Bob Woodward and All the President’s Men
Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University. His new book is "Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War." This piece is reprinted with the kind permission of TomDispatch.
Once a serious journalist, the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward now makes a very fine living as chief gossip-monger of the governing class. Early on in his career, along with Carl Bernstein, his partner at the time, Woodward confronted power. Today, by relentlessly exalting Washington trivia, he flatters power. His reporting does not inform. It titillates.
A new Woodward book, Obama’s Wars, is a guaranteed blockbuster. It’s out this week, already causing a stir, and guaranteed to be forgotten the week after dropping off the bestseller lists. For good reason: when it comes to substance, any book written by Woodward has about as much heft as the latest potboiler penned by the likes of James Patterson or Tom Clancy.
Back in 2002, for example, during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Woodward treated us to Bush at War. Based on interviews with unidentified officials close to President George W. Bush, the book offered a portrait of the president-as-resolute-war-leader that put him in a league with Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. But the book’s real juice came from what it revealed about events behind the scenes. “Bush’s war cabinet is riven with feuding,” reported the Times of London, which credited Woodward with revealing “the furious arguments and personal animosity” that divided Bush’s lieutenants.
Of course, the problem with the Bush administration wasn’t that folks on the inside didn’t play nice with one another. No, the problem was that the president and his inner circle committed a long series of catastrophic errors that produced an unnecessary and grotesquely mismanaged war. That war has cost the country dearly -- although the people who engineered that catastrophe, many of them having pocketed handsome advances on their forthcoming memoirs, continue to manage quite well, thank you.
To judge by the publicity blitzkrieg announcing the arrival of Obama’s Wars in your local bookstore, the big news out of Washington is that, even today, politics there remains an intensely competitive sport, with the participants, whether in anger or frustration, sometimes speaking ill of one another.
Essentially, news reports indicate, Woodward has updated his script from 2002. The characters have different names, but the plot remains the same. Talk about jumping the shark.
So we learn that Obama political adviser David Axelrod doesn’t fully trust Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. National security adviser James Jones, a retired Marine general, doesn’t much care for the likes of Axelrod, and will say so behind his back. Almost everyone thinks Richard Holbrooke, chief State Department impresario of the AfPak portfolio, is a jerk. And -- stop the presses -- when under the influence of alcohol, General David Petraeus, commander of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, is alleged to use the word “f**ked.” These are the sort of shocking revelations that make you a headliner on the Sunday morning talk shows.
Based on what we have learned so far from those select few provided with advance copies of the book -- mostly reporters for the Post and The New York Times who, for whatever reason, seem happy to serve as its shills -- Obama’s Wars contains hints of another story, the significance of which seems to have eluded Woodward.
The theme of that story is not whether Dick likes Jane, but whether the Constitution remains an operative document. The Constitution explicitly assigns to the president the role of commander-in-chief. Responsibility for the direction of American wars rests with him. According to the principle of civilian control, senior military officers advise and execute, but it's the president who decides. That's the theory, at least. Reality turns out to be considerably different and, to be kind about it, more complicated.
Obama’s Wars reportedly contains this comment by President Obama to Secretary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates regarding Afghanistan:"I'm not doing 10 years... I'm not doing long-term nation-building. I am not spending a trillion dollars."
Aren’t you, Mr. President? Don’t be so sure.
Obama’s Wars also affirms what we already suspected about the decision-making process that led up to the president’s announcement at West Point in December 2009 to prolong and escalate the war. Bluntly put, the Pentagon gamed the process to exclude any possibility of Obama rendering a decision not to its liking.
Pick your surge: 20,000 troops? Or 30,000 troops? Or 40,000 troops? Only the most powerful man in the world -- or Goldilocks contemplating three bowls of porridge -- could handle a decision like that. Even as Obama opted for the middle course, the real decision had already been made elsewhere by others: the war in Afghanistan would expand and continue.
And then there’s this from the estimable General David Petraeus:"I don't think you win this war,” Woodward quotes the field commander as saying. “I think you keep fighting... This is the kind of fight we're in for the rest of our lives and probably our kids' lives."
