HomeGroupsTalkMoreZeitgeist
Search Site
This site uses cookies to deliver our services, improve performance, for analytics, and (if not signed in) for advertising. By using LibraryThing you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Your use of the site and services is subject to these policies and terms.

Results from Google Books

Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.

Obama's Wars by Bob Woodward
Loading...

Obama's Wars (original 2010; edition 2010)

by Bob Woodward

MembersReviewsPopularityAverage ratingMentions
9332122,408 (3.64)13
I just finished "Obama's Wars" by Bob Woodward. I don't know that I feel ready to review a book by Woodward, but I do have some thoughts after reading it.

First of all, the book seems more about the bureaucratic push and shove between the White House, the State Department, the CIA and the Department of Defense about how to deal with Afghanistan. The Obama Administration had come into office with promises to draw down in Iraq and focus on Afghanistan. The question was to what degree: how many troops? How long would they need to be there? And what exactly would be the mission?

The process to determine those answers was meticulous and thorough. That said, Woodward does not tell the story in a light that is favorable to the military. The military--McCrystal, Petraeus, Mullen, and others--appears to constantly push civilian leadership's efforts to limit the mission in Afghanistan, seeking more troops, an expanded mission, a longer mission. Petraeus wanted to implement a surge similar to "the Surge" that saved Iraq, and McCrystal conducted in an in-depth review on how to make Afghanistan secure, but couldn't control his mouth or his staff.

Vice President Biden has no problem giving his opinion. No shocker, I suppose. He would start out with "Let me take two minutes..." then go on for over twenty-five minutes. At one point, he even cornered President Obama on the portico to the White House just before the President announced his decision to insert 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, just to give one more opinion. Yeah. He's just that sure of himself.

President Obama himself appears extremely careful and thorough in his decision-making, carefully seeking the opinions of all parties, including his counterparts in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Further, his carefully crafted orders were meticulous and detailed.
Within the Obama White House, relationships and personality are more than important--they're crucial. Individuals close to the President, especially from the campaign, were better at getting their ideas moved forward. No surprise there, I suppose; it's not who you know, but who knows you.

Pakistan is the real villain in the conflict, not the Taliban alone, even if Woodward does not necessarily intend to point the finger. With Osama's death at the hands of Seal Team Six last week, not far from a Pakistani military installation, it seems clear that we have trusted Pakistan too much.

If slightly biased towards the Administration and heavily focused on how the decision to send the 30,000 troops to Afghanistan was made, perhaps to the neglect of other aspects of the war, Woodward's book is detailed, appears well researched, and is an interesting look into how the Obama Administration has conducted the war in Afghanistan.
( )
  publiusdb | Aug 22, 2013 |
English (18)  Hungarian (1)  Hebrew (1)  Dutch (1)  All languages (21)
Showing 18 of 18
all of his books are worth reading,
but some are more history now

pick up again at Disk 4 track 4
  pollycallahan | Jul 1, 2023 |
This book wasn't as broad in Presidential coverage than some of Woodward's other books, but being written in Obama's first year, I guess there wasn't much more to cover on the International front other than the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Reading it in 2010 makes it seem like you're being given live insights into White House and Pentagon meetings. To hear what the military leaders are thinking and planning, and then seeing the results of their plans covered subsequently on the evening news is facinating. You get a true appreciation of the difficulties facing the military and the Administration in dealing with the Afghan situation, even to the point of them having to define and determine what the goals should be. ( )
  rsutto22 | Jul 15, 2021 |
How did Obama lose Afghanistan? There should be the title of Woodword's book. Included are all of the internal and divisive debates that resulted in Obama's failed foreign policy. His disputes with McChrystal and Petraeus are of course well known but the antagonisms are revealed in all of their depressive glory here. The political apparatchiks really undermined the competence and professionalism of the American military command. Obama's disdain for military commanders comes across clearly as well. Clinton is a separate power centre in her own right and the antagonisms between her and Obama are clear. Oddly enough, Biden comes off as a somewhat competent and penetrative thinker.

7 stars: Good.

-------------

This book covers the Afghanistan War, from a Washington/political operative perspective (vs. any coverage of events there). It starts at President Obama's election, and goes through his 2010 decision to provide 30,000 more troops. It ends right as he fired General McChrystal for his interview in Rolling Stone (although this was actually the third such indiscretion which McChrystal had done).

Clearly Bob Woodward had his inside track. He even relayed an interview with Obama, when Obama said that Woodward's sources were better than his. It makes me wonder...leaks were widely reported in his White House.

This review from "Booklist" (via amazon.com) covers it fairly well (though I wouldn't call the end "wearying"):

It’s hard to understand why the government gets so irate over secrets spilled by WikiLeaks when top members of the cabinet and the military, as well as the president himself, so readily sit down with Bob Woodward. In his first foray into the weeds of the Obama administration’s war-decision process, Woodward offers readers these nuggets: the CIA finances and controls a 3,000-man secret army in Afghanistan; despite our various efforts over two administrations, the U.S. remains alarmingly unprepared for a terrorist attack, which, by the way, could come any day. He also reveals all the details of a highly confidential document on war strategy (given to Woodward when he simply asked one of the planners for it). But most of the book is devoted to what is probably not a secret: the infighting that goes into every decision that is or isn’t made about the war in Afghanistan. Woodward’s descriptions of war-strategy meetings suggest the movie Groundhog Day, with everyone saying the same thing over and over. The military and Hillary Clinton want 40,000 troops sent to Afghanistan. Joe Biden has a different plan, less dependent on personnel. The president wants more and different options, which aren’t given to him (“People have to stop telling me what I already know”). Finally, he has to modify the plan himself. The end of the book seems rushed, as though it was pushing up against deadline, with one of Obama’s most important war decisions, the firing of General Stanley McChrystal, just tacked on. By the wearying end, the conclusion is obvious: there’s no good way to end this war. No matter how much the White House and the military despise the word failure, with allies like the Karzai government in Afghanistan and the duplicitous Pakistanis, it’s hard to find any semblance of success in the offing. There is certainly none on view in these pages. --Ilene Cooper

----------------

A few quotes that struck me:

"Pakistan...which [Reidel] called "the most dangerous country in the world today, where every nightmare of the 21st century converges--terrorism, government instability, corruption, and nuclear weapons."

"On top of that, the war was increasingly Americanized. NATO had grown into a fig leaf that gave the cover of an international effort. A team member asked the Dutch commander in the south if the Americans might ask his troops to stay past their scheduled 2010 withdrawal date. "When we told them we were leaving, they said 'Thank you very much for your service'" Dutch Major General Mart de Kruif recalled, as if their departure was welcome. "

"After a pause, Obama attempted a summary. 'We're going to have to work through 5 areas. What are the opportunity costs, given the finite resources? Were other national interests being overlooked because of the focus on this? It was a radical change from Bush, who was all in, win at all costs. Obama was proposing they consider other national priorities. Is pursuing a broader counterinsurgency the best way to advance our core goal? And because that goal is defeating al Qaeda in order to protect the homeland, did we really have to win a civil war in Afghanistan?"

Blair had read through the old Vietnam studies known as the Sigma series. He found them heartbreaking. The games had correctly forecast the flaws in the Vietnam strategies but the military ignored them.

"I am probably the first president who is young enough that the Vietnam war wasn't at the core of my development. ... So I grew up with none of the baggage that arose out of the dispute of the Vietnam war. I also had alot of confidence, I guess, coming in that the way of our system of government works civilians have to make policy decisions. And then the military carries them out. You know, I don't see this as a civilian vs. military situation the way a lot of people coming out of Vietnam do. I also don't see it as a hawk/dove thing. So a lot of the political frames through which these debates are being viewed don't really connect with me generationally. I'm neither intimidated by our military, nor am I thinking that they're somehow trying to undermine my role as commander in chief."

The book closed with this passage:

I said I had one more question, and handed him a quotation from the WWII history book The Day of the Battle by Rick Atkinson... "For war was not just a military campaign but also a parable. There were lessons of camaraderie and duty and inscrutable fate. There were lessons of honor and courage, of compassion and sacrifice. And then there was the saddest lesson, to be learned again and again, that war is corrupting, that it corrodes the soul and tarnishes the spirit, that even the excellent and the superior can be defiled, and that no heart would remain unstained."

|I wanted to ask "Did war corrupt everyone? Did not heart go unstained? But the president was obviously in a hurry.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-02-03/why-obamas-army-isnt-defeating-ru...
1 vote gmicksmith | Feb 3, 2016 |
Just can’t get enough of Woodward lately…
This is another homerun from Woodward and one that will open your eyes regardless of your political leanings. As a conservative I felt that the book detailed two important things: #1 Obama is failing to remove us from the wars that he so clearly did not like. And #2 He is listening to his military commanders.
The direction that the book seemed to take was more of a look at the war and the military commanders rather than the chief decision maker. But as you get into the book farther you see where the VP and the President come into the fold. I find that Woodward has an easy way of writing that allows one to get into the book without worrying about the hidden meanings.
Please read this book -- it is good! ( )
  gopfolk | May 29, 2015 |
I just finished "Obama's Wars" by Bob Woodward. I don't know that I feel ready to review a book by Woodward, but I do have some thoughts after reading it.

First of all, the book seems more about the bureaucratic push and shove between the White House, the State Department, the CIA and the Department of Defense about how to deal with Afghanistan. The Obama Administration had come into office with promises to draw down in Iraq and focus on Afghanistan. The question was to what degree: how many troops? How long would they need to be there? And what exactly would be the mission?

The process to determine those answers was meticulous and thorough. That said, Woodward does not tell the story in a light that is favorable to the military. The military--McCrystal, Petraeus, Mullen, and others--appears to constantly push civilian leadership's efforts to limit the mission in Afghanistan, seeking more troops, an expanded mission, a longer mission. Petraeus wanted to implement a surge similar to "the Surge" that saved Iraq, and McCrystal conducted in an in-depth review on how to make Afghanistan secure, but couldn't control his mouth or his staff.

Vice President Biden has no problem giving his opinion. No shocker, I suppose. He would start out with "Let me take two minutes..." then go on for over twenty-five minutes. At one point, he even cornered President Obama on the portico to the White House just before the President announced his decision to insert 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, just to give one more opinion. Yeah. He's just that sure of himself.

President Obama himself appears extremely careful and thorough in his decision-making, carefully seeking the opinions of all parties, including his counterparts in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Further, his carefully crafted orders were meticulous and detailed.
Within the Obama White House, relationships and personality are more than important--they're crucial. Individuals close to the President, especially from the campaign, were better at getting their ideas moved forward. No surprise there, I suppose; it's not who you know, but who knows you.

Pakistan is the real villain in the conflict, not the Taliban alone, even if Woodward does not necessarily intend to point the finger. With Osama's death at the hands of Seal Team Six last week, not far from a Pakistani military installation, it seems clear that we have trusted Pakistan too much.

If slightly biased towards the Administration and heavily focused on how the decision to send the 30,000 troops to Afghanistan was made, perhaps to the neglect of other aspects of the war, Woodward's book is detailed, appears well researched, and is an interesting look into how the Obama Administration has conducted the war in Afghanistan.
( )
  publiusdb | Aug 22, 2013 |
So finally sitting down to watch the world news tonight (after not watching any for the last few weeks) managed to hear about three interesting authors. Bob Woodward being one of them. (Bob and Lee Woodruff
and Nancy Sherman being the other two, all writing on current war topics).

I think this book is a must read to understand the situation from both sides.

Not knowing anything about Woodward I checked wiki...and he is regarded as one of America's preeminent investigative reporters and non-fiction authors. Anyhow I am a big fan of investigative journalists who get to the meat of the matter & tell it like it is.

*note to any GR librarian; Woodward has aged considerably since the 1970's photograph on his Goodreads author page. There's a current one on this wiki entry;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Woodward,
which someone might be so kind & have time to add to Woodwards GR page. :)
  velvetink | Mar 31, 2013 |
7 stars: Good.

-------------

This book covers the Afghanistan War, from a Washington/political operative perspective (vs. any coverage of events there). It starts at President Obama's election, and goes through his 2010 decision to provide 30,000 more troops. It ends right as he fired General McChrystal for his interview in Rolling Stone (although this was actually the third such indiscretion which McChrystal had done).

Clearly Bob Woodward had his inside track. He even relayed an interview with Obama, when Obama said that Woodward's sources were better than his. It makes me wonder...leaks were widely reported in his White House.

