For the sake of avoiding Congressional oversight of military operations, the president of the United States is “commander-in-chief” of the military, and calls the shots on America’s assorted wars. Calling those shots, however, steps on some other toes.
President Obama’s previous two defense secretaries, Robert Gates and Leon Panetta, both blasted him this week at the Reagan National Defense Forum, complaining that he was directly discussing matters of war with four-star generals, and ordering National Security Council members to do the same.
“It was micromanagement that drove me crazy,” insisted Gates, who said he told JSOC to tell the White House to “go to hell and call me” if they called again. He accused Obama of being “political” in trying to assert control over the military commanders.
Leon Panetta, Gates’ successor, concurred, and also faulted President Obama for ruling out a new ground war in Iraq and Syria. The two both likened Obama to Lyndon Johnson in his desire to pick specific targets to attack during wars.
One would assume, with the pretense of “commander-in-chief” looming so large in political dialogue (or at least in the efforts to avoid dialogue), direct communication with the commanders on the ground would be a given. Instead, it seems to be wildly controversial among Defense Department brass.
White House officials complained about the criticism, not on the grounds that anything said was inaccurate, but on the grounds that they’re in the middle of a war and feel they should be exempt from criticism of how the war is run, saying that’s something for historians to deal with after Obama’s term in office ends.
CIF has every right to "micromanage" stupid, one-sided slaughters against nations that never did anything to us that they call wars nowadays, especially if people are being killed in the exercise of this grand scale of pointlessness that we aren't winning.
Maybe in 2016 these guys will be happy that they can get a more overt warmonger in the WH with less of a problem getting young US soldiers killed for stupid reasons.
After all, the wars for Israel must continue at all costs.
The insubordination they propose against the President, would either Gates or Panetta tolerate such contempt from any General under their command? Look at what happened to McChrystal.
A bigger war means wider profits.
The blame game only happens when things aren't going well.
they should have included ob's poor choice of leaders, namely them
It is frightening to see comments day after day from such losels and louts as Gates and Leon Panetta printed as if they had any substance or truth at all. In brief, Mr. Gates is a smooth talking, self-serving, sycophant. If he were living during the time of Louis XIV, he could be usefully employed examining the king's waste matter and then emptying the king's chamber pot.
Mr. Panetta, on the other hand, is nothing but a barely mediocre political hack who would likely lose his head for clumsily managing to soil a silk covered chair in the royal bed chamber. What in the hell is wrong with a junior college level main stream press that cannot see that the emperor has no clothes, i.e., that the emperor is starkers, naked as a jaybird, and causing laughter and jeers across the globe.
Gates and Panetta are just sick! The very idea that they think that they do not have to answer to the elected civilian executive branch (for all of Obama's faults aside), just shows how completely out of control these people really are!
Of course if the sacred military could display some level of competence they would have a right to complain about micromanagement.
It will take 30 years and untold sums of money for the world's most expensive military to defeat ISIS? The all time winner for "you can buy better, but you can't pay more".
The whole ISIS adventure is a fool's errand but it is the military's role to accept a task and get it done on time, and under budget. You have your orders…carry on.