World  
comments_image Comments

Is the Military Undermining the Constitution?

According to Bob Woodward's new book, the Pentagon gamed the Afghan war decision to the military's liking (with Woodward's help.) Meanwhile, perpetual war is on Petraeus' agenda.

Continued from previous page

 
 
Share
 
 
 

Back in 2002, for example, during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Woodward treated us to  Bush at War.  Based on interviews with unidentified officials close to President George W. Bush, the book offered a portrait of the president-as-resolute-war-leader that put him in a league with Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt.  But the book’s real juice came from what it revealed about events behind the scenes.  “Bush’s war cabinet is riven with feuding,”  reported the Times of London, which credited Woodward with revealing “the furious arguments and personal animosity” that divided Bush’s lieutenants. 

Of course, the problem with the Bush administration wasn’t that folks on the inside didn’t play nice with one another.  No, the problem was that the president and his inner circle committed a long series of catastrophic errors that produced an unnecessary and grotesquely mismanaged war.  That war has cost the country dearly -- although the people who engineered that catastrophe, many of them having pocketed handsome advances on their forthcoming memoirs, continue to manage quite well, thank you. 

To judge by the publicity blitzkrieg announcing the arrival of Obama’s Wars in your local bookstore , the big news out of Washington is that, even today, politics there remains an intensely competitive sport, with the participants, whether in anger or frustration, sometimes speaking ill of one another. 

Essentially, news reports indicate, Woodward has updated his script from 2002.  The characters have different names, but the plot remains the same.  Talk about jumping the shark.

So we learn that Obama political adviser David Axelrod doesn’t fully trust Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  National security adviser James Jones, a retired Marine general, doesn’t much care for the likes of Axelrod, and will say so behind his back.  Almost everyone thinks Richard Holbrooke, chief State Department impresario of the AfPak portfolio, is a jerk.  And -- stop the presses -- when under the influence of alcohol, General David Petraeus, commander of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, is alleged to use the word “f**ked.”  These are the sort of shocking revelations that make you a headliner on the Sunday morning talk shows.

Based on what we have learned so far from those select few provided with advance copies of the book -- mostly reporters for the Post and The New York Times who, for whatever reason, seem happy to serve as its shills -- Obama’s Wars contains hints of another story, the significance of which seems to have eluded Woodward.

The theme of that story is not whether Dick likes Jane, but whether the Constitution remains an operative document.  The Constitution explicitly assigns to the president the role of commander-in-chief.  Responsibility for the direction of American wars rests with him.  According to the principle of civilian control, senior military officers advise and execute, but it's the president who decides.  That's the theory, at least.  Reality turns out to be considerably different and, to be kind about it, more complicated.  

Obama’s Wars reportedly contains this commentby President Obama to Secretary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates regarding Afghanistan:  "I'm not doing 10 years... I'm not doing long-term nation-building. I am not spending a trillion dollars."

Aren’t you, Mr. President?  Don’t be so sure.

Obama’s Wars also affirms what we already suspected about the decision-making process that led up to the president’s announcement at West Point in December 2009 to prolong and escalate the war.  Bluntly put, the Pentagon gamed the process to exclude any possibility of Obama rendering a decision not to its liking.

Pick your surge: 20,000 troops? Or 30,000 troops?  Or 40,000 troops?  Only the most powerful man in the world -- or Goldilocks contemplating three bowls of porridge -- could handle a decision like that.  Even as Obama opted for the middle course, the real decision had already been made elsewhere by others: the war in Afghanistan would expand and continue.

 
See more stories tagged with: