Woodward and Bush (Part 3)

It is clear that to me that Bob Woodward gets incredible access to the top officials in DC for two reasons. The first is that he's a good reporter with a solid reputation for fairness and accuracy. The second, and probably most important, is that senior officials in DC know that he is going to get other senior officials to talk...so they damn sure better get their side of the story in.

We see some of that at work in today's installment of the WaPost serialization of Woodward's next book. General Jack Keane was a former Army Vice Chief of Staff. Very well respected guy, and along with a fellow named Fred Kagan at the American Enterprise Institute, basically cooked up the surge strategy. Reading the article, it is clear that Keane shared freely with Woodward, just as it appears that General Casey (the Army Chief of Staff mentioned in the installment who had been General Petreaus' predecessor in Iraq) also freely shared. I can't imagine that Casey was the source for the meeting at Walter Reed (where Casey is said to have abruptly turned from Keane as if not recognizing him....doesn't exactly put Casey in a good light, does it?). And I can't can't imagine Mike Mullen (Chairman, JCS) was the source of the quotes from the meeting with Keane. In this kind of atmosphere, you get your story in, or you get painted by the others in the scenario in a way that makes you look bad. This is ultimately the secret to Woodward's reporting.

I've been a supporter of the War in Iraq from the beginning. I thought we were right to go in, I thought the President (and President Clinton) had been criticized after 9-11 for "not connecting the dots", and they weren't going to wait for the Iraq dot to connect with the Osama dot. Yes, I understand that there were all sorts of impediments to this liaison...but there were enough intelligence reports about contacts between AQ and Iraq to give a country recently scarred by terrorism all the justification it needed.

I also thought we went in dumb and undermanned. I was (like everyone else) awed by the land force's stunning victory...the tactics were superb, and our magnificent Army and Marine Corps could not have performed better. It was the planners who screwed up by not thinking about what comes next. General Shinseki (former Army Chief of Staff) had been pilloried for suggesting before Congress that some 300,000 troops would be needed to stabilize Iraq. Guess what...add our troop numbers and the Iraqi troops we've trained and what do we have today?

That said, once we went in, we had to win. I am so grateful to President Bush for the support he gave General Petreaus in this. I wish he had done so more publicly, but that was a political calculation that I understand. I'm sorry that Jack Keane had to put up with the kind of protests that he got from General Casey and Admiral Mullen, but like Keane said, this is Washington. Suck it up. Mullen and Casey had jobs to do and Keane was undercutting them. Don't get me wrong...I like what Keane was doing, I just think he knew what he was getting into when he went against the Joint Chiefs.

A bit about Admiral Mullen. I worked very closely with him in the Maritime Strategy effort. He called for its development, he provided the broad executive guidance, and he kept his nose in it all along the way. The man is a proven strategic thinker, a gentleman, and a fierce Washington player. It doesn't surprise me that he brought Keane in for a come-around. Keane was weakening the office of the Chairman and the other Chiefs (again...I agree with what Keane was doing). But I also agree with Mullen. There were other issues out there...North Korea, Afghanistan, Iran, Chavez in Venezuela...his job was to think about all of those and to make sure the military was prepared. But the decision to put it all on the line in Iraq was George Bush's decision, and he made it. Doesn't mean the Chiefs liked it, but they implemented it. Now, I don't think the President said to the Chiefs, "Boys, forget about the rest of the world and win Iraq". But he did promise Petreaus all he needed. So there was an inevitable tension between the mandate to win in Iraq and the mandate to stay watchful around the rest of the world. George Bush didn't need to openly confront the Chiefs...even the most powerful man in the world understands that they need to have their spheres of influence too...his private notes got the job done.

Another word about the American Enterprise Institute. I conducted a little "Maritime Strategy" road show in DC last Fall, hitting all the major think tanks in town. In every case but one, I had incredibly enlightening and intellectually stimulating discussions with folks who genuinely wanted to understand what we were advocating. When I went over to AEI, Fred Kagan (father of the surge) was in the room. He started out our session by proclaiming that he hadn't read the strategy, then he proceeded to rip it apart. Why? Because it wasn't completely devoted to winning the war in Iraq. He maintained that the Sea Services were in danger of becoming irrelevant because their strategy had not completely commited themselves to eradicating terrorism and winning the war in Iraq. When I asked about some of the other things Navies do (you know, providing stability in the Far East as a balance to a rising China, the force of choice for keeping Iran in the box, you know, little things like that) he had no time for it. Our exchange actually became heated...and at one point, he said, "Look, you're hear obviously looking for my support as you roll out this strategy, and you're not going to obtain it" to which I answered, "sir, I don't think your support was obtainable. You are so completely and personally invested in the success of the surge strategy in Iraq that you are unable to support anything that does not similarly devote itself to that effort." End of meeting.

