Today’s New York Times includes a story by Elizabeth Bumiller, titled “As the Commander in Chief Deliberates, Frustration Builds Within the Ranks.” It is a so-called Military Memo and as the title suggests, it is filled with quotes from Bumiller’s sources who aren’t too happy with the Obama administration’s deliberations over strategy in Afghanistan.
The headline of the piece clearly suggests that the frustration is within the active duty military. Bumiller echoes that claim in this paragraph:
A number of active duty and retired senior officers say there is concern that the president is moving too slowly, is revisiting a war strategy he announced in March and is unduly influenced by political advisers in the Situation Room. [Emphasis added]
Both the headline and this paragraph struck me as very odd, as it is rare to see members of the active duty military publicly speak out against the President qua Commander in Chief. I was even more surprised, then, that Bumiller’s piece does not quote any active duty member of the military voicing “furstration” or “concern” about the Obama administration…or any other issues. No active duty members of the military are quoted. Bumiller’s sources include:
“Nathaniel C. Fick, a former Marine Corps infantry officer…”
“the national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Thomas J. Tradewell Sr….”
“A retired general who served in Iraq…”
“[Defense Secretary Robert M.] Gates…”
“Andrew M. Exum, a former Army officer in Afghanistan, an adviser to General McChrystal and a fellow at the Center for a New American Security…”
“Michael O’Hanlon, a national security expert at the Brookings Institution.”
“A military policy analyst, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing senior Pentagon leaders”
Note that none of these are active duty members of the military. The “military policy analyst” is almost certainly someone from a think tank, or, at most, a civilian working at the Pentagon. With seven sources in her piece, Bumiller has failed to back up the headline and her claim that “active duty” officers think Obama is moving too slowly and is being overly influenced by political advisers.
The only possible exception is that she does refer to Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s public disagreement about a reduction of the scale of the war in Afghanistan. But while McChrystal’s disagreement was public and widely reported, McChrystal did not say Obama was moving too slowly nor did he say he was being influenced by his political advisers. That is, Bumiller’s claim is not supported by McChrystal.
Reporting that active duty officers are speaking to the New York Times about their complaints of the President’s decision making timing and his choice of advisers is a big deal. It would be quite a controversy – one that Secretary Gates has already taken steps to avoid. But making the bold claim that this is happening and failing to back it up with even a single source — on the record or anonymous — is a bigger deal. Bumiller is telling a story she does not have sources to support. Conveniently, it’s one that fits into a common Beltway narrative fostered by the right that the military doesn’t trust Democrats. It’s sad that Bumiller has been given the space to do this, as it is an insult to the professionalism of the women and men of America’s military, generally, and the officer corps in particular.
6 thoughts on “Is Elizabeth Bumiller Making Things Up?”
Isn’t her claim supposed to be support by the anon source? That is, the anon source is TELLING her that active duty military are worried/grumbling whatever.
She may think that’s the case, but that is hearsay that she has not documented and at best very shoddy reporting.
The headline and her own writing includes her reporting that active duty members are grumbling on two particular issues. The story she wrote simply doesn’t back that up.
Bumiller is not concerned about the accuracy of the information she reports. She’s worried about keeping a job and boosting NYT subscription sales.
This story was so odd. I wonder if it is offensive to those serving in Afghanistan. I doubt that they would appreciate a think tanker claiming to know what that think. It gives me the creeps that the msm is almost undermining the president.
When Woodward reported the confidential report about Afghanistan, it was only a bit of it and that probably gave a false impression of the entire report.
The false claims that the Iraq Surge worked is rearing it’s ugly head again and it is being used to bolster the belief that the US should go full force into Afghanistan.
One other element missing is that winter is soon to arrive and the fighting goes down. This gives the president the time to consider all of the aspects of this mess.
It seems to be like the old lies and double talk that kept Vietnam going for so long.
These are the same immoral fools who didn’t care one whit about Afghanistan a year ago.
To do this is to cause doubt about President Obama, just when the soldiers in Afghanistan need to have the utmost confidence in him.
They are out there on the front lines and having an awful time.
The 101st Chair-borne and the keyboard commandos Are the scum of the earth.
I noticed the same thing. She quotes no active duty personnel to back up her article title.
Bumiller has a history of making stuff up. Not only that, she was the one who admitted(as documented in one of Glennzilla’s books) of being afraid to appear too antagonistic towards Dubya in the lead up to the Iraq War.