This review from "Booklist" (via amazon.com) covers it fairly well (though I wouldn't call the end "wearying"):

It’s hard to understand why the government gets so irate over secrets spilled by WikiLeaks when top members of the cabinet and the military, as well as the president himself, so readily sit down with Bob Woodward. In his first foray into the weeds of the Obama administration’s war-decision process, Woodward offers readers these nuggets: the CIA finances and controls a 3,000-man secret army in Afghanistan; despite our various efforts over two administrations, the U.S. remains alarmingly unprepared for a terrorist attack, which, by the way, could come any day. He also reveals all the details of a highly confidential document on war strategy (given to Woodward when he simply asked one of the planners for it). But most of the book is devoted to what is probably not a secret: the infighting that goes into every decision that is or isn’t made about the war in Afghanistan. Woodward’s descriptions of war-strategy meetings suggest the movie Groundhog Day, with everyone saying the same thing over and over. The military and Hillary Clinton want 40,000 troops sent to Afghanistan. Joe Biden has a different plan, less dependent on personnel. The president wants more and different options, which aren’t given to him (“People have to stop telling me what I already know”). Finally, he has to modify the plan himself. The end of the book seems rushed, as though it was pushing up against deadline, with one of Obama’s most important war decisions, the firing of General Stanley McChrystal, just tacked on. By the wearying end, the conclusion is obvious: there’s no good way to end this war. No matter how much the White House and the military despise the word failure, with allies like the Karzai government in Afghanistan and the duplicitous Pakistanis, it’s hard to find any semblance of success in the offing. There is certainly none on view in these pages. --Ilene Cooper

----------------

A few quotes that struck me:

"Pakistan...which [Reidel] called "the most dangerous country in the world today, where every nightmare of the 21st century converges--terrorism, government instability, corruption, and nuclear weapons."

"On top of that, the war was increasingly Americanized. NATO had grown into a fig leaf that gave the cover of an international effort. A team member asked the Dutch commander in the south if the Americans might ask his troops to stay past their scheduled 2010 withdrawal date. "When we told them we were leaving, they said 'Thank you very much for your service'" Dutch Major General Mart de Kruif recalled, as if their departure was welcome. "

"After a pause, Obama attempted a summary. 'We're going to have to work through 5 areas. What are the opportunity costs, given the finite resources? Were other national interests being overlooked because of the focus on this? It was a radical change from Bush, who was all in, win at all costs. Obama was proposing they consider other national priorities. Is pursuing a broader counterinsurgency the best way to advance our core goal? And because that goal is defeating al Qaeda in order to protect the homeland, did we really have to win a civil war in Afghanistan?"

Blair had read through the old Vietnam studies known as the Sigma series. He found them heartbreaking. The games had correctly forecast the flaws in the Vietnam strategies but the military ignored them.

"I am probably the first president who is young enough that the Vietnam war wasn't at the core of my development. ... So I grew up with none of the baggage that arose out of the dispute of the Vietnam war. I also had alot of confidence, I guess, coming in that the way of our system of government works civilians have to make policy decisions. And then the military carries them out. You know, I don't see this as a civilian vs. military situation the way a lot of people coming out of Vietnam do. I also don't see it as a hawk/dove thing. So a lot of the political frames through which these debates are being viewed don't really connect with me generationally. I'm neither intimidated by our military, nor am I thinking that they're somehow trying to undermine my role as commander in chief."

The book closed with this passage:

I said I had one more question, and handed him a quotation from the WWII history book The Day of the Battle by Rick Atkinson... "For war was not just a military campaign but also a parable. There were lessons of camaraderie and duty and inscrutable fate. There were lessons of honor and courage, of compassion and sacrifice. And then there was the saddest lesson, to be learned again and again, that war is corrupting, that it corrodes the soul and tarnishes the spirit, that even the excellent and the superior can be defiled, and that no heart would remain unstained."

|I wanted to ask "Did war corrupt everyone? Did not heart go unstained? But the president was obviously in a hurry.

"I sympathize with this view. See my Nobel Prize acceptance speech." The President disappeared back into the Oval Office.

I went home and dug out the speech he delivered in Oslo City Hall, on December 10, 2009. And there it was:"The instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another--that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifices is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such. So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths--that war is sometimes necessary and war at some level is an expression of human folly". ( )
1 vote PokPok | Jul 16, 2012 |
Legendary Washington reporter Bob Woodward’s latest behind-the-curtain look at the modern presidency focuses on Barack Obama’s approach to the continuing war in Afghanistan during his first eighteen months in office. “Obama’s Wars” is in many ways an extension of Woodward’s four books chronicling the wartime footing of the George W. Bush administration. During those books, Woodward’s skepticism grew to the point of incredulity at what he viewed as dysfunctional decision-making in the White House.