Was he right? Hell no. But then again, he might have known that if he had read the strategy. (Side note: there was a DJ team here in DC called Don and Mike. They used to do "Movie reviews of movies we haven't seen yet. I accused Kagan of that, and got a laugh from the whole room). While we weren't in a mind to raise counterterrorism to the top of the heap (as in, we should build our Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard around counterterror and the war in Iraq), we thoroughly discussed how to change those services and how to capitalize on their strengths as methods of attacking root causes of terrorism. But Navies have a lot of other big jobs to do too.

Sorry bout this long winded post, but I thought I had something to offer.

Woodward and Bush

Bob Woodward has written another book on the Bush Administration (I think his fourth), and it is something I will definitely read. The Post is serializing it this week, with part 1 in this morning's paper.

Woodward's previous books about the Bush Administration were remarkable for the access he had and the people he got to talk to him. His stature as the best investigative reporter in the country is well earned, and it helps him get the sources he wants.

Few of the revelations in his books have been favorable to George Bush. One consistent theme in the books I've read however (which are in fact, first drafts of history) is how smart and engaged the President REALLY is. Read this article. You might disagree vehemently with George Bush's policies, you might think our entry into the War in Iraq was misguided and poorly executed...but if you continue to believe George Bush is stupid, incurious, walled off, unengaged or not up to the job...you have simply decided to ignore the growing body of evidence to the contrary.

On another note, General Petreaus' predecessor as Viceroy of Iraq is a guy named General George Casey. Casey apparently sang like a canary for Woodward in this book. After strategically misinterpreting Iraq throughout his two year tour there, he has decided to ensure his version of events make their way into the record. Oh...in case you're wondering what happened to General Casey? He was promoted to Army Chief of Staff. President Bush, like they say...if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.

Woodward and Bush (Part 2)

Part II of the WaPost serialization of Bob Woodward's new book is out today. Fascinating stuff, especially the inner machinations of the Joint Chiefs. It is obvious that Pete Pace simply ran out of steam at some point, as we saw in the summer of 2007 when he was replaced by Mike Mullen.

A couple of things to think about.

One of the beauties of this republic is civilian control of the military, and this series is showing just how beautiful that concept is (just as LBJ's target selection meetings showed how faulty it can also be). George Bush has assiduously avoided meddling in "the situation on the ground". He relied on the advice and counsel of his senior DOD and military advisers, he gave them what they asked for, and they made a mess of it. We hired him to lead, and so he did. He sought other opinions, asked probing questions...but more than anything else, he refused to lose. Professor Eliot Cohen has a great book called "Supreme Command" in which he details the relationships between Commanders in Chief and their subordinate military leaders. He concludes (among other things) that war is too important to be left solely to the generals (and admirals). Clausewitz had it right...war is a continuation of policy (politics). It is an inherently political act.

So when the Joint Chiefs got their panties in an uproar about "surging" and "breaking the force", because it was going to use up the "strategic reserve", the President made a political decision: that the use of the strategic reserve was called for in a situation in which we were about to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The Chiefs just never got this...they never understood the political dimension of losing in Iraq. Why did it have to take the President pointing out the chaos in a capital undercuts ANY real sense of progress elsewhere?

I'm also glad that it this book (again, a first draft of history), shows that there WAS disagreement between the JCS and the President, and that that disagreement was aired. The Chiefs didn't just sit in their offices and grouse. They disagreed with the President, and they told him so. Any public view of these guys as sycophants should be undercut by these revelations. Their job is to make their reservations known, to as articulately and forcefully advocate for their positions as they can, and then salute the flag and carry out the mission they are given. That's how our system works. Yes, they disagreed with the President. But there was no coup d'etat. We are not now ruled by a military junta. They went back to the drawing board and figured out how to implement the POLITICAL direction they were given by the Commander-in-Chief.

I hope you are all proud of how this process works. Again, you might not like the political objective chosen by the President, but the process is a damn sight better than anything else in the world.

