Today's News at A Glance
"Obama didn't believe his own war strategy: Robert Gates
The News International-37 minutes ago. January 08, 2014 From Web Edition
WASHINGTON: Former defense secretary Robert Gates has delivered a scathing critique of President Barack Obama's handling of the war in Afghanistan in a revealing new memoir, US media reported Tuesday.
In "Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary of War," Gates recounts how Obama appeared to lack faith in a war strategy he had approved and the commander he named to lead it, General David Petraeus, and did not like Afghan President Hamid Karzai, according to The New York Times and The Washington Post.
"As I sat there, I thought: the president doesn't trust his commander, can't stand Karzai, doesn't believe in his own strategy and doesn't consider the war to be his," Gates writes of a March 2011 meeting in the White House.
"For him, it's all about getting out."
Having approved deploying more than 30,000 forces after an acrimonious White House debate, the US president seemed plagued by doubts and surrounded by civilian aides who sowed distrust with the military, Gates writes.
Obama was "skeptical if not outright convinced it would fail," Gates writes in the memoir, which is due to be released on January 14. In contrast to his subdued, even-keeled public demeanor as Pentagon chief, Gates strikes a sometimes bitter tone in his memoir.
Gates, a former CIA director whose career dates back to the Nixon administration, voices frustration at the "controling nature" of Obama's White House, which he says constantly interfered in Pentagon affairs, even though civilian aides lacked an understanding of military operations.
The White House national security staff "took micromanagement and operational meddling to a new level," he writes, comparing the approach to the Nixon era of the 1970s.
"All too early in the administration," Gates writes, "suspicion and distrust of senior military officers by senior White House officials -- including the president and vice president -- became a big problem for me as I tried to manage the relationship between the commander-in-chief and his military leaders."
After a tense meeting on Afghanistan in September 2009, Gates says he came close to resigning because he was "deeply uneasy with the Obama White House's lack of appreciation -- from the top down -- of the uncertainties and unpredictability of war."
A statement from National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden later defended Obama's record on Afghanistan. "It is well know that the President has been committed to achieving the mission of disrupting, dismantling and defeating Al-Qaeda, while also ensuring that we have a clear plan for winding down the war..." Hayden said.
Hayden also hit back at Gates' assertion that Vice President Joe Biden had been "wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades."
"The President disagrees with Secretary Gates' assessment... Joe Biden has been one of the leading statesmen of his time and has helped advance America's leadership in the world," she said.
Gates, however, gives credit to Obama for approving the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan, which he himself initially opposed. It was "one of the most courageous decisions I had ever witnessed in the White House."
Although Gates heaps praise on former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, he is stunned by an exchange between Obama and Clinton in which the two openly admitted they opposed a troop surge in Iraq in 2007 for purely political reasons.
"To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying," he says. Gates helped oversee the deployment of additional troops to Iraq during the Bush administration. A Republican, Gates served under ex-president George W. Bush and was asked to stay on at the Pentagon for two years after Obama entered office." (AFP) http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI think this show's us the difficulties of America's foreign policy, and the problem's with trying to police the world.
[b]Today's News at A Glance
"Obama didn't believe his own war strategy: Robert Gates
The News International-37 minutes ago. January 08, 2014 From Web Edition
WASHINGTON: Former defense secretary Robert Gates has delivered a scathing critique of President Barack Obama's handling of the war in Afghanistan in a revealing new memoir, US media re ...[text shortened]... tagon for two years after Obama entered office." (AFP) http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn[/b]
Lindsey Graham uses Gates book to hit W.H
By LUCY MCCALMONT | 1/8/14 7:18 AM EST
"Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham is pointing a finger at President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, saying they are to blame for the recent Al Qaeda progression in Iraq, following the release of critical passages of former Defense Secretary Bob Gates’s book.
“I blame Obama and Biden for not listening to their commanders, rejecting sound advice and Bob Gates talks about that in his book, how military commanders were overruled by the political people in the White House,” Graham said Tuesday on Fox News’s “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.”
The South Carolina senator cites criticism Gates provided in his forthcoming memoir — “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War” — of the tension between the White House and military officials.
Graham’s comments also echo those of Arizona Sen. John McCain, his colleague on the Senate Armed Services Committee, who also slammed Obama and his administration after news that Al Qaeda regained control in parts of Fallujah and Ramadi.
Graham hit Obama on his handling of other foreign policy issues including Syria, Iran sanctions and Afghanistan.
“These chemical weapons in Syria and all the weapons in the Middle East are now about to fall in the hands of the most radical hands on the planet, and I blame President Obama; he is AWOL when it comes to leadership,” Graham said."
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/robert-gates-book-lindsey-graham-101886.html
Originally posted by bill718Where are the other western democracies, supposed US allies, in fighting Islamic radicals? As long as the US is the only country at the forefront of this battle, we will suck ourselves dry of resources and radical Islamic forces will gain in strength. Under Obama, we have moved significantly towards oil independence from the Middle East. The less we need their oil, the less the West will need to get involved in the internal affairs of these countries.
I think this show's us the difficulties of America's foreign policy, and the problem's with trying to police the world.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyAnother instance where Republicans are grossly out of step with the American people. Perhaps McCain, Graham, Gates et. al. would be happy if the US was still in Iraq killing and being killed and perhaps they'd like an infinite commitment of forces to Afghanistan, but the people of this country have had enough of these adventures.
[b]Today's News at A Glance
"Obama didn't believe his own war strategy: Robert Gates
The News International-37 minutes ago. January 08, 2014 From Web Edition
WASHINGTON: Former defense secretary Robert Gates has delivered a scathing critique of President Barack Obama's handling of the war in Afghanistan in a revealing new memoir, US media re ...[text shortened]... tagon for two years after Obama entered office." (AFP) http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn[/b]
Originally posted by PhrannyYeah, when islamic radical rebels were advancing in Mali recently, it was the US, unassisted by any other country, who sent troops to fight them. The US sent a whopping 0 troops, supported only by a measly 3000 French and 545 EU troops.
Where are the other western democracies, supposed US allies, in fighting Islamic radicals? As long as the US is the only country at the forefront of this battle, we will suck ourselves dry of resources and radical Islamic forces will gain in strength. Under Obama, we have moved significantly towards oil independence from the Middle East. The less we need ...[text shortened]... eir oil, the less the West will need to get involved in the internal affairs of these countries.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI stand corrected. Maybe we need a more unified approach to be more effective.
Yeah, when islamic radical rebels were advancing in Mali recently, it was the US, unassisted by any other country, who sent troops to fight them. The US sent a whopping 0 troops, supported only by a measly 3000 French and 545 EU troops.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThat intervention was no more justified than the American invasion of Iraq; it was just another neo-colonial adventure.
Yeah, when islamic radical rebels were advancing in Mali recently, it was the US, unassisted by any other country, who sent troops to fight them. The US sent a whopping 0 troops, supported only by a measly 3000 French and 545 EU troops.
Originally posted by no1marauderI wasn't taking any sides with respect to the wisdom of the intervention, I was merely pointing out that the claim that the US is the only nation fighting islamic radicals is false.
That intervention was no more justified than the American invasion of Iraq; it was just another neo-colonial adventure.
Originally posted by PhrannyWe'll need those resources until we start to develop our own.
Where are the other western democracies, supposed US allies, in fighting Islamic radicals? As long as the US is the only country at the forefront of this battle, we will suck ourselves dry of resources and radical Islamic forces will gain in strength. Under Obama, we have moved significantly towards oil independence from the Middle East. The less we need ...[text shortened]... eir oil, the less the West will need to get involved in the internal affairs of these countries.