Michael Steele: Afghanistan "is a War of Obama's Choosing"

[rocketsjudoka]

This sounds like either a major gaffe or else Michael Steele has completely forgotten recent history. I'm guessing that his days as RNC chair are numbered.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38062497/ns/politics

GOP chair's Afghan war remark stirs firestorm
Steele called conflict 'a war of Obama's choosing'

by PHILIP ELLIOTT

updated 7/2/2010 1:32:16 PM
Share Print Font: +-WASHINGTON — Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele says Afghanistan is "a war of Obama's choosing" and the conflict "is not something the United States has actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in," comments that drew an immediate rebuke from Democrats and a call from at least one Republican for him to resign.

In remarks captured Thursday on camera and posted online, Steele criticized President Barack Obama and his handling of the nine-year-old war begun by Republican President George W. Bush in response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

"If he's such a student of history, has he not understood that, you know, that's the one thing you don't do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? All right? Because everyone who's tried, over a thousand years of history, has failed," Steele said. "And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan."

Republican officials confirmed Steele made the comments at a Connecticut fundraiser, which was closed to the media. The remarks, at odds with many in the Republican Party, were caught on camera and posted on the Web.

"This was a war of Obama's choosing," Steele said. "This is not something the United States has actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."

The United States and allies overthrew Afghanistan's Taliban government after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. The war lagged as the United States shifted its focus to Iraq, but Obama shifted the focus to Afghanistan and planned to send 30,000 more troops to the country.

Looking to mitigate the political fallout, Steele issued a statement Friday, saying, "There is no question that America must win the war on terror. ... And, for the sake of the security of the free world, our country must give our troops the support necessary to win this war."

He said, "The stakes are too high for us to accept anything but success in Afghanistan."

Steele's comments came as Obama's new chief in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus, arrived in the country Friday to take over the war. Obama last week dismissed his previous commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, after he made disparaging comments about his superiors in a Rolling Stone interview.

Steele called the dismissal "very comical" but said it shows the frustration members of the military have with Obama.

Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse said it was "simply unconscionable that Michael Steele would undermine the morale of our troops when what they need is our support and encouragement. Michael Steele would do well to remember that we are not in Afghanistan by our own choosing, that we were attacked and that his words have consequences."

Conservative Bill Kristol, writing for The Weekly Standard, said Steele should resign.

"There are, of course, those who think we should pull out of Afghanistan, and they're certainly entitled to make their case," wrote Kristol, a consistent supporter of the Afghanistan war. "But one of them shouldn't be the chairman of the Republican Party."

RNC spokesman Doug Heye said in a statement that Steele "clearly supports our troops but believes that success of the war effort in Afghanistan requires the ongoing support of the American people," RNC spokesman Doug Heye said in a statement. "The responsibility for building and maintaining that strategy falls squarely on the shoulders of the president."

Steele has been prone to gaffes that have enraged congressional Republicans. In the last year, he predicted the GOP won't win House control this fall. He also drew GOP ire when he criticized fellow Republicans in a book that party leaders didn't know he was writing until it was published. His GOP critics were irked further when he told them to "get a life" and "shut up."

Earlier this year, his oversight of the RNC was called into question because of lavish spending, including money to entertain donors at a lesbian bondage club in Los Angeles.

[Batman Jones]

Steele a surrender monkey?! basso will be so disappointed in his guy... though I'm sure he will enjoy the historic revisionism of which he is always so fond.

[A_3PO]

Steele has gone too far this time. He is done as RNC chairman.

[Sweet Lou 4 2]

GOP really needs to clean up it's act here. What happened to this party?

[geeimsobored]

So Michael Steele...

advocates cutting and running from Afghanistan
is bringing aid and comfort to the enemy
isn't supporting the troops
is ignoring the generals on the battlefield
etc... etc...

I'm sure I missed some.

[FranchiseBlade]

he's an appeaser.

[rimrocker]

Steele's an idiot. I'm amazed he's lasted this long, but hey, the runner-up for his job was an overt racist, so what's the GOP to do?

He'll definitely be out after the elections... however, don't cry for Michael... 2 years of livin' large will set him up to appear on talk radio and an occasional spot on Maher.

[pouhe]

Great, get Romney or Palin in there. Now Steele can go be a Libertarian or something.

[pouhe]

Earlier this year, his oversight of the RNC was called into question because of lavish spending, including money to entertain donors at a lesbian bondage club in Los Angeles.

Who-wha...?

[MrRoboto]

Who-wha...?

Well, those wacky Republicans. They get their boys at the office or in public restrooms and their girls at the bondage club.