In this volume, Woodward finds presidential leadership that meets many of his criticisms of the previous administration. Here is a president who is engaged with the larger issues of the conflict, who pushes on the intelligence community for a broader picture, and who badgers the military for multiple options. Here is a president who asks questions and wants clear answers before making decisions, instead of just relying on his gut instincts. Ironically, it is questionable whether this type of president is empowered to make the decisions that Woodward openly wished his predecessor had made.

In many ways, this is a story of a new president, growing into the position, dealing with more established leaders who are often given to protecting their turf at all costs. In particular, this leads to several challenges in Obama’s relationships with key military leaders, who came to power in a system that encouraged deference to civilian authority while trying to circumvent that authority by offering a narrow range of solutions that merely highlighted the choice preferred by the top brass.

Subtly, Woodward paints a picture of an administration slowly coalescing, despite some personality conflicts and other challenges. Although a minor player in this book, it is clear that then Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel is highly involved, but less helpful than Obama probably wished at the outset. Also, there is a clear personality difference between the new president and the retained Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, though there also appears to be a professional approach to navigating those difficulties. On the other hand, the president’s relationships with Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seem strong and highly functional from the beginning.

The main story is the attempt of Obama to set a clear path toward withdrawing significant numbers of troops from Afghanistan beginning in the summer of 2011. In the meantime, the president is willing to increase – surge – troop levels temporarily in the pursuit of improved security. The negotiations around this, and the complex assessment of what will likely happen before, during, and after given the uncertain quality of the governments in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, form the narrative. As always, Woodward has access to lots of background information to detail these secret meetings, including information from top secret memoranda and reports.

In the end, this book paints a grim picture of a president – and a country – between a rock and a hard place, with few good options and lots of potential consequences that are detrimental to national security. Despite this, and despite the institutional and personality conflicts that are hinted at in the title – “Obama’s Wars” – Woodward seems generally optimistic about the current leadership doing the best job they can despite their limitations. He simply worries that everyone, from the president to his generals, the diplomats, the intelligence agents, and others, might be in a situation they cannot affect in any noticeably positive way. ( )
1 vote ALincolnNut | Nov 23, 2011 |
As always, Bob Woodward writes a compelling book detailing the critical decisions a War President must make. It seems that President Obama, had to whip the military machine to have his orders followed. As Commander and Chief, he should not have had this problem, but after having led George Bush around my his nose, the military was in the habit of having its way. President Obama soon solved that issue, but not without a great deal of frustation.

Fighting a war with an incompetent Afghanistan president as a partner, and another unreliable and two-timing partner in the form of Pakistan, Obama's job as Commander and Chief was made much more difficult. Add Iraq to the recipe and the President had his hands full.

Bob Woodward's portrayal of Karzai and the other actors in this arena was mesmerizing and frustating at the same time. Karzai's inadequacies as a leader, and Pakistans refusal to take a side in the war on terrorism is a serious problem. Currently, they help us when we force them to, but at the same time, Pakistan supports and uses terroist's as a form of diplomacy. Presently, President Obama cannot change their course, but he has consisently warned Pakistan, that if a terrorist organization strikes the U.S,. and any part of it is traced to Pakistan, all bets our off, and Obama will not be able to protect, nor want to protect Pakistan from the groundswell of American retribution.

