and the Generals at the Pentagon are doing anything other than what the President wants?
I see no evidence of that.
If they are, and he doesn’t fire them, well then I see your point. But if they’re doing his bidding for him, as I believe they are, you lose me.
As long as Patreus stirs clear of Rolling Stone Obama will have no objections.
Great article.
But the Civilian leadership is even worse than the Pentagon, and the generals. Let’s not forget it was the civilian neocons that pushed for the Iraq War, most of them, including Cheney, never served in the military. And it’s the Congress that always sticks up for Israel no matter what. So I have much more faith in the U.S. military, except for Petraeus since he is doing the neocons’ bidding.
Here is an article from 2004 called “Gen. Zinni: “They’ve screwed up”:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml
“Zinni says Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time – with the wrong strategy. And he was saying it before the U.S. invasion. In the months leading up to the war, while still Middle East envoy, Zinni carried the message to Congress: “This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on. And I don’t feel it needs to be done now.”
But he wasn’t the only former military leader with doubts about the invasion of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations.
Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn’t want – but it was a war the civilians wanted.
“I can’t speak for all generals, certainly. But I know we felt that this situation was contained. Saddam was effectively contained. The no-fly, no-drive zones. The sanctions that were imposed on him,” says Zinni.
“Now, at the same time, we had this war on terrorism. We were fighting al Qaeda. We were engaged in Afghanistan. We were looking at ‘cells’ in 60 countries. We were looking at threats that we were receiving information on and intelligence on. And I think most of the generals felt, let’s deal with this one at a time. Let’s deal with this threat from terrorism, from al Qaeda.”
The Generals and our President, His Cabinets, Appointee’s, our Congress in both Houses . . .
All are owned and operated by the same corporations.
They just do what they are told, and in the process the elected offals have to TRY and look like they work for we the people come election time.
But they all work for the same Citizens United, and they all legislate and govern the same policies Citizens United tells them to.
They are all on the same side, and that means war for profits for the few.
Simple story, don’t confuse it with kabuki’s being played out. Or the kabuki that’s manufactured by the PR spinners.
Ok, I’ll walk back this part.
1) Obama put Petreaus in charge so he’d fail, and not run in ’12.
2) Obama’s plan is failing as Petreaus mouths off. It IS Obama’s Iraq and AfPak, completely.
3) Yes, Obama MUST ask for Petreaus’ resignation, immediately.
4) And if he does, Petreaus runs in ’12! And I greatly fear that one.
5) Obama, lose/lose once again, but wins for Citizens United.
With that, I agree whole heartedly.
Still, who will tell Citizens United to bring our troops home and stop the empire buiding?
Dismantle HUGE bases the size of large towns and cities?
Fire the contractors?
Not in my lifetime I fear.
Amen. Bowers stands for expanding the chase, not the “war” the chase after a nebulous concept portrayed by guys who just happen to be Muslims.
Another yes for the defense budget in congress if this guy is elected. Please, ActBlue, no dollars for another blue dog wannabe.
Coming soon to a D.C. near you, a military dictatorship in 2012. Petraeus for prez.
Congress is weaker than the prez. No hope they’d step in. Besides, the U.S. long ago crossed the Rubicon when every solution to a foreign problem (real or imagined) is military, and in fact, the same can be said for many domestic problems (if you haven’t seen the heavy gear your local police don at the slightest provocation).
I have taken apart this quote elsewhere but two points. Nobody in the Obama Administration is rushing for the exits in Afghanistan. The talk of deadlines was just for us rubes. And the quote above is just a riff on the meme of ignoring the last 9 years and restarting the clock now as if those 9 years never happened and never counted against the US military effort in Afghanistan. If you go for sports metaphors, it is like being down 30 points in the 4th quarter and asking that the game be started over both in terms of the time and the scores.
Also one additional point, counterinsurgency is a strategy. It is not a policy. As I have said a million times, we have had no Afghanistan policy since early 2002. In the absence of a policy reason for having an army in that country, it should be removed. In Afghanistan we have an army in search of a policy to explain its presence there. This is completely backasswards, and nothing good will or has come of it.
Petraeus is now a has-been; he is a prove loser. His whining is admitting to the President that, even with the resources he asked for, he cannot deliver any more than McChrystal could. McChrystal is now teaching at Yale. Very soon Petraeus will be finding a school somewhere to teach about leadership too.
Gates is leaving in 2011. Obama has between now and then to find his next Secretary of Defense. Sure looks like the July 2011 date is firmer than Petraeus wants if he’s whining to Congress and the press.
My prediction. Troops start heading out of Afghanistan by January 2012 at the latest. If we have a figleaf of victory, the July 2011 date still holds. That figleaf is the Pakistani campaign to remove foreign fighters from the Northwest Territories and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, a campaign that has broken stride because of the need for the Pakistani army to deal with flood relief. If we don’t have a figleaf of victory, it will be because our generals couldn’t deliver one; they have gotten everything they asked for and more, and still the time slips.
So is he teaching in the War Crimes or Failed Wars curriculum? Is it just me or do other people find McChrystal being snapped up by an Ivy very telling about the relationship between our military machine and academic elites?
Those who can’t win teach Leadership classes. or something like that.
You’re going to love this, Hugh. He is teaching about “leadership in a global context”.
Wars are good for big business. They are the health of the state. It’s the only thing Americans know. It’s all they have left. Everything else is gone. Four more wars!
The militarization of everything. As I typed about this on an earlier post, Yale enlists.
On edit: Not that Yale doesn’t have a venerable tradition to uphold, having provided the founding fathers, and most of its generations, of the CIA.
Well, he is our next president you know.
Something like international studies, I heard.
I hope that isn’t somebody’s idea of a joke, because it’s like having Yoo teaching law classes: yes, they’re experts, but not the kind you want teaching college students.
Yeah, everyone should show some respect. /s
Ding. Ding. Ding.
But
Allen Dulles (Princeton).
John McCone (UC-Berkeley).
William Raborn (Naval Academy).
Richard Helms (Williams College).
James R. Schlesinger (Harvard).
William Colby (Princeton, Columbia Law).
George H. W. Bush (Yale).
Stansfield Turner (Amherst, Naval Academy).
William J. Casey (Fordham, St. John’s Law).
William Webster (Amherst, Washington U. Law).
Robert Gates (William and Mary, Indiana U., Georgetown).
James Woolsey (Stanford, Rhodes Scholar, Yale Law).
John Deutch (Amherst, MIT).
George Tenet (Georgetown, Columbia).
Porter Goss (Yale).
Michael Hayden (Duquesne).
Leon Panetta (Santa Clara, Santa Clara Law).
There’s some real “middle America” for you there.
I expect McChrystal is going to be teaching a CEO extension program.
The title of the course will be “How to Lose and Claim You Didn’t”.
By breaking the chain of command Petraeus shows us that he is the chief for the new chain gang:
Voila! Bow down to your new militarist democracy!
Torture for all!
Sweetheart arms contracts without oversight!
A people lockstep moving en masse.
And if you disagree, BE AFRAID OF WHAT IS COMING FOR YOU OUT OF THE SKY!
Hail Ceaser! He came. He Saw. Now he conquers.
Jim White is upstairs!
Late Night: Pouting Baby Doesn’t Understand Why Markie H. Protects Mr. O
Pull the thread on “University of Texas at Austin,” “William Cunningham” and “Freeport-McMoRan” as well. There’s an eyebrow-raiser:
Austin’s Yogurt Shop Murders: Conspiracy?, 1990
Written in Stone – Freeport-McMoRan in Indonesia, 2005
Endgame Profile of Freeport McMoRan, ~ 2007
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Source Watch, 2009
Yes, I agree. Obama probably just wants people to feel that way. Look at how with Obama that he sent back the bust of Churchill because Churchill supposedly locked up his dad for two years without trial…now Obama is doing that exact same thing, except he’s keeping people locked up for far longer than Obama’s dad was held without trial.
I couldn’t agree more. If we’ve learned anything about the REAL Obama, it’s that he always shows two faces. He’s duplicitous in the extreme.
A couple of years ago, I wouldn’t have thought Barack Obama could turn out to be a “weak President.” Of course, he has backbone when it comes to telling progressives to get lost!
Good gosh, how naive. General P is doing what Obama tells him to do and not coincidently Gates is quitting.
Petreus was sent out as:
1. A feeler to gauge the publics’ response. (Keep up the outrage!)
or
2. An emissary of the military-industrial complex to ease the public into the idea of a longer stay in Afghanistan.
But wound up, in effect, being both. And btw he would never make it to the White House.
Let’s also “rethink” Yemen, Somalia, and the dozen-or-so other countries in which the US has “declared war”…
Woodrow wilson started this nation building crap, and we aint stopped yet.Not a good policy. Period.
The Military is simply another, albeit very large, corporation run by CEOs,MBAs, and others too smart, too stupid or too lazy to enter the private sector.
And while we’re at it Republicans and TeaBigots,, isn’t the military a socialistic organization, depending on government support?
Just asking!
Mr Obama is NOT the man for this job. Time to find a viable challenger. It’s probably too late already to undo so much of the damage that’s been done. Being forced to keep health ‘insurance’ extortionists in business will never, ever sit well with me, and a more ardent ‘Progressive’ than me would be hard to find.