Woodward's Book

This book isn't getting the coverage it deserves, which isn't really surprising since it makes O look like a totally weak sister.  (Remember the breathless coverage of Scott McClellan's book criticizing the Bush Administration?)    I could hardly put this one down, and encourage you all to read it.

There are some revealing passages on the character of some major players that may surprise you:  Mitch McConnell is not disagreeable, he's open to (and eminently capable of) compromise & negotiation, Harry Reid doesn't have much use for Obama's negotiating tactics, and Joe Biden is pretty skilled at the old-school pol game.  (Biden and Cantor actually have a good relationship...at one point, Biden told Cantor if he were in charge, things would be handled differently.)   Not surprising:  O wildly overestimates his skill in bringing people together, Valerie Jarrett is both clueless and insufferable, and Nancy Pelosi is a total moron (though I almost laughed out loud when encountering instances where both she and Reid completely blew off the President).

It spent a little too much time on the debt debacle, but did offer some background on the construction of the stimulus and some priceless tales on O's tortured relationship with the business community.  You'll find yourself wondering for the millionth time how this man got into this position and how he could have such a deficit of the interpersonal skills required of this job.   You could not possibly be disappointed in this book.

I do wonder how Woodward will fare on the Georgetown cocktail party circuit.

Obama and The Good War

While running for President and hoping to avoid the perception that as a Democrat, he was naturally soft on national security issues, Barack Obama joined the chorus of Democrats trying similarly to burnish their defense bona fides by criticizing the Bush administration for the war in Iraq--and its concomitant distraction from what they saw as "the good war" in Afghanistan, being waged against people who actually attacked us.

Most of us realized what that was then--a campaign gimmick, easy to pull given that a Republican was in the White House.

But now that the Dems are in the White House and control the Congress....the "good war" belongs to them. And it is getting ugly. Our Viceroy in Afghanistan, General (Afghani)Stanley McCrystal, recently produced a 66 page report for the President that basically says, "if we don't pour a bunch of troops in, we'll lose within a year". So that's what he gave the President--two options. Do what I want, or lose the war. Apparently the President didn't like those options--so he began some independent thinking with his national security staff. Someone--I don't know who but I have my suspicions--leaked the McCrystal report to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post--who published it yesterday. Now the cat's out of the bag and the President's got a real turd on his hands.

A couple of things:
1. This does not appear to be good staff work. Giving the President two options--this or lose--is not the way we're taught to do things. Make your staff stretch--even if it results in a low probability of success course of action--and send that COA up with a statement of low confidence.
2. This leak is dirty pool, even in Washington DC. This was designed specifically to embarrass the President and to tie his hands.
3. The President should absolutely now seek another opinion, some other options. Even if he eventually does what McCrystal asks, he is obligated to listen to other opinions. Do I have one? No. I am so out of my depth when it comes to Afghanistan it isn't even funny. But there are good, smart people out there who can help.

Bob Woodward and the Obama Administration

Bob Woodward treated us to oh, four books about the inner-workings of the Bush Administration in its eight years of existence. I've written about those books here. I generally enjoyed them, and I was always astonished at his ability to get those on the inside to sing....

I can only hope that Mr. Woodward is currently at work on a similar look inside the Obama White House. He did manage to squeeze one whole book out about the Clinton 8 years (The Agenda), so we'll see if his industry takes a similar dive with another Democrat in the White House.

♫ Where Have All the Conservatives Gone?...Long Time Passing ♫

Interesting piece today in the Washington Post (by our old friend Bob Woodward) describing Newt's troubles with the Republican establishment, specifically the 1990 budget deal between George Bush and Congressional Democrats. Woodward's thesis is that Gingrich was an uncompromising, emotionally unstable jerk who had a problem with authority and betrayed a sitting President thereby facilitating his eventual defeat. Perhaps, but if the 1990 version of Newt were running for President, I would be an enthusiastic supporter.

Compromise is overrated. Compromise is a politician's default position, not a leader's. Say what you will about Obama, Pelosi, Reed et al., when they had the power they didn't compromise. They have their policies and the opposition be damned. I respect that. Compromise is what happens when you have exhausted every possible avenue to winning. I think Maggie Thatcher described the Romney wing of the party exactly: "“If you just set out to be liked, you will be prepared to compromise on anything at anytime, and would achieve nothing. ” Amen.