First, there’s this report from ABC News:
Then, NBC News aired this before Obama arrived in Afghanistan:
Should Obama listen to his military commanders wishes of a phased withdrawal, not on timetables, or is it appropriate in his role as a potential commander-in-chief to be in open disagreement with military commanders?
Category: Catch-All
About JR Hoeft: Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter. View author profile.
Given the costs, is it worthwhile to explore for oil and natural gas off the coast of Virginia?
Total Voters: 139
Loading ...
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
I think his response was well reasoned. There are many, many facets to our conflict in Iraq, some of which lie outside the focus of the commanders on the ground. I don’t expect the field commanders to concern themselves with the socio-political implications of the war, nor the economic and financial impact of funding it. But I would be very disappointed in a president who did not take those and other factors into consideration when plotting our country’s future.
To answer your question, i believe on tactical matters regarding the war, the commanders on the ground are the best resource we have. But regarding long term strategic interests and implications, to act purely based on the narrow scope of their responsibities would be and abdication of responsibility.
Jeremy,
I would agree with your analysis, if that was what Obama was saying. At its root, Obama is saying he’s going to have a timeline. Commanders are saying that this is a bad tactical decision…exactly the narrow scope you view as their primary responsibility.
mmmm I remember reading something about civiliam control of the military…
I would argue that a timeline is not a tactical decision at all. A strategy defines a set a parameters and goals, within which tactics must be found and utilized to achieve those goals. A change in strategy can certainly impact the viability of certain tactics, and that is where i think the argument lies. The argument to my mind is the following:
We have finally found tactics that seem to be working and making progress with the current strategy. If the strategy is reoriented, it hampers the effectiveness of our current tactics.
But if our current strategy is misguided, it needs to be changed. And if that means we need to find a new set of tactics to see through the success of a new strategy, then thats what needs to happen. And i have faith in the ability of our military commanders to do just that.