Joe Klein wonders why Gen. Stanley McChrystal's confidential report on Afghanistan to Defense Secretary Robert Gates--in which he states that not sending more troops "will likely result in failure"--got leaked to The Washington Post's Bob Woodward. While everyone expected to get some sort of picture of McChrystal's Afghanistan outlook, Klein surmises:
What's provocative about the report is that it was leaked to Woodward--a serious breach of conduct by someone, possibly in the military (or a supporter the military's position). This was an effort to lobby a quick decision on troop strength--which the military wants, so that it can begin planning the 2010 fighting season in Afghanistan. But a quick decision is not a good idea right now.
It's worth pointing out, however, that the leak helps the White House, not just the military, if it's decided it must follow McChrystal's advice. The left's resistance to America's commitment in Afghanistan has grown since 2008, and, given the deference President Obama has shown his generals so far, and since we're coming off several years in which Democrats painted Afghanistan as the justified war (as opposed to Iraq, the unjustified one), it wouldn't be surprising if Obama believes he needs to follow his new commander's advice, at least in the first go round. Leaking McChrystal's blunt words gives cover to anyone wishing to follow his recommendation.
It's not helpful to Obama if you consider the timing. He could have leaked this himself is he just wanted the bump in support from the public awareness of its contents. If you believe Obama that he hasn't made a decision yet, then this forces his hand, lest he appear indecisive and weak. The person who leaked this is no friend of the administration, at least in regards to waiting for the pres to make his decision. And if you notice, it directly challenges the takeaway from Obama's Sunday show appearances on the subject, and takes the discussion yet again away from health care.
Marc,
It seems like this is from Anthony Cordesman, an advisor to McChrystal who has been advocating for a large amount of troops for some time now.
Well, they are leaving Iraq, after what seems like centuries. so hopefully getting out of Afghanistan will happen as quick as possible.
Bands
Well, they are leaving Iraq, after what seems like centuries. so hopefully getting out of Afghanistan will happen as quick as possible.
Bands
It seems to me that the only guy who's holding the President hostage is the President, by virtue going on TV yesterday and baldly lying about the recommendations he received. They were sure to be made public sooner or later.
I'm old enough to remember when the press thought leaks were a good thing.
All this talk about "why" by Klein and yourself, and no mention of the context. Is it mere coincidence that it was leaked the same day that Obama went around on all (but one) of the major networks talking about skepticism on troop numbers?
It seems that the leak was done by someone wanting to create some Beltway BS drama about tension between the WH and DOD/military or to push back against Obama's skepticism on numbers lest that skepticism become the conventional wisdom. These seem to be more likely scenarios, but on the other side, the WH might want some drama here to show that Obama isn't just rubber-stamping DOD requests, or possibly to move up public discussions about troop numbers (rather than have them drag out over the next month while the Pentagon diddles with edits as it gets run up the chain).