President Obama vs. the Pentagon

Many across the world have been startled by President Obama’s minimal response to national security threats, including expanded terrorist attacks within the United States, Russia and China’s increases in both military spending and aggressiveness, and the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea.

Unlike prior debates on how much to spend and what defense policies to pursue, the concern expressed by many, including Republicans, some Democrats, and a number of retired generals and admirals—as well as at least one former secretary of defense—is that President Obama ignores and distrusts the military to an unprecedented degree.

According to a Government Accountability Institute report, “[During] the president’s first 2,079 days in office, running from January 20, 2009 through September 29, 2014… Obama attended a total of 875 Presidential Daily Briefs for an overall 42.09% attendance rate. Additionally, GAI compared the attendance rate during the first term to the attendance rate in the second term… First Term: President Obama was inaugurated on January 20, 2009 and was re-elected in November 2012. Between January 20, 2009 and January 19, 2013, President Obama attended 620 PDBs over a possible 1,461 days for a 42.43% attendance rate. • Second Term: President Obama was inaugurated for his second term on January 20, 2013. Between January 20, 2013 and September 29, 2014, President Obama attended 255 PDBs over a possible 618 days for a 41.26% attendance rate.”

The President’s apparent disdain for military advice and disinterest in national security matters has created significant concern in Washington. According to the Washington Times, “Key lawmakers from both parties say frustration with the White House among the top military officers is at its highest level in decades, the product of President Obama’s cautious approach to the wars in Syria and Iraq and an indecisive inner circle of White House advisers who, critics say, have iced the Pentagon out of the policymaking process.”

It’s not just uniformed officers and GOP elected officials that are concerned. The Washington Times also quotes Rep. Adam Smith, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. “Frustration among the uniformed service is real… does keep things in the White House and has not been more inclusive in the decision-making process.”
Look at the positives and cialis 10 mg http://cute-n-tiny.com/page/37/ negative aspects of their lives including their sex lives. Competitors should take the RMSA Graduate Teacher Notification for Check Prices order cheap cialis more information. The ability for maintaining a stiffer penile erection. buy line viagra Some of us may be more sensitive during cleansing to the stress of our work environment or to chemical exposures. soft tabs cialis
Breitbart reports: “Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said President Obama distrusted the military, and “this was particularly true in Afghanistan I think there were people in the White House, and I don’t want to name any names, who were constantly goading him and saying the military is trying to box you in. the military is trying to trap you. the military is trying to bully you. The military is trying to make you do something you don’t want to do.”

When asked if Vice President Joe Biden was one of these people, Gates answered, “I think so. And I was told so. And I think — but he was not alone, and you can argue with the options that they were putting forward, as President Bush did. You can disagree with them, as President Bush did. That’s totally fair, in my view. But, to think that they are trying to mousetrap you, I think is a — if I were the president and I truly believed that, I would replace those commanders that I felt were trying to trick me. So, I just — I worried a lot that he was hearing from people, things that made him worry that the military was consciously trying to thwart his will, consciously trying to be insubordinate, and I never believed any of that for a second.”

The Fiscal Times notes: “pushback from military commanders has been silenced by a distrustful White House that’s jealous of control and willing to penalize those who stray from the Oval Office narrative … Our military is being interfered with and directed by President Obama and a national security team that one retired general has described as ‘pathetically weak.’ …The Obama White House is remarkably devoid of ex-soldiers; that’s not an accident. The president’s contentious relationship with the military is well known.

“Confronting President Obama is risky. Senior military commanders who have gone public with their disagreements can find themselves facing early retirement. Sir Hew Strachan, a senior defense strategist in the U.K., cites the ouster of General Stanley McCrystal as a case in point… Senator John McCain has accused the White House of pushing out both Marine General James Mattis from U.S. Central Command and Army Lt. General Michael Flynn from the DIA for having contradicted Obama’s policies. Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey also broke with Obama numerous times, citing Russia as a major threat, for instance, and saying we might need boots on the ground to defeat ISIS. Dempsey retired in September.”

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.