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

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

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

[/rquoter]

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

 

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?

 

So, does Glen Greenwald still write well?

 

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.