I think ya’ll are potentially making a mistake here in putting this on Petraeus and calling Obama “weak” before his general. Sure, Obama IS weak tea. He’s a mamby-pamby limp noodle but it is also quite possible that he is supporting Petraeus’ moves thinking that it is the general himself who is best suited to convince the People that we should stay (forever) in Afghanistan.
See, this could easily be the same bullcrap we saw under Reagan where at least some want to believe that Reagan didn’t know what his generals and staff were doing (Iran-Contra) and that, perhaps, his addled swiss-cheese brain was being manipulated. Not his fault! Not his fault!
Oh yes it WAS his fault and he not only knew about all the crap, he was undeniably and absolutely responsible for all the crap that occurred under his “leadership”. Same goes for Obama. Sorry, but in my military experience and training, the friggin’ LEADER or COMMANDER doesn’t get to pass the buck or shift blame or skirt responsibility. You ARE ultimately responsible. Obama is responsible AND he may be complicit with Petraeus in seeking to get himself out of a “trap” of going against the strong opposition growing in his own party. Keep in mind that Obama did NOT promise to end the war in Afghanistan during his campaign. He promised to spool down Iraq and focus on Afghanistan. He’s doing what he said he would do (in this one case, which is quite a switch for him). He is using Petraeus as his most credible tool to get what he wanted all along…AND he is also potentially sinking a potential opponent in 2012. If Afghanistan magically goes wonderful and roses, HE gets credit over and above Petraeus so Petraeus can’t claim it as soley his in 2012. If Afghanistan continues tanking, then Petraeus is damaged goods and cannot hold something over Obama. They BOTH take the blame for Afghanistan so that is neutralized as a campaign issue between them.
This doesn’t change the key fact, however, that it is CONGRESS that needs to be pressured to step up and force a step back. The problem is in assuming that Petraeus is undercutting or taking advantage of a weak Obama when I think Obama is fully on board.
It’s good cop/ bad cop. Petraeus is the bad cop. Obama gets to play good cop. We are trying to get out, but if the good general sees reason for us to stay?? What else can we do?
No, it is time to get a commander in chief who isn’t a spineless coward.
Yes – but no names comes to mind. WHO? Time to send this agent of “change” a get out of town ticket. You could not have found a more ardent supporter of the “fierce urgency of now.” Now the only urgency is getting him back to his pontificating and out of the way of extending Bush policies with multi syllable words. I do not know where the passion lies within this president – I believe he decided he did not want the job once he got it. It was the lights he enjoyed – he has no driving motivation for change of any sort. In fact, I believe he fears confrontation. It would be amazing to have some psych type profile the president and his father – there are some personality issues that are slowly revealing themselves to the public.
I totally agree…Petraeus is far to smart to do other than follow the President’s orders. This column is just being written for filling space and not paying attention to the nuances of what Petraeus is saying. Much ado about nothing.
Totally off base..turn off your hatred.
I found Petraeus assessment to be correct across the board. This is a complex situation because not just Afghanistan but a nuclear Pakistan. There is no right answer here as that “solution”, if you will was passed by long ago by the tepid actions of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Franks. Bad actors in the Afghanistan play, all.
You are overthinking what Obama is doing, I believe. We are going to give the Afghanis’ their best chance to succeed and then we are going to pull back, not out of Afghanistan or Pakistan but out of the fighting in the open. SOF and CIA will continue to work in both countries and the drones will continue to strike, I assure you; but we are not going to continue to chase either Taliban or Al Qaeda with conventional forces on the ground.
Nation building? 10 more years…a long slog.
Obama is absolutely desparate to keep Betrayus in the military and out of 2012.
Tough titty on that plan because WE CANNOT AFFORD IT. It really is that simple. We are NOT going to cut Social Security or Medicare. We are not going to totally toss food stamps, college loans, etc. People are NOT going to tolerate spending and spending on a war that has absolutely no upside to their lives whatsoever for an indefinite period of time.
It really is simple. At this point we are so dicked up by Iraq costs and spiraling Afghanistan costs AND the economic downturn that saw Bush and then Obama BOTH drop to their knees to fellate the bastards that caused it that we are simply going to have to cut bait. We cannot afford this crap anymore. Hell, it’s time to shut down at least half our overseas bases (leaving us with a “paltry” 350 to 400 to somehow get by with). It’s time to CUT “defense” spending (there’s nothing defensive about anything we’ve been doing for decades) and bring people and money back in country to spend on OUR people rather than on wasteful weapons and on killing goat herders and wedding parties. Whether or not what Betrayus says is true is irrelevant. We cannot afford it. It’s really that simple.
Smartest guys in the room…
Obama is more apt to put the dear General on this Presidential ticket than to fire him.