Has Bob Woodward jumped the shark?

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Wednesday, September 22, 2010 - 9:24 AM Share

There are many peculiar rites of passage for each incoming U.S. administration: the first scandal, the first resignation, the first broken campaign promise, and the first botched use of force. 

Add to this list the first Bob Woodward book of an administration. Like a debutante's coming-out party, there are highly formalized rituals -- the press leaks about the good stuff in the book, the Sunday morning talk show commentators obsessing over the more controversial bits and pieces, the inevitable meta-essays on Woodward himself. As a young foreign policy wonk, I remember looking forward to the latest Woodward tome the way others looked forward to the latest Stephen King novel. 

That was then, however -- with Obama's Wars, has Bob Woodward demonstrated that he's about as irrelevant as the debutante circuit? 

Woodward is operating in a very different media environment now. What used to be his bread and butter -- the political and bureaucratic machinations of presidential administrations -- is no longer his exclusive province. Beyond the Washington Post and New York Times, media outlets as varied as Politico, Vanity Fair, Huffington Post, and the New Yorker now generate monthly weekly hourly revelations that Woodward used to be able to hoard for his books. As my old dissertation advisor used to say, "is there anything new here?"

Let's see what Steve Luxenberg's preview in the Washington Post has to say: 

President Obama urgently looked for a way out of the war in Afghanistan last year, repeatedly pressing his top military advisers for an exit plan that they never gave him, according to secret meeting notes and documents cited in a new book by journalist Bob Woodward....

Among the book's other disclosures:

-- Obama told Woodward in the July interview that he didn't think about the Afghan war in the "classic" terms of the United States winning or losing. "I think about it more in terms of: Do you successfully prosecute a strategy that results in the country being stronger rather than weaker at the end?" he said.

-- The CIA created, controls and pays for a clandestine 3,000-man paramilitary army of local Afghans, known as Counterterrorism Pursuit Teams. Woodward describes these teams as elite, well-trained units that conduct highly sensitive covert operations into Pakistan as part of a stepped-up campaign against al-Qaeda and Afghan Taliban havens there.

-- Obama has kept in place or expanded 14 intelligence orders, known as findings, issued by his predecessor, George W. Bush. The orders provide the legal basis for the CIA's worldwide covert operations.

-- A new capability developed by the National Security Agency has dramatically increased the speed at which intercepted communications can be turned around into useful information for intelligence analysts and covert operators. "They talk, we listen. They move, we observe. Given the opportunity, we react operationally," then-Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell explained to Obama at a briefing two days after he was elected president.

-- A classified exercise in May showed that the government was woefully unprepared to deal with a nuclear terrorist attack in the United States. The scenario involved the detonation of a small, crude nuclear weapon in Indianapolis and the simultaneous threat of a second blast in Los Angeles. Obama, in the interview with Woodward, called a nuclear attack here "a potential game changer." He said: "When I go down the list of things I have to worry about all the time, that is at the top, because that's one where you can't afford any mistakes."

-- Afghan President Hamid Karzai was diagnosed as manic depressive, according to U.S. intelligence reports. "He's on his meds, he's off his meds," Woodward quotes U.S. Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry as saying.

Hmmm.... there is some interesting stuff, but it's more in the details (Karzai's depression, the CIA's paramilitaries) than in the overarching narrative. Obama feuded with the military on Afghanistan? There was bureaucratic dissension on Afghanistan? Well, blow me down!! 

This ain't how it used to be. In The Commanders, for example, Woodward showed that JCS Chairman Colin Powell was much more reluctant to attack Iraq than previously known. 

Now it's possible that this is simply a function of me being more cynical older than I used to be. But the fact is, I just don't look forward to a new Bob Woodward book anymore. 

Question to readers:  has Woodward jumped the shark? 

EXPLORE:MEDIASPHERE, AFGHANISTAN, MEDIA, MILITARY, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, AFGHANISTAN, BUREAUCRATIC POLITICS, OBAMA
 

GSTASIEWICZ

2:15 PM ET

September 22, 2010

jumping the shark

In that he's not exactly doing something overly spectacular yet completely pointless, no, he hasn't jumped the shark

 

SCOOP

6:46 PM ET

September 22, 2010

Or has Obama 'screwed the pooch'?

Posted by Robert Haddick on Sep 22, 2010

"As is already well-known, Obama has approved a population-centric counterinsurgency strategy but refused to fund it with the time necessary for success. Woodward also makes it clear that Obama proceeded with escalation even after acknowledging that the U.S. can’t succeed while the Taliban’s sanctuaries in Pakistan remain – a problem that remains without a solution. What was newly revealed this morning is Obama’s discomfort with his own strategy, his disdain for his military advisers, and his urgency to wind down America’s military effort. As a result, Hamid Karzai will redouble his efforts to cut his own deals with Pakistan, the ISI, and the Taliban. And from that follows a higher risk of an Afghan civil war as its ethnic groups prepare to defend themselves."

 

GZZZUS

9:18 PM ET

September 22, 2010

Well, he's gotta sell books right?

Well, you gotta figure that Bob Woodward is even a name a non-interested party would tend to perk up at and pay attention to.

So, while this is no revelatory for the typical FP reader, it might be over on (how I hate using this term) Main Street.

But I also figure, he's gotta drum up some interest. Because if this is the most revelatory material that'll be used to sell books, then its probably rather benign otherwise.

 

GRANT

11:35 PM ET

September 22, 2010

The phrase of 'jumping the

The phrase of 'jumping the shark' really doesn't belong to this any more than calling a D-Day a 'crowning moment of awesome' would. Even ignoring that it belongs more to pop culture it is still an incorrect word to define the situation.

Getting back to the main question of whether Woodward is still relevant I would say that there are some advantages to his books similar to those of a newspaper (at one time at least). Instead of hourly reporting that hungers for the latest tidbit of information Mr. Woodward can take his time to gather all the data and compile it into something that can be insightful. Personally I imagine that the problem lies less with Mr. Woodward and more with his audience that expects quick, constant action from CNN poisoning.

 

LOBEWIPER

12:17 AM ET

September 23, 2010

Trashing one's fellow political writers

To suggest Woodward's new book amounts to nothing more than "jumping the shark" is an inappropriate and highly provocative comment about a book that Dresner hasn't even read yet. Making such a comment suggests Mr. Dresner could be jealous of Woodward's access to high-level government operatives and/or his ability to get good book deals.

That said, Dresner may prove to be correct that Woodward's book will prove less illuminating than we had hoped. I found his "Bush at War" disappointing in some respects because he appeared at times to simply be fleshing out things I thought we already knew.

Again, responsible journalists actually read people's work carefully rather than rely upon brief summaries by others before commenting on--much less trashing--that work (while simultaneously suggesting the author's star is fading fast). Mr. Dresner, you are capable of better work.

 

UMESHGEETA

4:38 AM ET

September 23, 2010

Yes, that is right

Yup you got it correctly Professor. Woodward book has indeed become a passage of right and is turning out to 'storm in a tea cup' apart from earning millions to him.

He probably wrote 2 tombs for Bush Presidency. How much of what he wrote is relevant / useful to Obama Presidency? Besides, I am not sure whether Woodward works can be treated as comprehensive History in true and academic sense. His is somewhere hybrid - more titillation for Public.

Beyond a point who cares whether General Petraeus calls Axelrod as 'spin doctor'? What value is added by this to American Public? Beyond a point it matters less about the thought process of a decision maker than the actual, eventual decision.

We elect Presidents and Leaders to get those decisions right, not how beautiful the process had been. There is no prescribed process for such core leadership decisions. True, because of which public has curiosity for that. But Woodward is not investigating and reporting that process in any scientific manner or so. Good is he also does not claim that. Then what is the point of enriching him by buying his tombs and giving one's own so much time to go through it?

 

THECARDINAL

7:14 PM ET

September 27, 2010

Playing Footsies with the Shark

I don't know if he ever will jump the shark since he will always get a big leak or two and some headlines but I don't think Woodward has molded perceptions of leaders in a long time. I remember shrugging my shoulders after reading "The Agenda." Sure there were some amazing details but was anything a major relevation? Hardly. I think this has been the case since.

 

Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Read More