Huh….What Just Happened?

A book by Vali Nasr, ‘The Dispensable Nation: American Foreign Policy In Retreat’ has stirred things up in US political circles.

You might have thought this would be right up Mark Mardell’s alley…not fast moving hard news but something that requires a bit of time, insight and analysis to digest and ponder over.

It’s a fascinating and controversial insight into the Obama ‘foreign policy’ by an insider…this is how an opponent of Nasr’s conclusions described the release of the book:

 

‘Former State Department Advisor Vali Nasr has set Washington abuzz with his gloves-off denunciation of the Obama administration’s conduct of foreign policy, in particular the war in Afghanistan. Rarely does a recently former government official let loose with such an unalloyed vilification of the administration he served — especially when it is still in power.’

　

Pretty eye catching stuff I’d say…and yet Mardell and the BBC ignored it altogether and the controversy it threw up…..Mardell, as David Preiser on this site has laid out in detail, is pro-Obama and is uncritical of his foreign policy…calling Obama a ‘warrior and a healer’…..Mardell is of the opinion that Obama is not a ditherer as many believe but a patient and wise man.

Vali Nasr disagrees and suggests Obama’s policy is driven more by homeland politics than morality or pragmatism aimed at genuinely sorting out problems overseas:

　

The Inside Story of How the White House Let Diplomacy Fail in Afghanistan

“My time in the Obama administration turned out to be a deeply disillusioning experience.”

Richard Holbrooke sent Vali Nasr a message.

It said, “Are you up, can you talk?” When I called, he told me that Barack Obama had asked him to serve as envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. He would work out of the State Department, and he wanted me to join his team. “No one knows this yet. Don’t tell anyone. Well, maybe your wife.” (The Washington Post reported his appointment the next day.)

OBAMA HAS EARNED

plaudits for his foreign-policy performance. On his watch, the United States has wound down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it finally killed Osama bin Laden. In tune with the public mood, he has largely kept America out of costly overseas adventures.

But my time in the Obama administration turned out to be a deeply disillusioning experience. The truth is that his administration made it extremely difficult for its own foreign-policy experts to be heard. Both Clinton and Holbrooke, two incredibly dedicated and talented people, had to fight to have their voices count on major foreign-policy initiatives.

Holbrooke knew that Afghanistan was not going to be easy. There were too many players and too many unknowns, and Obama had not given him enough authority (and would give him almost no support) to get the job done. After he took office, the president never met with Holbrooke outside large meetings and never gave him time and heard him out. The president’s White House advisors were dead set against Holbrooke. Some, like Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, were holdovers from George W. Bush’s administration and thought they knew Afghanistan better and did not want to relinquish control to Holbrooke. Others (those closest to the president) wanted to settle scores for Holbrooke’s tenacious campaign support of Clinton (who was herself eyed with suspicion by the Obama insiders); still others begrudged Holbrooke’s storied past and wanted to end his run of success then and there. At times it appeared the White House was more interested in bringing Holbrooke down than getting the policy right.　

The president had a truly disturbing habit of funneling major foreign-policy decisions through a small cabal of relatively inexperienced White House advisors whose turf was strictly politics. Their primary concern was how any action in Afghanistan or the Middle East would play on the nightly news, or which talking point it would give the Republicans.

The Obama administration’s reputation for competence on foreign policy has less to do with its accomplishments in Afghanistan or the Middle East than with how U.S. actions in that region have been reshaped to accommodate partisan political concerns.

It was to court public opinion that Obama first embraced the war in Afghanistan. And when public opinion changed, he was quick to declare victory and call the troops back home. His actions from start to finish were guided by politics, and they played well at home. Abroad, however, the stories the United States tells to justify its on-again, off-again approach do not ring true to friend or foe. They know the truth: America is leaving Afghanistan to its own fate. America is leaving even as the demons of regional chaos that first beckoned it there are once again rising to threaten its security.’

　

This article seems to back up Nasr claiming that Obama shut out the military Joint Chiefs of Staff when making a vital decision:

‘According to a short story from Politico, the Obama administration deliberately kept the chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps away from the process that eventually hashed out to the withdrawal strategy.

A number of very smart and influential people have begun to raise questions about the Obama administration’s style, and whether that style is designed to deliberately keep different opinions away from the president’s desk.

The president’s decision to redeploy 34,000 American soldiers from Afghanistan over the coming twelve months seems to follow the path of a White House making a crucially important national security decision without the necessary input from the men who are ultimately responsible for the nation’s military policy—the Joint Chiefs. Why the four most powerful men in the US military bureaucracy were not allowed the opportunity to voice their own opinions about the withdrawal—and why they were not consulted ahead of time once the decision was made—is a mystery that the administration should properly explain.’

　

　

I’m not going to argue either way about Obama here but the debate should surely be aired as it is clearly one that is of great interest and possible importance if Obama is shutting out advisors and even his own Chiefs of Staff when making decisions because they might oppose him or offer contrary advice.

Perhaps something that Mardell should have been looking into…rather than doing whatever it is he does…not much recently judging by his Twitter feed….he missed the boat on Benghazi, the tax audit and the phone ‘tapping’ scandals.

These are a couple of articles that should have been on Mardell’s radar and raised a glimmer of interest.