Obama's Wars by Bob Woodward

Author:Bob Woodward
Format: mobi, epub, pdf
Tags: Current Events, War on Terrorism, National security, United States - 21st Century, Presidents & Heads of State, 2001-, United States - General, Political History, Government, Executive Branch, General, United States, History: American, Decision making, Political Science, Biography & Autobiography, Politics, Government - Executive Branch, Afghan War, 2001-2009, History
ISBN: 9781439172490
Publisher: Simon & Schuster
Published: 2010-09-27T07:00:00+00:00

19

It was the secretary of state’s turn at the October 9 meeting. “Mr. President,” Clinton began, “the dilemma you face …”

On the back bench, press secretary Gibbs noted that she said “you” as if there was only one person in the boat and she and the others were at a pleasant distance. To Gibbs, it seemed as though Clinton was opining from afar. Memories of the vicious scrap and deep hostility from the Democratic presidential primaries lingered inside the White House, at least for former campaign aides like Gibbs and Axelrod.

Clinton’s use of “you” also floored Holbrooke, since she should have said “we” to underscore and even trumpet her team-player status. Holbrooke suspected the Obamaites would recognize the “you” as distancing on the part of the secretary of state. He held his tongue as Clinton spoke, because interrupting her would be unforgivable when she was in full flower like this. It was “a Freudian giveaway,” Holbrooke later told others. The only question was whether it was conscious or not. Whatever it was, he thought Clinton felt detached from both the policy and the process. And the more hawkish her position, the more she came under suspicion from White House staffers loyal to the president.

The “you” was a formulation used by others. And it was a matter of fact that the decision was Obama’s, so the word was correct. But Gibbs’s and Holbrooke’s reactions revealed how raw the emotions were running.

Clinton said the dilemma was which should come first—more troops or better governance? “But not putting troops in guarantees we won’t achieve what we’re after and guarantees no psychological momentum. Preventing collapse requires more troops, but that doesn’t guarantee progress.”

She tipped her hand further. Afghans had to feel safe before their governance could improve. It was the same logic as Petraeus’s argument that she had seemed to challenge in earlier meetings. Obama “must move on more troops.

“In the absence of a troop commitment, can we achieve our goals in Afghanistan and Pakistan?” she asked. Answering her own question, Clinton said, “The only way to get governance changes is to add troops, but there’s still no guarantee that it will work.”

Clinton then rattled off the reasons why there was no guarantee. If there is a troop commitment, what size? How to coordinate with Pakistan? How to support reintegration and how to conduct partnering? What’s the most effective way forward with the Afghan leadership?

“These are all difficult, unsatisfactory options,” she said. “We do have a national security interest in ensuring the Taliban doesn’t defeat us. The same with destroying al Qaeda, which would be difficult without Afghanistan. It’s an extremely difficult decision, but the options are limited unless we commit and gain the psychological advantage.”

Admiral Mullen echoed the other hawkish comments, saying that Secretary Gates’s reframing of the objectives was correct. “Security is achievable, but time does matter.” In his opinion, the training of a 240,000-man Afghan army in “three to five years is reasonable.”

“Possibly we’ll see by the end of next year if this will work,” Mullen added.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.