The book really was a fantastic read, and it kept me interested throughout. If I learned one thing from this book, it is I would never want the job of President of the United States. Thank God we have President Obama. ( )
1 vote robrod1 | Oct 30, 2011 |
Actually should be called "Obama's Meetings". And altough the book has "Wars" in the title, it's more skewed toward the wars within his own administration, and wars between his chosen advisors and the Military Generals, but this book is all about Afghanistan/Pakistan and the various meetings upon meetings talking about how to fix that war.
One of the more disturbing elements of the book, is given the importance of the CIA in today's multi front war, Obama refuses to meet with the CIA director during his transition despite Michael Hayden's repeated attempts, and Hayden finds out about his firing on television, rather than in person from Obama. Another is how Obama's team worries so much about a potential 2012 Presidential run from Gen. David Petraeus that they work to freeze him out and keep key decisions from him so he can't be seen as taking credit. Came away from this book a little more worried about the direction of my country, and at the advice the Commander in Chief gets from his advisors. ( )
  jmcclain19 | Feb 23, 2011 |
Woodward's book was interesting in it shows the thought process of conducting a war. The book starts out interesting- ends well but the painful middle was full of White House indecision. Dwight (Ike) Eisenhower made a speech in the late 1950 about the "industrial-military complex." It is alive and well in Woodward's book. It shows the power of David Petraius, Admiral Mullen, and Bob Gates. ( )
  SteveRambach | Dec 18, 2010 |
What can i say about this one, its a Woodward book. Exhaustingly researched, its about as sobering a read as you can get. This one goes inside the decision and planning process of the Afghanistan war. The amount of dissension and infighting that goes on will probably not shock you, but the lack of clear knowledge will depress you. Obama comes off looking more presidential then I normally credit him for. As always Woodward doesn't pick sides, just tries to tell the story. ( )
  norinrad10 | Dec 18, 2010 |
Even a Republican can find some empathy for the President. He seeks counsel from his advisors, they are reluctant to say anything less than full support, and then they go about leaking what they don't like. One could get quite angry with the Military as presented in this book. On the other hand, what can one say about advisors that don't advise? I've placed a lot of trust in Mr Woodward in reading this book. I hope I don't later regret that trust. ( )
  DeaconBernie | Nov 1, 2010 |
Here is your Bob Woodward 'Obama's Wars' generator: (If you want to write your own book follow Bob's formula:

For (insert important government post) (insert name of Obama adviser) recommended (Name of person next five pages will be about) who had (insert resume of person). (Person's name) looks like (athlete body type) but (pick one: looks younger,older) than his (insert age) He had met Obama previously (incident of there meeting) but he found Obama hard to read since he betrayed little emotion. Bush on the other hand always showed his emotions. (Person we are writing about) thought the best idea for Afghanistan was:(2-5 page summary of their position). When I spoke (continue t go first person when discussing the president you talked to him in the Oval office, You are part of the story you are Bob Woodward!) with President Obama he said very little but (insert your own speculation)
(Transition phase)
(Important person)'s phone rang it was (another important person) (Pick one: "We have to talk about:", "The Best way to:" "the worst thing about:" "Does Hilary know about:") (next important person:)

Repeat ( )
1 vote yeremenko | Oct 31, 2010 |
Afghanistan has now become America's longest ever war, and for the most part it has been a war that has been outside the public consciousness, under-resourced and allowed to straggle along with no real thought process about what, precisely, victory there would look like, let alone how to achieve it. In 2009 the Obama administration conducted a 'strategic review' of the war, its aims and objectives, how they were to be achieved, and most importantly, how it was to end. After his 4 books on the Bush presidency's conduct of foreign policy, this is Bob Woodward's first book on the new administration and how it conducted its strategic review and came to the decisions that it did.

Bob Woodward's books have become increasingly important fly-on-the-wall looks accounts of what happens in the White House. He has unparalleled access to the various key personalities. And while one cannot quite call them definitive accounts, since undoubtedly more relevant details will come to light in the future and historians will have the benefit of hindsight, they do give an important sense of how the business of war policy-making has and is being conducted. One gets a sense of the different personalities, their priorities, their viewpoints and they way the clash and compromise with each other.

Broadly speaking two options seem to have emerged in the review with regards to Afghanistan. The first is to limited increase troop commitments in an attempt to degrade the Taliban's fighting capability enough that it creates a window in which the Afghan government's capabilities to govern and handle security are strengthened sufficiently for the US to eventually withdraw its soldiers. The second is to start withdrawing troops and rely on drone strikes, special operations and CIA covert missions to keep disrupting any attempts by Al-Qaeda to regroup and plan and execute operations against the US homeland. The danger with the first option is that it is much costlier in lives and money, can end up being an open-ended commitment and relies on extensive cooperation from both the Afghan government and Pakistan - neither of whom have been entirely reliable in the past. The danger with the second option is that it leaves Afghanistan in a state of civil war which may see the Afghan govt. collapse, may make the environment less conducive to intelligence gathering which is needed for the covert operations and again relies on cooperation from Pakistan.

The end result is a limited version of the first option, with a cap on troops and a definitive timeline so that the administration is not drawn into an open-ended commitment a la Vietnam.

