Like Laura Rozen and others, Democracy Arsenal's Michael Cohen thinks the Eikenberry memo may have been leaked by the WH itself as a trial balloon because Obama is planning to go with a smaller troop buildup for Afghanistan than the military wants.
But Cohen adds:
But there is something deeply depressing about the idea that President Obama needs the imprimatur of a four-star general to justify acting in, what he believes, is the country's national interest. Crikey, the man is Commander-in-Chief! Ask yourself, if Karl Eikenberry had never served in the military - and was a career diplomat - do you think his words would have the same impact as they seem to be having right now? I think not.
Indeed, the fact that Obama may feel the need to use the cover of a retired general to justify NOT sending 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan is at pace with what has to be one of the most depressing recent poll results that I've seen in a very long time:
While Americans oppose Gen. Stanley McChrystal's proposal, they want U.S. generals to make the decisions when it comes to troop levels. A full 62 percent said they had more confidence in "the generals running operations in the country," while only 25 percent said they had more confidence in the president and the secretary of Defense, when it comes to troop decisions.
To hell with the McChrystal leak; this is truly a crisis in civil-military relations! By more than two to one Americans believe the military - and not their civilian overseers - should be making decisions about how US troops are deployed overseas. That is a recipe for unceasing and perpetual military conflict and a dangerous indication of exactly how powerful and influential the military has become in American society. It's not just a co-equal branch of government (as dangerous as that may be) it may end up becoming the most powerful branch of government.
In the unlikely event that President Obama actually chooses to de-escalate the US military presence in Afghanistan (while monitoring potential terrorist training grounds from afar and providing financial aid to Afghans to help them rebuild their society after decades of war), I'd be ecstatic. That would be the right policy purely on its own merits, imo.
But amid all the leaks designed to force Obama into escalating troop levels and none-too-subtle whispers about military coups if he doesn't, it would also have great value if it serves to remind everyone that civilians are the ones who are supposed to be making the decisions on matters of war and peace and the military is supposed to carry out what's been decided, not the other way around.