That is an Atom & His Package reference that also explains Obama’s bad McChrystal-review-leak day. (There’s also a Misfits reference, of course, embedded in there, but that’s all Atom’s doing.) Unfortunately I can’t find a video or audio clip to embed of the one that goes "It was Books/ my dog/ the box/ Brian/ Sokel and me…" but whatever. Here’s what I mean:
First, I don’t think McChrystal leaked the review, even though Josh Rogin suggested McChrystal’s people may have. Maybe Josh is right, as he’s an excellent reporter. But several officials, in Washington and Kabul, disputed that, and some of them are in positions to know. My initial suspicion was that it was Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who has been vocal recently about sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, but another trusted source doubted that as well. The consensus speculation: this was some staffer who wants more troops deployed who thinks he or she is helping his or her boss.
The other consensus is that such a person miscalculated. “Whoever did it, for whatever reason, this is boxing in the president and the secretary of defense in a harmful way,” said a Pentagon official. “Obama has made it clear that, unlike his predecessor, he will not simply do whatever the field commander says.” And it’s worth remembering that, again, Obama saw this assessment weeks ago and made a very deliberate statement in an interview about making his own judgment and privileging strategy over resources. A different official said that there was an office parlor game about when the strategy review would leak and how the resulting media frenzy would play out.
Not that I know who actually leaked it! That’s between the leaker, Woodward, and the Lord-thy-God. But I continue to hear stuff about how the impact of the leak may be the opposite of what the leak intended and the determination of the Obama administration not to get pressured or rushed into a fateful decision may be intensified. After all, if escalation was a foregone conclusion — or even that likely — there would have been no need to leak the report. Like I said before, it might be harder to stop an additional escalation now, but hard is not hopeless. (And I am determined to squeeze as much as I can out of that reference as possible.)



4 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Seems to me that if Obama wants to try to step away from the brink, even if only by standing pat, this actually helps him out. It will provide a forum for him and his administration to keep saying that he won’t make a decision on resources until they “get the strategy right”. This is a win for him for two reasons. First, it gives him a do-over on the strategy, allowing him to de-emphasize the Afghan insurgents as American enemies on the same level as al Quaeda, and also allowing him to find words he can use to walk back the whole “war of necessity” framework.
Whatever option he chooses, escalate, de-escalate or kick the can down the road, by the time he announces it people will have heard it endlessly discussed and analyzed so it won’t have much in the way of shock value…
mikey
That is one great fucking point, and I can’t believe I overlooked it.
I think this is very true. But there are a lot of people already freaking out about this report, taking it to mean that Obama will be sending more troops.
A quote from this new post of mine: