Interview: Bob Woodward

On Friday, the White House parted ways with a very publicly unhappy national security advisor and many blamed his hasty pre-election exit on the account in journalist Bob Woodward's new book, Obama's Wars. Woodward tells Foreign Policy what he makes of Jim Jones's rocky tenure, why the president "is his own chief foreign policy strategist" -- and how he's still doesn't trust his generals.

INTERVIEW BY SUSAN GLASSER | OCTOBER 9, 2010

Foreign Policy: The big news yesterday is national security advisor Jim Jones announcing his departure from the White House. This is something that's been talked about almost from the very moment that he took the job in the beginning of the administration. There are people inside the White House suggesting that the account of his tenure as portrayed in your book perhaps hastened the departure. What's your sense of it? He obviously wasn't happy in the job.

Bob Woodward: The account of his tenure squares with everyone else's. And he warned President Obama at the beginning, saying you know, "I was not a very good staff guy." I think he wanted to be secretary of state but he said when he'd been the aide to Bill Cohen, secretary of defense, or to the Marine commandant, it wasn't kind of his thing and, you know, they picked him anyway. As everyone knew, he was outside the circle.

FP: Is this a story about presidents needing to be close to their national security advisors?

BW: Obama told people he thought it was important to pick somebody who's kind of not part of the political in-crowd. Obviously he's gone the other way now with [new national security advisor Tom] Donilon so it's interesting to see.

FP: The one thing that neither of these two figures is -- either Tom Donilon or Jim Jones -- is a big strategist type. You don't have anybody who's coming in with a grand vision -- it seems -- for what the Obama administration's footprint in the world should be.

BW: I think that's right and it is now clear Obama's his own chief foreign policy strategist. He designed the Afpak option himself. Interestingly -- and no one has kind of put this together because it's a little complex -- but he took the Gates memo of October 30th in which Gates said "Oh, we could do 30,000 or 35,000 troops" and Gates clearly did not see it as an option he was offering but the president latched onto it and he latched onto what Gates said, "we can begin thinning out forces in 18-24 months." And like somebody grabbing onto whatever he could, the president took that and then set the withdrawal dates so in a real sense Obama's his own strategist on these things.

FP: A lot of the commentary about the book has seized upon that and has made the point that it's very unusual the way in which Obama has interacted with the Pentagon, that he's been much more aggressive than say President Bush was in not just choosing options presented by the Pentagon but trying to create his own in the White House.

BW: Which he did and of course if it works, he's going to be a strategic genius. If it doesn't work, a lot of Republicans, Democrats and the military people are going to say "See, none of us recommended this."

FP: That's the account that really comes through very clearly and wasn't really sharply defined before this portrayal.

BW: Yes, I don't think it was out there that he couldn't get options from the Pentagon, that he laid into them and said "I want more options" and actually said "It's unacceptable that I'm not getting them."

Brad Barket/Getty Images

 

MARTY MARTEL

9:56 AM ET

October 10, 2010

It is Pakistan, Stupid

One fact stands out loud and clear in this interview by Susan Glasser with Bob Woodward It is Pakistan, Stupid.

Pakistan, the supposed principal ally of US in its fight against terrorism is in fact the prime culprit for US troubles in Afghanistan. As Bob Woodward told Susan Glasser: “That it's Pakistan. That we keep talking about Afghanistan, but we better think more and more about Pakistan. It is the powder keg of South Asia and the whole world. I remember studying World War I history in high school and college, you know, the Balkans, the powder keg of Europe and it blew up. Look at what World War I was, a prolonged international calamity. And you talk to the intelligence people and they're really worried about where this is going. Where Pakistan is going“.

While it is true that Bob Woodward is not a government official but Obama administration has NOT denied a single observation Bob W. has made in his book titled ‘Obama’s wars’. Obama administration gave unprecedented access to Bob Woodward in terms of interviews and meeting notes. So Bob W. is in the know.

And what Bob W. said has been repeatedly confirmed in recent months, by Matt Waldman’s report titled ‘The sun in the sky‘ on 6/13/2010 about Taliban’s Pakistani connections in fueling and sustaining Afghan insurgency, by WikiLeaks leaks of actual US Army’s Afghan war logs on 7/25/2010 revealing Pakistani government’s extensive involvement in remote-controlling Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan, by Chris Alexander, Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005 and Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Afghanistan from 2005 until 2009 in his article on 7/30/2010 titled ‘The huge scale of Pakistan‘s complicity‘.

With an ally like Pakistan, US never had a chance of winning in Afghanistan.

 

MARTY MARTEL

10:02 AM ET

October 10, 2010

Why, indeed?

Afghan President Karzai told the same thing at a news conference in Kabul on 7/29/2010 after WikiLeaks leaks: “The time has come for our international allies to know that the war against terrorism is not in Afghanistan’s homes and villages. But rather this war is in the sanctuaries, funding centers and training places of terrorism which are in Pakistan. Our international allies have the ability to destroy these Pakistani sanctuaries, but the question is why they are not doing it?“

Why, indeed?

With an ally like Pakistan, US never had a chance of winning in Afghanistan.

 

RKERG

11:45 PM ET

October 10, 2010

Obama is wise not to put too

Obama is wise not to put too much trust in the Generals of the Pentagon. Many of them are, when all is said and done, careerists eager to please the defense contractors and think tanks who will, one day employ them. And, the buck stops in the White House not the Pentagon.

 

RAY GIBBS

12:37 PM ET

October 11, 2010

Take from Woodward's Interview, associated information

Like Marty Martel's second remarks.

Consider: Leon Panetta's offer to the President (Woodward's book)--150 safe-havens of Al Qaeda & Taliban (s) inside Pakistan.

Further Iran: its continuous supply of munitions to Al Queada and/or Taliban (s) inside Pakistan--their killing & destruction inside Afghanistan.

Its supply of munitions inside Iraq that country's insurgency--an even greater killing & destruction. Give a listen to Charlie Rose's interview of former PM Tony Blair.

Strategy: Take out the "safe havens" Mr. President or what we wage is something less than war.

"Rocket science"? Not yet.

Imagine Mr. President & Generals & CIA & National Security Council-- Imagine. Our nation, coalition ones have supplied the manpower & blood & gold & will--too much & too long. Imagine.

 

RKERG

11:56 PM ET

October 11, 2010

One could argue that taking

One could argue that taking out some of the "safe havens" is just what the drones are doing. Not enough perhaps, as long as a single one remains. its not "enough" but it is pretty effective.