Thread by @Andy_J_Payne

In selecting Gen. Austin over Michèle Flournoy, Biden cites the former's role in the drawdown in Iraq as evidence of his suitability for the office. A closer look at that episode reveals intriguing details about a mismatch of preferences among all three.

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…

As I explain in my @Journal_IS article, Austin's initial recommendations for a residual troop presence in Iraq were met with sticker shock in the Obama-Biden WH. And it was *Flournoy* who delivered the bad news, in her role as Under SecDef for Policy.
mitpressjournals.org/doi/full/10.11…

Flournoy told me in an interview that the military's initial proposals were "just not even in the ballpark from a White House perspective", leading her to work w/ Austin on a more modest proposal with fewer troops and revised tasks that satisfied the administration's preferences.

According to colleagues, Flournoy was frank, saying, "Lloyd, this isn’t going to work. A president who campaigned on not leaving a Korea-style presence in perpetuity in Iraq is not going to leave a Korea-style presence in Iraq."

Flournoy remained a strong advocate for keeping at least some troops on, however. When the Obama WH - with Biden taking the lead on Iraq - opted to proceed with a full withdrawal, abandoning the idea of a follow-on force, she was deeply dismayed.

The legal arguments cited by many as a reason for the full withdrawal were for her "an excuse, or a public explanation, for what I believe was a policy choice." The Obama-Biden WH simply wanted out.

I was told by others that Austin privately shared Flournoy's concerns and felt a *much* larger troop presence would be required. He was supported by many among the JCS and at CENTCOM. But he saw his recommendations slowly whittled down throughout 2011.

Even so, documents reveal that he delayed the beginning of the drawdown, keeping almost 50,000 troops in theater as late as August 2011 so as to provide “flexibility” for the prospect of a bigger follow-on force being authorised at the last minute. That day never came.

In the end, that's what apparently mattered to Biden. Writing today, he says: "General Austin got the job done. He played a crucial role in bringing 150,000 American troops home from the theater of war."

Interesting implications here for the current context. Was Austin's willingness to bend to Biden's preferences a key factor in his nomination? Following the civilian leadership's direction is proper under civ-mil norms, but what expectations were set by this episode?

For more, check out the article, which has also just been expertly reviewed by @PSBenFordham in @HDiplo here:

https://twitter.com/JoshRovner1/status/1336289054929858560?s=20