Predictions on Obama and SC
1st September 2009
President Obama will largely accept the recommendations of the military regarding the Long War and will stay largely on this track until after the 2010 off-year elections.
Departures from “largely” will be focused on 1) wording and 2) Democrat election politics. Linguistically, Mr. Obama will use new words to describe fundamentally old ideas. For example, Obama does not call it the “War on Terror,” but rather the “War against Al-Qaeda.” This linguistic change is sufficient for enough Democrats and independents to support what are functionally Bush policies. He will draw verbal contrasts between what he is doing and what Bush did and label prior actions as “failed” or “corrupt” or “selfish” and then do pretty much what Bush would have done (as in the draw down in Iraq going on right now).
“Largely” shows up in Democrat politics in examples like Obama on Gitmo, where he closed the building but did not stop the policy, while the legislative process, controlled by Democrats, figures out where to put the Gitmo prisoners. I anticipate that McChrystal will make requests for resources or personnel in a rather specific way, but Obama will overrule this specific request and substitute resources or personnel that functionally provide what McChrystal requested, but supports a Democrat in a contested district.
Obama has to govern the entire nation and needs cooperation from Democrats and independents on foreign policy. His actions on the Long War can actually manipulate Republican opinion and support. He might be able to horse trade with Republicans on issues like health care or energy – huge issues for his base and his credibilty – if he stays on the Bush path with the Long War even while everyone demeans former President Bush.
By contrast, if Obama chooses a fundamentally different course on the Long War, he destroys all possible Republican support and some independent support and exposes himself and his party to electoral devastation if even one minor attack in America would occur. Why take that risk?
He has the greatest room for maneuver and firepower for his entire political agenda and for his leadership efficacy if he keeps fighting the Long War while using different words and playing Chicago alderman politics with resources.
If this is true, Long War supporters need to think and talk differently. Most particularly, they should not publicly attack Obama and his Administration. They should look to cooperate, provide him pitches to hit that stay in the ball park, and seek resource and personnel packages with sympathetic and troubled Democrat office holders.
For SC believers, it would be prudent to soldier on and follow Admiral Mullen. SC is a serious problem for any Administration because SC involves public words that may solve a problem in Afghanistan, but create a problem in California or Ohio or Pennsylvania. Words scare the hell out of any White House.
Right now, SC needs to think not only of the military implications, but also the political implication of it. Consider the possibility that Admiral Mullen might know things you don’t and back him up. Say things that support him, right now. We’re in that dicey time where many people will be clamoring for a decision, but only one guy makes it. Why damage your guy to sound smart or principled?
If you buy my larger political analysis of the situation, this makes sense. Of course, I’m outside the Pentagon and don’t know what I’m talking about, so you need to factor that in, too.