And now we're controlling Boy Wonder by playing on his eagerness to show that the Democrats are tough on national security. He's a sucker for four-star generals, can't resist anyone in uniform. Petraeus and Odierno speak and he jumps. If we want to roll him, we just send in the military brass flashing their medals
Maureen Dowd, 5/23.
This is a meme we'll be watching -- frustration on the left that President Obama is incapable of asserting independence from his generals (agreeing to a delay in withdrawing from Iraq, agreeing to send more troops to Afghanistan, refusing to push on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, caving on the military photos) because he is either "a sucker" for their exaggerated deference to him as commander in chief, or because he is trying to ingratiate himself with them, or because the Clintonians in his midst are over-correcting for the last Boy President's falling out with his generals.
First-Are we predicting that Ms. Dowd is going to say this as today is only 5/20?
Second, as I said previously, maybe he is finding that actually running the military is a lot different that campaigning against it.
Obama has set himself up to be a different kind of politician. One who actually explains his actions. That goes far with a lot people even if we don't always agree with his actions. But in these areas, Obama has dissembled more than a few times, which naturally incurs suspicion and doubt. A truly confident and competent leader doesn't force people to guess at his motives, and a guessing game is exactly what's going on here. It's weak. And this stuff is important.
(Disclaimer: No defense of Maureen Dowd intended.)
BTW, is this her own thought, or did she find it on a blog?
It is unwise to join Iraq, Afghanistan, DADT, "caving on" the military photos together as if the are intertwined examples of Obama's deference to the generals. Each issue has its own distinct complexities.
A careful extrication from Iraq makes sense because the danger of an explosive, chaotic civil war is very real, and a potential return of American troops would be disastrous.
It is still not clear what the over-arching strategy is in Afghanistan. It seems the tactical approach is an untested theory of counter-insurgency based broadly on the 'hearts and minds' school that was abandoned early in the American war in Vietnam.
Obama's reticence on the DADT policy is a serious error for a host of reasons. From a CinC perspective he had better assert civilian authority over the Joint Chiefs, or Obama runs the risk of being subservient to the big boys. It is an ignorant and unworkable policy that is antithetical to our best interests. If Obama doesn't call the JCS in and simply tell them to "Do it and make sure it gets done," he'll lose the respect of the military. Now is the time.
Nothing will be gained by the release of the photos. It would be a propaganda coup for the Islam fundamentalists, ruin the photos use as evidence in any future legal action against the Bush administration, and only serves to distract the American public and sensationalist media from keeping their eye off the ball.
Mark, your examples of the "frustration on the left that President Obama is incapable of asserting independence from his generals (agreeing to a delay in withdrawing from Iraq, agreeing to send more troops to Afghanistan, refusing to push on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, caving on the military photos)" are riduculous. 1) Withdrawing from Iraq - campaigned on 16 months to withdraw combat troops, agreed to 19 -and this is some big example of "not asserting independence" - I don't think so. 2) Agreeing to send more troops to Afghanistan - exactly what he said he'd do during the campaign. 3) Refusing to push on DADT - one of those whiny "why didn't he do what I most wanted done first first" instead of those "they can wait until later" things like the economy, the banks, health care, energy, etc. 4) caving on the military photos - everyone knows they're going to be released, the DOD has admitted as much, so they're just delaying the inevitable, and the decision will be that of the courts.
I agree with your point but will like to add, Mark forget to give him credit for revealing the secret legal memo supporting torture over the objection from the military.
As I stated yesterday in a post DADT actually drives from US Code. It specifies:
A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that—
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.
Seems like the DADT ball is congress court...they pass the code.
Online Wholesale Nike Air Jordan,LV，coach,chanel,prada shoes. Newest woman handbags, Newest jeans,clothes and sunglasses. From www.welljordan.com Now Free Shipping.