Here we confront a series of questions to which Woodward (not to mention the rest of Washington) remains steadfastly oblivious. Why fight a war that even the general in charge says can’t be won? What will the perpetuation of this conflict cost? Who will it benefit? Does the ostensibly most powerful nation in the world have no choice but to wage permanent war? Are there no alternatives? Can Obama shut down an unwinnable war now about to enter its tenth year? Or is he -- along with the rest of us -- a prisoner of war?
President Obama has repeatedly stated that in July 2011 a withdrawal of U. S. troops from Afghanistan will commence. No one quite knows exactly what that means. Will the withdrawal be symbolic? General Petraeus has already made it abundantly clear that he will entertain nothing more. Or will July signal that the Afghan War -- and by extension the Global War on Terror launched nine years ago -- is finally coming to an end?
Between now and next summer attentive Americans will learn much about how national security policy is actually formulated and who is really in charge. Just don’t expect Bob Woodward to offer any enlightenment on the subject.
comments powered by Disqus
Arnold Shcherban - 9/27/2010
How can "we stabilize" Pakistan?
"We" had no right to destabilize it by prompting and then supporting brutal, anti-democratic military regimes, those under which terrorists groups had been growing as mushrooms after rain (though when they were killing thousands of Hindus "we" would express little interest in squashing them with the support of the Pakistani pro-US military juntas, whom "we" had been given military "help" for billions of dollars just to threaten at the time neutral India) to begin with!
That alone made Pakistani Main Street to hate "us"/US.
But adding fuel to a flame "we" have destabilized Pakistan even more by launching aggression against Afghanistan, its neighbor and friend.
Don't be fooled by the US governments claims that they attacked Taliban's regime as a part of so-called War on
Terror, since Taliban government had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 terrorist plot and was ready to prosecute its perpetrators given the
evidence (in full accordance with respective international procedures.) As you remember the US government at the time refused to submit any such evidence; not coincidentally - it
had not had it, since O.B.Laden and hist closest lieutenants, as "we" well know now, had little (if any) to do with 9/11 plot organizationally and operationally either, though he had been informed about and had spiritually sanctified it!
That was aggression (read UN charter
about what constitutes a Just War), plain and simple (the same as the war against Iraq.)
And for crying out loud stop shedding those crocodile tears on the miserable fate Afghan women?!
Where were "we" before 9/11, and where are we now regarding the same fate of Muslim women in such allied
countries as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan,
Arab Emirates, and others?
Just immediately stopping the aggression and occupation in both Iraq and Afghanistan (and outrageous provocations against Iran, surely leading to a new war) will make this country position and prestige in the world dozens times stronger and more respected.
John F Robertson - 9/27/2010
I too admire Bacevich's work, very much indeed, and to address Glenn Bradley's point: for the US to stabilize Afghanistan implies that the US has the ability (1) to do so and (2) to do so without incurring a cost beyond what the US military and economy can sustain. The answers - and Bacevich implies the same in his The Washington Rules - are No, and No.
Glenn Bradley - 9/26/2010
I've seen Bacevich on PBS & MSNBC and highly value his comments. However, his critique of "Obama's Wars" by Woodward doesn't even mention Pakistan.
How can we stabilize Pakistan and prevent Paki nuclear weapons falling into the hands of Muslim extremists if we don't stabilize Afghanistan and prevent it from becoming a safe haven for the Taliban?
If we pull out precipitously, what happens to all the Afghan's who have supported freedom and especially Afghan women who will be forced back into abject slavery?
And what do we do if the Taliban and Muslim extremists take over Pakistan and their Nukes?
- Five Things You Need to Know to be a Better Digital Preservationist
- Book on Losing British Generals Wins American History Prize
- Stanford scholar explores civil rights revolution's positive impact on the South's economy
- Harvard Historian Nancy Koehn on Amazon's Tentacular Reach
- Q&A with historian and author Nick Turse