Chain of Command

There's a small-but-interesting story in the Times about how military commanders want to conduct more strikes in Pakistan but the Bush administration is forcing them to exercise more constraint out of deference to Pakistani sentiments. I'm not sure who's right on the underlying merits here, but the fact that this situation could arise helps illustrate how fatuous the Bush/McCain "We Must Do What Petraeus Commands" theory of Iraq is.

No President -- not even the one articulating the theory -- would actually behave in the manner Bush is suggesting. When formulating policy toward military operations in Pakistan you of course need to ask the military commanders what they think, but you of course don't just follow them blindly. There are other considerations in play and it would be absurd to blindly follow any one person's advice.

Comments

I'm guessing that the only reason we're not going against Pakistan is because we need the flyover space to reach Afghanistan. We do have bases north of Afghanistan with which we could run missions, but it would require logistical operations and much more change.

Posted by LnGrrrR | April 20, 2008 4:44 PM

But of course Bush won't go after the real terrorists in Pakistan; he'd rather waste resources in Iraq.

And does this administration have any credibility left?

Posted by cm | April 20, 2008 5:02 PM

For once, I believe you are giving the Bush administration too little credit.

Three aspects of military planning: strategy, tactics, and logistics.
The president controls strategy, detemining whether, say, we cross the Pakistani border (or the Iranian border) without that government's permission.
He defers (or ought to anyway) to the professional military on tactics and logisitics(how best to occupy Afghanistan and what sort of supplies and manpower are necessary).

On (of many) failings of the Bush administration is that they defer to the military only when it agrees with them. You are absolutely correct about that. But our policy on crossing the Pakistani border is not the best means of illustrating this failing.

Posted by heedless | April 20, 2008 5:02 PM

the Bush/McCain "We Must Do What Petraeus Commands" theory of Iraq

But of course Matthew is setting up and knocking down a ridiculous left-wing straw man.

Bush and McCain have never said "We Must Do What Petraeus Commands". And there's no reason to think they "blindly follow" Petraeus's advice.

One wonders why Matthew asserts that Bush is "suggesting" that he blindly follows Petraeus. Of course he doesn't, and only a moron would think he does.

Posted by Al | April 20, 2008 5:09 PM

Don't know if I should engage the Al-bot, but here goes.

Bush and McCain don't blindly follow Petraeus, but they make political arguments based on the premise that the generals on the ground should not be contradicted. They then attack those who want to make judgments based on other considerations, such as overall strategic picture of reducing terrorism, or a sober cost-benefit analysis, as defeatists who are trying to substitute their expertise for those of the professional soldiers.

What Matt's pointing out is that in other areas Bush is perfectly willing to contradict his generals, as he should be. The problem is that he trots Petraeus out for political advice, after going through other generals who didn't give him the advice he wanted. It's a fatuous argument, and should be pointed out by the press, but isn't.

Posted by BP in MN | April 20, 2008 5:24 PM

As Al points out, Bush frequently hides behind Petraeus, but he doesn't listen to him any more than he has listened to any of the other generals -- Bush is the Decider. If Petraeus acts up he'll be out on his ass with the rest of him. Matt's taking Bush's little joke far too seriously.

Posted by John Emerson | April 20, 2008 5:33 PM

You make an interesting point, Matthew. It seems that Bush has convinced MSM that he would never go against "We Must Do What Petraeus Commands" theory of Iraq. Why else would Obama and Clinton be pushed so hard on whether they would order troops to leave Iraq if the military commanders were against it. Even after Clinton & Obama explained that the military takes its orders from the Commander in Chief.

Posted by Michael Fisher | April 20, 2008 6:00 PM

Ah, who can forget the stirring rhetoric of Bush's by-now famous "We Must Do What Petraeus Commands" speech indeed. As every schoolchild now knows, this landmark speech was delivered on the fateful date of Smarch 32nd, 20X6.

Indeed, the criticism of Bush that he was wrong to suggest (as he totally did) that one must always do whatever a general says is quite well taken. (As is the continued reminder that the left fervently wants the U.S. to invade Pakistan and hates Bush for not doing so.)

The former criticism meshes quite nicely, of course, with one of the left's favorite criticisms of Bush from '04-'06, that he 'wouldn't listen to the generals' in not putting enough boots on the ground. (Remember that? Oh how I miss the days when the left found it necessary, in some conversations, to pretend to want there to be more U.S. soldiers in Iraq.)

Anyway, we are resolved, it seems: Bush was wrong then to not listen to the generals on something they said, and he's wrong now to claim (as he has) that one must always listen to all generals on everything they say. Wrong both ways. The important point being that Bush is wrong.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | April 20, 2008 6:11 PM

based on the premise that the generals on the ground should not be contradicted.

Was it Bush that said "Listen to the Generals"? Nope, that was Harry Reid.

