At the weekend, General McChrystal revealed, in response to a direct question, that he'd only spoken to Obama once since his appointment, and not at all since he delivered his memo on Afghanistan at the end of August. The White House is having to defend itself against criticism on this: why isn't the president in more regular contact with the man he appointed to run the war over there?
It does seem odd. Bush spoke to his commander in Iraq regularly in the early years of that war and forged a close personal relationship with him that bypassed the chain of command. But this, of course, only alerts us to the fact that such a relationship might not be a good idea.
If you spend too long talking to the generals in the field of battle, it must be all too easy to get sucked into the details of a war and lose perspective on the big questions that a president must consider: why are we fighting this war? Should we be fighting it? Military commanders will have a natural bias towards more fighting, and more resources - and towards optimism about outcomes. They could hardly do their job otherwise. This doesn't mean they're wrong, necessarily. But they are susceptible to the limitations of their position and perspective, as we all are. Perhaps Obama is right to keep his distance.
Well it's probably safe to say you don't want to be doing an LBJ, going through target lists. But it seems very odd indeed to speak so rarely to the commander, for a deployment this large. Even if the President is relying on his national security advisor for the most part.
Posted by: ejoch | September 30, 2009 at 03:23 PM
Maybe he doesn't like anyone skinnier than him.
Posted by: Marbury | October 01, 2009 at 10:04 AM