"The War Within": Woodward on the Surge

[Zissou]

Therein lies the rub of most leaks, it is not done by people out to get the ones in power......it is more often the ones in power who do the leaking.

Dana Priest's story about the OGA prison program was 100% hand delivered in the same fashion. Though, there was malice behind that one I believe. Its funny to hear guy's bitching about how she undermined an important program knowing full well the people who run it, gave her the the whole barrel of monkees.

Her story about the abysmal conditions at the W.Reed recovery and rehabilitation barracks earned her some serious respect from guys who usually bristle at the mention of her name.

She checks her facts well and my eyes have bugged out a few times reading her work. Too factual to be casually collected information.

 

[wink]

Haven't read the book. It always seems like Woodward blows with the prevailing wind a bit much. Lately it has been, war going well and President popular, favorable book. War not going well President not popular, unfavorable book. I'll try to get to the articles today. Read this about the book in the WSJ.
http://online.wsj.com/article/main_street.html

 

[Flash]

Dana Priest's story about the OGA prison program was 100% hand delivered in the same fashion. Though, there was malice behind that one I believe. Its funny to hear guy's bitching about how she undermined an important program knowing full well the people who run it, gave her the the whole barrel of monkees.

I would argue that is the norm for the the majority leaks. A lot less malice than you would think in most cases, though you are probably right in the prison case, and a lot more of the 'I have a secret' disease.

 

[Zissou]

"I have a secret disease" by Flash

Consider that one stolen Sir.

 

[busdriver]

I'll say that while Woodward obviously (in my estimation) has real access to the secret squirrel program. On the other hand, not to denigrate my SOF brethren but their efforts are only a stalling action. While they kill the bad guys, the real effort is to win the confidence of the population, which is largely left to the grunt patrolling and interacting with the locals. COIN is a weird bastard, where the real fight is left to the the non-elite normal military.

 

[wink]

OK, so I haven't read the book yet, but I have read all four articles. Considering the Woodward articles and other reporting, does anyone else notice how the Viet Nam experience effected all the big players, yet differently? Seems like Bush was determined not to run the war from the White House. He let the military, too include SECDEF, pretty much determine the course taken, too a fault. The JCS and other senior officers seemed to be determined not to get involved in anything that was remotely like Viet Nam, ie insurgency. They were concerned about force protection nearly to a fault. There was more talk about getting out then winning. I don't blame the President for making some of the comments Woodward claims he made to Gen. Casey questioning his commitment to victory. When Gen Casey and other senior military leaders painted a rosy picture so they might justify an early withdrawal, and the president believed them because he didn't want to second guess his military experts, the spectre of Viet Nam was looming over their shoulders. Unfortunately, the lessons taken away by both sides caused them to work at cross purposes.

 

[Flash]

OK, so I haven't read the book yet, but I have read all four articles. Considering the Woodward articles and other reporting, does anyone else notice how the Viet Nam experience effected all the big players, yet differently?

Good insight, hadn't thought of it that way. Definitely something to consider when you consider why they made their decisions.

 

[Spekkio]

Very interesting read.

I find it ironic that a lot of the public's negative opinion of Bush arises from his inability to publicly acknowledge that the strategy in Iraq was failing when it was plainly obvious that it was, yet Bush acknowledged just that in private.

 

[wink]

I find it ironic that a lot of the public's negative opinion of Bush arises from his inability to publicly acknowledge that the strategy in Iraq was failing when it was plainly obvious that it was, yet Bush acknowledged just that in private.

That is because the public and especially the press have no idea what military leadership or the burden of command is like. Bush as a clueless idiot that couldn't see the facts for what they were is the narrative they want to believe. Bush as the Commander in Chief with real responsibilities and decisions to make based on conflicting and incomplete information that the average person can not fathom, is something they refuse to accept.
I suppose that someone they view as sophisticated and hyper intelligent would get the benefit of their doubt, even though there was no other evidence he had any idea what he was doing.

 

[Spekkio]

Perhaps, but just like the JCS can tell sniff when a President is pretending to take their advice, John Q. Public can still sniff when the President is bullshitting them. He can't give a flowery speech about the situation in Iraq amidst reports of escalating violence and expect people, who are normally suspicious of politicians, to believe him.

I understand why the President wouldn't want to publicly announce dischord between the White House and the JCS, but it makes me wonder if there was some other approach than getting on a podium and giving a speech that doesn't even support what he really believed.

The article definitely gave me a greater appreciation for what the President has to deal with, and a greater respect for the decisions that Bush had to make, though.

 

[raptor10]

Perhaps, but just like the JCS can tell sniff when a President is pretending to take their advice, John Q. Public can still sniff when the President is bullshitting them. He can't give a flowery speech about the situation in Iraq amidst reports of escalating violence and expect people, who are normally suspicious of politicians, to believe him.

I understand why the President wouldn't want to publicly announce dischord between the White House and the JCS, but it makes me wonder if there was some other approach than getting on a podium and giving a speech that doesn't even support what he really believed.

The article definitely gave me a greater appreciation for what the President has to deal with, and a greater respect for the decisions that Bush had to make, though.

Perpetual optimism is a force multiplier.

~Colin Powell

 

[eddie]

Perpetual optimism is a force multiplier.

~Colin Powell

Even when the senior managment can't agree or even communicate to each other properly (as the article suggests)?

 

[wink]

Even when the senior management can't agree or even communicate to each other properly (as the article suggests)?

Lance Corporal Smith humping the mountains of Afghanistan doesn't have a clue whether Gen Casey is being straight with the President. For that matter, at the time neither did the public. What the general public thinks is less important then the guys at the tip of the spear who's commander the president is. And if the public were to doubt the president when he is more upbeat then the press reports, it presupposes that the public trusts the press to give it to them straight. You seen the poll numbers on the publics trust of the press lately? They are viewed only marginally more trustworthy then politicians. The public has more trust in the military then any other institution. If the president says he trusts his generals and the commanders in theater and they tell him it is going well (and Casey said just that through many months of decline) he can't do any better then that.

 

[eddie]

Lance Corporal Smith humping the mountains of Afghanistan doesn't have a clue whether Gen Casey is being straight with the President. For that matter, at the time neither did the public. What the general public thinks is less important then the guys at the tip of the spear who's commander the president is. And if the public were to doubt the president when he is more upbeat then the press reports, it presupposes that the public trusts the press to give it to them straight. You seen the poll numbers on the publics trust of the press lately? They are viewed only marginally more trustworthy then politicians. The public has more trust in the military then any other institution. If the president says he trusts his generals and the commanders in theater and they tell him it is going well (and Casey said just that through many months of decline) he can't do any better then that.

I wasn't thinking about it so much with regards to the public, but more internally: challenges of carrying out policy that isn't necessarily working.

Although I am intrigued by polling that says people don't trust the press, and do trust the military. While I am sure people poll that way, does behavior really line up with that? "You can't trust politicians, but Barack Obama is going to save the world!"

"Mission Accomplished," is a (the?) favorite of those against this war. Would they have been any kinder to a president who did not potray so "rosy" (their words, not mine) a picture when things started to get ugly over there? I don't know. People are pre-disposed to their chosen notions, fickle, and self-centered... I think.

 

[raptor10]

"Mission Accomplished," is a (the?) favorite of those against this war. Would they have been any kinder to a president who did not potray so "rosy" (their words, not mine) a picture when things started to get ugly over there? I don't know. People are pre-disposed to their chosen notions, fickle, and self-centered... I think.

According to these guys, no:[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]Half-Life The Radioactive Nature of Warfare Support