Posted by Al | April 20, 2008 6:20 PM

We ought to remember that the origin of Bush's fiction about Patraus being the decider lies in the RightWing's flaw memory of the VietNam War. In their mythology, the liberals in congress and the media limited the freedom of action that the military needed to do their job. Bush and McCain both play variations based on that tune.

It's also bound to be part of their plans to blame Dems and Liberals for defeat in Iraq after 20Jan09.

Posted by JohnMcC | April 20, 2008 6:21 PM

The military are morons. Attacking the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Pakistan will simply radicalize the Pakistanis and contribute to an increase in Islamic radicalism, while not producing a reduction in either the Taliban or Al Qaeda actual forces or capabilities.

It's bullshit - but the military is known for being blind to anything but military force. The old "have a hammer and everything is a nail" argument is correct.

Critics of the anti-war left are correct however when they suggest that the left - or at least the more ignorant of them, like Matt - is enamored of shifting the military from Iraq to Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan. That would just shift the disaster that is Iraq to a new disaster in those countries.

Read my lips: there IS NO military solution to terrorism or Al Qaeda. Period.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 20, 2008 9:40 PM

Read my lips: there IS NO military solution to terrorism or Al Qaeda. Period.

There is. Pakistan, the hub of Islamic terror, created, supported and funded countless terror and Jihad groups, for ONE and ONLY one reason:

Asymmetric warfare against Pakistan's ONLY enemy:

India.

For the past 30 years.

Indian civilian (not military, civilians) slaughtered by Islamic Jihad total more than all other victims in all other countries combined.

Solution ?

Pakistan is an illegitimate state, founded by a illegitimate/illegal colonial occupation of India by Britain. As such, Pakistan needs to be dissolved as a separate state.

Problem solved. The Hindu majority will nullify and pacify the Jihad groups within 3 years.

Posted by foo | April 20, 2008 10:50 PM

Read my lips: there IS NO military solution to terrorism or Al Qaeda. Period.

There is. Pakistan, the hub of Islamic terror, created, supported and funded countless terror and Jihad groups, for ONE and ONLY one reason:

Asymmetric warfare against Pakistan's ONLY enemy:

India.

For the past 30 years.

Indian civilian (not military, civilians) slaughtered by Islamic Jihad total more than all other victims in all other countries combined.

Solution ?

Pakistan is an illegitimate state, founded by a illegitimate/illegal colonial occupation of India by Britain. As such, Pakistan needs to be dissolved as a separate state.

Problem solved. The Hindu majority will nullify and pacify the Jihad groups within 3 years.

Posted by foo | April 20, 2008 10:52 PM

And, excuse me for asking but... exactly who will dissolve Pakistan?

Posted by LnGrrrR | April 20, 2008 11:45 PM

Right. Somebody is going to "dissolve" the 165 million people in Pakistan.

And of course, what he calls "pacifying" the Jihad groups will probably entail murdering more Pakistani civilians than were killed in India over those thirty years.

Whereas the obvious solution to the Palestinian problem of "dissolving" Israel - which IS clearly an illegitimate colonial state (the UN had no legal authority to create it, according to its own commission set up to study that exact point) is considered infeasible simply because there are five or six million Israelis there.

You can't make this idiocy up, folks.

Especially since five minutes after Pakistan became inhospitable to the Taliban or Al Qaeda, they'd go somewhere else anyway.

These nitwits who post here have no clue what they're talking about when they discuss terrorism. They think terrorists stand around with signs on them saying, "Arrest me! I'm a terrorist!" The last guy who did that was Carlos the Jackal - and where's he now? (He didn't quite wear the shirt, but someone once said he might as well have, since he was pretty open about his terrorist activities, even before the day he shot those two cops and the Arab informer.)

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 21, 2008 5:38 AM

"Problem solved. The Hindu majority will nullify and pacify the Jihad groups within 3 years.

Posted by foo | April 20, 2008 10:52 PM"

If India's elites wanted to dissolve Pakistan, they would have done it when they kicked the Pakistani military out of East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. In fact, Nixon and Kissinger mistakenly believed that Indira Gandhi was planning a full-fledged invasion of Pakistan, which is why the sent the nuclear-armed Enterprise into the Bay of Bengal as a warning not to do so. If you really think that India would want to take on the task of invading a nuclear-armed Pakistan and then ruling over over 100 million Muslims to dissolve their country, you're crazy. Many Pakistani are patriotically Pakistani. They're not going to give up their country over what some BJP hack in New Delhi decides, which is why your proposal would be even a bit crazy at a BJP meeting.

Posted by Reality Man | April 21, 2008 7:28 AM

But what does General Petraeus say about invading/dissolving Pakistan? Can we get a twofer package deal with Iran?

I think Barack Obama is hot.

Posted by Paris Hilton | April 21, 2008 10:42 AM

I wouldn't be surprised to find that Bush has toned down his strikes into Pakistan to give McCain cover in his disagreement on that issue with Obama.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 21, 2008 11:15 AM