[basso]

Steele a surrender monkey?! basso will be so disappointed in his guy... though I'm sure he will enjoy the historic revisionism of which he is always so fond.

his comments are unbecoming of an american citizen. steele should go. period.

[Bandwagoner]

I am so freaking tired of this war. I said in 2008 either try to win or GTFO. I was against sending more troops but if you are going to send more send enough to do the job. This middle of the road BS is killing people.

[A_3PO]

I am so freaking tired of this war. I said in 2008 either try to win or GTFO. I was against sending more troops but if you are going to send more send enough to do the job. This middle of the road BS is killing people.
So you agree with Michael Steele? 30,000+ more troops isn't enough? What "middle of the road BS" are you talking about? Petraeus and McChrystal put the strategy together and nobody has held them back at all the last 12 months. Throwing more troops in the mix probably won't do any good.

I think you will be getting your wish. The momentum for leaving Afghanistan will accelerate significantly if results over the summer are dismal. Pelosi and liberal Dems will start putting the big squeeze on Obama to change strategy. A few GOPers might chime in too.

[glynch]

On a positive note, despite Steele's craziness I think it bodes well for the troops in that they will be coming home soon. Steele is just reflecting the American public in a wierd way. The American public is soured on the war and the Afghans don't all like the Taliban, but they prefer them to who we might like. If nothing else, they prefer to settle it themselves.

The politicians are the last to know and like Obama are afraid to support the troops by bringing them home and risk losing some votes.


We will have the neo-cons and their fellow travellers claiming for years that it was the liberal press and perhaps even Jane Fonda that caused us to lose the glorious Afghan War.

The GOP and the conservatives will be scared ****less of a peace dividend that might lead for money to rebuild the infrastructure, invest in solar and public schools and will search frantically for a new enemy big enough to keep the military industrial complex busy.

[A_3PO]

On a positive note, despite Steele's craziness I think it bodes well for the troops in that they will be coming home soon. Steele is just reflecting the American public in a wierd way. The American public is soured on the war and the Afghans don't all like the Taliban, but they prefer them to who we might like. If nothing else, they prefer to settle it themselves.

The politicians are the last to know and like Obama are afraid to support the troops by bringing them home and risk losing some votes.


We will have the neo-cons and their fellow travellers claiming for years that it was the liberal press and perhaps even Jane Fonda that caused us to lose the glorious Afghan War.
If the results in Afghanistan continue to be dismal, the debate will change significantly after the November elections. Politically, Obama can't afford to announce major changes now because the timing isn't right. One exception: If Petraeus comes out in public to give him cover against right-wing hawks in the GOP.

Petraeus is the key to the whole war. He is THE man and it will be hard for Obama to contradict him in any way.

[Dubious]

Obama has left the July 2011 option purposely vaugue. We are commited to some kind of a Summer offensive. He will navigate this crapfest to the best result we can acheive, which is probably an elected, Taliban sympathetic compromise that won't allow plots to attack America on Afghan soil, and sells out to Chinese mining interest.

For Afghanistan, thats a win.

[Deckard]

It's a miracle Steele can walk. He's had his foot in his mouth so often that there has to be missing parts by now.

[Ottomaton]

Petraeus is the key to the whole war. He is THE man and it will be hard for Obama to contradict him in any way.

If that is the case, Obama should fire Petraeus right away. The idea of military leadership dictating events to the duly elected civilian C-in-C of the country is offensive to everything this country stands for. It is only one small step away from treason, and it is a far step beyond what got McChrystal fired.

I personally think that Petraeus has shown a much better understanding of the subordinate nature of his position. For instance, when congress has tried to question Petraeus about his personal differences with Obama thus far, Petraeus has deferred absolutely to Obama and even refused to talk to congress about where his personal opinions diverge from Obama's plans. And apparently, as a pretty right-wing guy, Petraeus has disagreed quite a bit with Obama behind closed doors.

In short, as a pretty political guy himself, Petraeus understands and respects the chain of command and the separation of military and civilian politics better than to try something like that.

[glynch]

If that is the case, Obama should fire Petraeus right away. The idea of military leadership dictating events to the duly elected civilian C-in-C of the country is offensive to everything this country stands for. It is only one small step away from treason, and it is a far step beyond what got McChrystal fired.

.

Petreus is only key in that he can give the poll watching Obama a chance to hide behind Petreus's ribbons and bring the troops home.

[A_3PO]

Petreus is only key in that he can give the poll watching Obama a chance to hide behind Petreus's ribbons and bring the troops home.
This is exactly what I meant. On the other side, if Petraeus does not advocate bringing the troops home, Obama will have a very hard time doing so because of the general's stature.