One particular idea that strongly emerges is that Pakistan forms a more important strand of an Afpak strategy than Afghanistan. It is a nuclear-armed state, is where remnants of Al-qaeda have holed up, has its own Taliban insurgency (the TTP - Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan) and its military continues to shelter various Taliban factions (the Quetta Shura and the Haqqani Network) while at the same time providing essential bases, transport routes and some intelligence cooperation with the USA. The reason for this double game is because the Pakistani military is focused on its traditional rivalry with India and looks to a friendly government in Afghanistan to provide "strategic depth" in case of a war. The Pakistani generals feel that maintaining links with the Taliban will allow them to have influence over any Taliban govt that may emerge in Afghanistan following a US withdrawal (possibly a self-fulfilling prophecy).

With the downfall of the Military dictator Musharraf in 2007/08 the Americans had placed their hopes in a shift in policy in a newly elected democratic government. Unfortunately the assassination of the leader of the PPP, Benazir Bhutto during an election rally, meant the rise to power of her more incompetent and more corrupt husband, Asif Zardari. The new civilian government has been unable to take control of defence and foreign policy which the generals still control from behind the façade of a democratic government. The suspicions of a double game still remain, despite some improvements in cooperation. The major question which the Obama administration has still not been able to solve, is how to handle Pakistan. ( )
1 vote iftyzaidi | Oct 20, 2010 |
a big bore. good snooze material. ( )
  SigmundFraud | Oct 15, 2010 |
Bob Woodward's books are something of a staple for me; as soon as a new one appears, I read it (in the meantime trying to avoid the breathless coverage of its revelations in the press before the publication date). Obama's Wars (just out from Simon & Schuster) is no different. I think of these books as little more than extra-long newspaper articles; without the benefit of hindsight that later historians will have, Woodward's journalism offers a fly-on-the-wall view of decision-making processes in all their messy, mind-numbing tedium and turf-guarding bluster.

This book effectively chronicles the year from Obama's election through early December 2009, when he announced the 30,000-troop "surge" into Afghanistan that will - hopefully - culminate in the beginnings of a drawdown there in July 2011. It recreates through in-depth interviews with many of those involved the deliberations, deals and strategy sessions that ultimately led to that announcement, and then briefly recounts what's happened since (the sacking of DNI Dennis Blair and Afghanistan commander Stanley McChrystal, and the failed Times Square bombing attempt by Faisal Shahzad, for example).

What comes through loud and clear is the impression of a president deeply engaged with the decision-making process, who understands the consequences of his actions, and who treats his responsibilities as commander in chief with all the seriousness they deserve. Obama comes across as a leader who permits significant, even rancorous debate among his team, but who can grow impatient - and justifiably so - when he's not being given the full story or being presented with a complete set of options from his advisors.

I think the most frightening aspect of the book for me was the level to which the military commanders advising Obama seemed to be always pushing for more troops and a broadening of the mission in Afghanistan, and that they seemed impervious at times to the directives Obama passed along to them for ways to focus their efforts and offer him realistic alternative approaches. The level of personal animosity and tension between various members of the national security apparatus is more than a little worrying, but in the end it seems like the president has a good team and knows how to manage them well. The vice president comes off particularly well - he may get on everybody's nerves once in a while, but he's engaged, serious, and relentlessly realistic. Some others (most notably the national security advisor) don't emerge in such a flattering light.

The major question that this book raises, and that the players never seem to manage a clear answer to is how we can achieve our goals in Afghanistan without a stronger partner there (Karzai does not appear at this point to be the serious leader the country needs in order to get back on its feet), and how can we work with Pakistan to ensure that the Taliban and al-Qaeda are rooted out of their safe havens and thoroughly beaten back? These questions, which are certainly being handled every day by the administration and will be the subject of a thorough review at the end of the year, remain to be resolved - Woodward's got another book to write.

http://philobiblos.blogspot.com/2010/10/book-review-obamas-wars.html ( )
1 vote JBD1 | Oct 3, 2010 |
Depressing. ( )
  eejjennings | Nov 7, 2010 |
Showing 18 of 18

Current Discussions

None

Popular covers

Quick Links

Rating

Average: (3.64)
0.5
1 5
1.5
2 4
2.5 4
3 20
3.5 8
4 35
4.5 3
5 17

Is this you?

Become a LibraryThing Author.

Recorded Books

An edition of this book was published by Recorded Books.

» Publisher information page

 

About | Contact | Privacy/Terms | Help/FAQs | Blog | Store | APIs | TinyCat | Legacy Libraries | Early Reviewers | Common Knowledge | 202,649,245 books! | Top bar: Always visible