By Cernig
Barack Obama has said that he will vote to confirm General Petraeus as the new commander of CentCom.
"Yes," Obama told "Fox News Sunday" when asked if, as a senator from Illinois, he would approve Petraeus. "I think Petraeus has done a good tactical job in Iraq."
Obama has said he would start pulling out more troops as soon as he became president.
"My hope is that Petraeus would reflect that wider view of our strategic interest," he said on "Fox News Sunday."
"I will listen to General Petraeus given the experience that he has accumulated over the last several years," Obama said. "It would be stupid of me to ignore what he has to say."
"It would be my job as commander in chief to set the mission, to make the strategic decisions in light of the problems that we're having in Afghanistan, in light of the problems that we are having in Pakistan, the fact that al Qaeda is strengthening," Obama said.
It's the safe option, politically, as it's giving less fuel to the shrill Right's "Barack's a defeatocrat" sing-song (but they're still trying).
Republicans immediately jumped on his comments, saying Obama was avoiding the tough questions.
"Obama also said it would be 'stupid' to ignore commanders on the ground in Iraq, yet his withdrawal strategy does exactly that," Republican National Committee spokesman Alex Conant said in an e-mail. "If Obama isn't ready to answer tough questions, how can he be ready to be commander in chief?"
...Obama also said he was a "big respecter" of Petraeus' predecessor Adm. William Fallon, who resigned after a magazine article depicted him as openly criticizing Bush administration policy over Iran.
"It was unfortunate that the administration wasn't listening more to the observations of Fallon, that we have to think about more than just Iraq, that we've got issues with Iran and Pakistan and Afghanistan, and our singular focus on Iraq I think has distracted us," Obama said.
Heh, Fallon was a commander on the ground too until just last month and he said there wouldn't be an attack on Iran on his watch (he also reportedly wasn't too fond of Saint Pet). Does that mean that John "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" McCain is just as incapable of answering tough questions?
As I say, it's a safe decision but it still isn't necessarily the right one and I'm deeply disappointed that this means Petraeus is unlikely to come under the kind of tough questioning he should.
That one bothered me too C, more than anything else he said and I cringed several times. But he also said that while he would listen to Pet, he wouldn't let him dictate the overarching strategic goals. As a practical matter, it would have been sucidal for him to say anything more challenging, especially on Fox. And he did successfully dodge the question on whether he would remove Pet if they disagreed too strongly. That gives me tiny glimmer of hope.
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of tough questions, C.?
ReplyDeleteCombatant commanders have a lot of latitude under Goldwater-Nichols but when a President gives a direct order, they salute and carry it out. Where Fallon got in to trouble was not obliging the White House to provoke Iran without a paper trail
Questions about the advisability of following McCain's neocon FP advisors, Zen.
ReplyDeleteRegards, C
Petraeus isn't a "neocon" - a group that is not well-liked in the COIN community ( Feith and Bremer in particular are loathed). I'm sure he'll give the next president and secDef his frank military advice but engaging in public confict with the WH civilian leadership is highly unlikely, regardless of who the next POTUS might be.
ReplyDelete