[rocketsjudoka]

If that is the case, Obama should fire Petraeus right away. The idea of military leadership dictating events to the duly elected civilian C-in-C of the country is offensive to everything this country stands for. It is only one small step away from treason, and it is a far step beyond what got McChrystal fired.

I think you are mistaking Petraeus advising Obama with him taking over the government.

I personally think that Petraeus has shown a much better understanding of the subordinate nature of his position. For instance, when congress has tried to question Petraeus about his personal differences with Obama thus far, Petraeus has deferred absolutely to Obama and even refused to talk to congress about where his personal opinions diverge from Obama's plans. And apparently, as a pretty right-wing guy, Petraeus has disagreed quite a bit with Obama behind closed doors.

In short, as a pretty political guy himself, Petraeus understands and respects the chain of command and the separation of military and civilian politics better than to try something like that.

Petraeus is certainly a politically savy guy but part of his job is to give his honest advice to the Presidency as long as he does it with due deference and keeps disagreements out of the public eye.

[Ottomaton]

I think you are mistaking Petraeus advising Obama with him taking over the government.


I think you are mistaking dictating terms and trying to issue commands your boss with advising. The statement was:


[Petraeus] is THE man and it will be hard for Obama to contradict him in any way.



If the President is constrained from contradicting the wishes of his chief general, that is essentially the chief general dictating orders to the President.

[rocketsjudoka]

I think you are mistaking dictating terms and trying to issue commands your boss with advising. The statement was:


[Petraeus] is THE man and it will be hard for Obama to contradict him in any way.



If the President is constrained from contradicting the wishes of his chief general, that is essentially the chief general dictating orders to the President.

It will be hard for him for a variety of reasons but its not like he can't because Petraeus has launched a defacto coup. Plenty of Presidents have followed the advice of generals in wartime without us becoming a military dictatorship.

Further its not like Petraeus is ordering Obama.

[Ottomaton]

Plenty of Presidents have followed the advice of generals in wartime without us becoming a military dictatorship.

And there is still a difference between following advice, and being constrained from not following advice. Again, the problem is if Petraeus effectively has veto power over Obama's military decisions, which would be the outcome of those statements.

If Obama has the slightest feels the slightest resistance if he doesn't follow the general's advice - if it is in the least bit "hard" for him to say no to the general, the general should be fired.

[Shroopy2]

And there is still a difference between following advice, and being constrained from not following advice. Again, the problem is if Petraeus effectively has veto power over Obama's military decisions, which would be the outcome of those statements.

If Obama has the slightest feels the slightest resistance if he doesn't follow the general's advice - if it is in the least bit "hard" for him to say no to the general, the general should be fired.
(my amateur-ish observation)

That doesn't speak too highly of either of them if a general will deliberatly overstep his sphere of influence over the CnC. And the CnC, in far less eloquent terms, is the general's "b***h" for perhaps being too meek to initiate disagreements. I don't think outright disagreeing is insubordination. Its just a wonder of why these generals are giving Obama a seemingly tougher time of it than needs to be. Is there a right man for the job? Or does Obama need a yes man?

[wnes]

Steele's an idiot. I'm amazed he's lasted this long, but hey, the runner-up for his job was an overt racist, so what's the GOP to do?

He'll definitely be out after the elections... however, don't cry for Michael... 2 years of livin' large will set him up to appear on talk radio and an occasional spot on Maher.

So, does Glen Greenwald still write well (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/07/02/cycle/index.html)?

[Ottomaton]

(my amateur-ish observation)

That doesn't speak too highly of either of them if a general will deliberatly overstep his sphere of influence over the CnC.


I think in fact that much more accurately describes the Obama/McChrystal relationship. There were four or five instances of McChrystal leaking stuff to the press, etc. where he tried to exert pressure up the chain of command. For instance, he leaked his Afghanistan report to the press before the White House saw it, and he had a speech last year in London where he was very critical of the White House.

From everything I've seen, Petraeus understands the nature of his job. He was steadfastly loyal to Bush, and he's been steadfastly loyal to Obama. And by loyal I mean genuinely loyal, not loyal-for-show. From what I understand, Petraeus is willing to get in the president's face when appropriate in private, but he never lets that spill out. Once out in public, Petraeus acts like the "game plan" he trashed in the Oval Office five minutes before is something he's agreed with from day one.

I don't care much for Petraeus' personal politics, but he is the right man for the job, no question. Petraeus is Eisenhower, to McChrystal's Patton.