Obama promised a more Open Government but embraces secrecy in Afghanistan War Planning

      "My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government." President Barack Obama, This memorandum shall be published in the Federal Register.

ROBERT L. HANAFIN
Major, U.S. Air Force-Retired
Editorial Board Member
VT News Network &
Our Troops News Ladder     Pentagon was on defensive in Afghanistan review

Military officials increased security and restricted attendance in meetings after leaks on Afghanistan planning apparently irked the White House.

We can see how military officials left over from the Bush administration would be concerned about more secrecy and restricting attendance to only interest groups and individuals that agreed with them, but how come a Democratic administration that promised those who voted for it a more open government is concerned about leaks from any closed door session or meeting that commits the American tax payer and voter to anything? VT. Ed.

Despite Obama administration promises and even policy directives to executive department heads to promote a more open government than the Bush administration, U.S. military officials clamped down on internal Pentagon security during President Obama’s Afghanistan strategy review to prevent leaks and stem an erosion of trust between the White House and Defense establishment, according to military officials

We at VT are also concerned about a breakdown in communication and public statements from the White House and Obama’s Defense Department that send mixed messages to those who elected Obama to office. Example: The President and those cabinet members tasked with selling the Obama’s Afghanistan SURGE are promising the American voter the beginning of a pullout in 2011, which his Secretary of Defense and Chief, Military Officer are building a case for 2011 being only the beginning of a long stay in Afghanistan. President Obama needs to get all players on ‘his’ cabinet singing to the same sheet of music, including General and Admirals once loyal to both the Republican party and G.W. Bush. In the event, the President and Democratic Party are incapable of this, it is up to grassroots groups to call for the removal of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and any generals once loyal to the Bush administration who do not tow the new Commander-In-Chief’s line or keep promises Obama makes. VT.Ed.

In a clear break with Obama administration promises of more open government, military leaders limited attendance at Pentagon meetings, excluding nonessential staff, and warned officers and others that no one was to discuss the administration’s war council meetings or related assignments, officials said.

So much for a more open government, we can see where the detailed discussion of operational plans that violate OPSEC would be a concern but overall planning that commits the American people, even one percent of our citizenry, to war is not a closed door subject unless those doing the deciding have something to hide. VT.Ed.

Crucial to the strategy review was top U.S. commander Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who [faced] lawmakers on Capitol Hill for the first time since taking command of allied forces in Afghanistan in June and faced a range of questions, both from Republican critics and from Democrats who oppose an escalation.

Officials said two episodes in September had contributed to a "clash of cultures" between civilian and military participants in the review: the leak of an assessment by McChrystal, and testimony by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael G. Mullen, that additional troops "probably" were necessary.

"When you take the chairman’s testimony and you have the leak of McChrystal’s assessment, this is the beginning of suspicion and unhelpful tension on the civil-military side," said a military officer, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The officials, briefing reporters on aspects of the strategy review, said they could not determine how McChrystal’s report was leaked, but said a Sept. 21 Washington Post article disclosing its findings came a day after congressional committees had been given the assessment.

McChrystal was criticized by administration officials for a speech in Europe in early October about his assessment and was summoned to meet with Obama on Air Force One. 

Note: Not only General McChrystal, but Admiral Mullins and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have made public statements and building cases for long term war and commitment of the American people without coordination with the Obama administration. It could be only a matter of time before President Obama is faced with the courageous decision of former President Harry Truman when he was forced to decide to fire General Douglas McArthur for speaking out of turn about Korea, and China. Obama may one day be forced to replace his entire Defense staff with people loyal to him instead of G.W. Bush. VT.Ed.

Obama said the troops would start to return home in July 2011, but administration and military officials have not specified how long the extra troops would be in place or when other U.S. troops would leave. Now to ensure that everyone is on the same sheet of music, it is not the Pentagon leadership that had been ordered to follow statements made by the Commander-In-Chief, but the President who is caving into statements made by those he commands. 

Obama who said at West Point and in statements that shortly followed he would pullout U.S. troops and set a deadline [timeline] of 2011 for the Afghanistan government to get its act together now says he is in no hurry to implement a drawdown in 2011. We are still not clear on who’s running the war(s) the Obama administration or the Bush holdovers in the Pentagon?

It is this vagueness that allows for mixed signals, and those Pentagon leaders loyal to the Bush presidency to sing a different tune than their current Commander-In-Chief. That said it is not our Commander-In-Chief that follows the directions of his/her chain of command, it is the Secretary of Defense, Generals, and Admirals in the field that follow the orders of the President of the United States. VT. Ed.

During the strategy review, military officials worried that White House officials were not sharing all of their thinking.
Hold the phone: White House officials need not be sharing all their thinking with those lower on the Chain of Command – period. Keep in mind, last time we seriously looked at the many failures of Donald Rumsfeld when Bush was forced to can him, the Secretary of Defense IS a White House official as a member of President Obama’s staff. If Robert Gates is not making the President’s thinking clear enough to those military officials once loyal to President Bush, then the decision to keep them on was the WRONG decision and all including Gates need replacement. VT. Ed.

"There was discomfort here about the sense we couldn’t be trusted with information," said the military official. By the end, however, the officer said that military officials believe they gave the White House what they wanted.

"If this was the test of the civil-military relationship, it was a test we passed," the officer said.

The official said that there was never an attempt to pressure the administration.
Lastly, why should the above question or issue of "an attempt to pressure the administration" ever have to be raised IF the Commander-In-Chief had control over his Secretary of Defense and senior military leadership? VT.Ed.

Robert L. Hanafin

Readers are more than welcome to use the articles I’ve posted on Veterans Today, I’ve had to take a break from VT as Veterans Issues and Peace Activism Editor and staff writer due to personal medical reasons in our military family that take away too much time needed to properly express future stories or respond to readers in a timely manner.

My association with VT since its founding in 2004 has been a very rewarding experience for me.

Retired from both the Air Force and Civil Service. Went in the regular Army at 17 during Vietnam (1968), stayed in the Army Reserve to complete my eight year commitment in 1976. Served in Air Defense Artillery, and a Mechanized Infantry Division (4MID) at Fort Carson, Co. Used the GI Bill to go to college, worked full time at the VA, and non-scholarship Air Force 2-Year ROTC program for prior service military. Commissioned in the Air Force in 1977. Served as a Military Intelligence Officer from 1977 to 1994. Upon retirement I entered retail drugstore management training with Safeway Drugs Stores in California. Retail Sales Management was not my cup of tea, so I applied my former U.S. Civil Service status with the VA to get my foot in the door at the Justice Department, and later Department of the Navy retiring with disability from the Civil Service in 2000.

I’ve been with Veterans Today since the site originated. I’m now on the Editorial Board. I was also on the Editorial Board of Our Troops News Ladder another progressive leaning Veterans and Military Family news clearing house.

I remain married for over 45 years. I am both a Vietnam Era and Gulf War Veteran. I served on Okinawa and Fort Carson, Colorado during Vietnam and in the Office of the Air Force Inspector General at Norton AFB, CA during Desert Storm. I retired from the Air Force in 1994 having worked on the Air Staff and Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon.