That Obama & the military piece I mentioned? Just published at the Washington Independent, and if I can say so myself, I think it’ll be a helpful guide to understanding the civil-military relationship in an Obama administration’s first year. I had some people talk to me for this piece whom I was surprised were willing to talk. Here’s the lede:
Whether a Commander-in-Chief Obama can continue the tone that Candidate Obama sounded in July remains to be seen. According to interviews with active and retired military officers, Obama and the military can have a productive relationship, provided that Obama operates along some simple principles. Consult, don’t steamroll — and don’t capitulate. Be honest about disagreements, and emphasize areas of agreement. Make Petraeus a partner, not an adversary.
And here’s some highlights:
Defense Dept. officials today still believe Clinton’s early capitulation set a troublesome precedent. “If Clinton has simply ordered the military to lift the ban on gays in the military — as Truman did with racial integration against near universal opposition,” said one Pentagon official who requested anonymity, “he would have been much better off in dealing with the military for the rest of his administration. There would have been a big fuss, but they would have respected him more.”
The lesson for Obama, this official continued, is “not to get rolled or railroaded by the top brass, as Clinton and his civilian team were by Colin Powell,” who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time. “Obama and his team need to be respectful and solicitous of senior military advice, but leave no doubt about who is in charge.”
Anyway, I’m happy with this piece, maybe you think it sucks, whatever, tell me in comments.



6 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Hey Spencer – 7th paragraph – ““He didn’t serve, but he didn’t serve with distinction,” said Feaver, laughing.”
Who’s he talking about?
Is good.
If, as Nance suggests, Petraeus advocates and conducts an aggressive campaign in the Pashtun lands, what’s the harm? It’s unlikely he’ll do so without an understanding with the Pakistani regime and also unlikely that he’ll fail to respect the lives of his men or of the civilians.
Oh, Feaver means Obama. Maybe the joke doesn’t really translate to print, or maybe I just wasn’t clear.
What harm do I suggest?
I wasn’t suggesting that you suggested any.
I thought that your thought was how might Obama best initiated his relationship with the military. You had mentioned that some were of the opinion that Clinton had some trouble in establishing his proper dominence over Powell. My thought was that Obama might be well served by allowing Petraeus initial leeway.
I liked your piece and understood it to be professional reportage, rather than advocacy. If I’m mistaken or, in this instance, offensive, it was not deliberate.
If Petraeus is so important that he has to be made a partner, then maybe the best thing to do is to sack him, because he’s become too big for his job.