Barnes, NYT's Gordon assigned blame for failed strategy to generals, not Bush

Written by Brian Levy

Published

New York Times chief military correspondent Michael Gordon asserted that “President Bush did listen to his generals over the past year and a half, and he did as -- implement the strategy that General [George W.] Casey [Jr.] advocated, and it didn't work.” Fox News host Fred Barnes asserted that “the president is not doing what his commanders on the ground have urged, mainly because their policy has failed.” But these assertions ignore reporting that Bush had been determining troop levels in Iraq and has “never left the decision to commanders.”


On the January 7 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, New York Times chief military correspondent Michael Gordon asserted that “the military's divided” on whether to add combat troops to Iraq, but added that viewers should “remember [that] President Bush did listen to his generals over the past year and a half, and he did as -- implement the strategy that General [George W.] Casey [Jr.] advocated, and it didn't work.” Gordon's assertion that Bush “listen[ed] to his generals” to determine strategy or policy -- as Bush claimed repeatedly to have done -- ignores reporting that Bush has “never left the decision to commanders.”

Bush has repeatedly claimed that generals determined the troop levels in Iraq. For example, on November 30, 2005, he said: “These decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground in Iraq and the good judgment of our commanders -- not by artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington.” On October 25, 2006, Bush said: “I will send more troops to Iraq if General Casey says, 'I need more troops in Iraq to achieve victory.' And that's the way I've been running this war. I have great faith in General Casey.”

But, as Media Matters for America has noted, in a December 21 article, The Washington Post reported that, although “Bush has traditionally paid public deference to the generals, saying any decisions on moving U.S. forces in the region would depend on their views,” an unnamed Bush “senior aide” said that Bush has “never left the decision to commanders. ... He is the commander in chief.”

In claiming that Bush listened to his generals, Gordon both accepted Bush's assertion that generals -- not Bush -- determined troop levels in Iraq as true and assigned authorship to Casey of a strategy that Gordon said “didn't work.”

Similarly, on the January 7 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard executive editor and Fox News host Fred Barnes asserted that “the president is not doing what his commanders on the ground have urged, mainly because their policy has failed,” suggesting that this is a change from Bush's previous course and, as with Gordon, attributing the failed strategy to the “commanders on the ground.”

From the January 7 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:

TIM RUSSERT (host): Michael Gordon, you said that the Pentagon, military people, are not monolithic. What's the sense in that building about the surge? Do they believe that it has a reasonable chance of success or failure?

GORDON: I think there's divided views on this. I think General [David] Petraeus is for it, I think General [Raymond] Odierno, who we haven't mentioned, but who's the number two commander now in Iraq, is very much for it. I think the chiefs are willing to go along with it, but they're obviously concerned about the effect on their services. And I think there are some people on the ground in -- in Baghdad, at least when I was there in October, at the battalion level and below, who see some merit on -- in it. So I think the military's divided. But remember, President Bush did listen to his generals over the past year and a half, and he did as -- implement the strategy that General Casey advocated, and it didn't work. So I think that there's a sense that, you know, a new approach might be needed. And at least when they put forward this strategy, they're going to have a commander who's actually believes in this strategy.

RUSSERT: Is there a sense that 20,000 or 30,000 more troops could, in fact, stabilize Baghdad?

From the January 7 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:

BRIT HUME (guest host): Well, you heard it reflected in those comments that we just played. You heard it reflected in the interviews today, [House Majority Leader] Steny Hoyer [D-MD] reflecting the views similar to those of [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] that this is, in his view, A, not new, this idea of sending, what, now, 20,000 troops to Iraq.

If the president unveils this, it's going to be a huge controversy. What about the merits of it from a military point of view, Fred?

BARNES: Well, in truth, as Senator Reid said, the president is not doing what his commanders on the ground have urged, mainly because their policy has failed. Baghdad is not secure. It's the -- it's the center of great chaos and turmoil and violence in Iraq.

So he's done what Abraham Lincoln did. When your commanders are not winning, you bring in new commanders. And after all, he is the commander in chief.