Former General Stanley McChrystal put President Obama into a near impossible position and President Obama may have turned that into a deciding turning point in the Afghan war.
President Barack Obama on Wednesday replaced Gen. Stanley McChrystal as commander of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan and nominated Gen. David Petraeus to replace him while affirming support for a counterinsurgency strategy encountering problems.
The dramatic shift came a day after McChrystal's disparaging comments about America's civilian leadership surfaced, and reignited the national debate on the war in Afghanistan -- now in its eighth year with a June death toll of coalition forces that is close to becoming the highest of the war.
Obama accepted McChrystal's resignation "with considerable regret" and named Petraeus, the head of the U.S. Central Command, to take over pending Senate confirmation.
Folks like Joe Liberman and John McCain are fond of saying...
General Petreaus literally wrote the book on counterinsurgency
That's because that is true both figuratively and literally. With the successful campaign in Iraq, Petraeus showed the world how to run a counterinsurgency manual. Meanwhile, his actual counterinsurgency manual was published in 2006, shortly before he went to Iraq. Petraeus is taking over with the Afghan theater in disarray but then again, nothing liked more dire than Iraq circa the beginning of 2007. Petraeus has an opportunity to make a case in every history book as America's greatest military person.
Afghanistan has three x factors: the rules of engagement, the timeline for withdrawal, and most importantly, Karzai. Immediately, we'll see if Petraeus will make the rules of engagement. The confirmation hearing should also be a pre qual to his battle over a timeline. Karzai remains the biggest concern. In Iraq, however, no one thought that Nuri Al Maliki could be a great leader right up until he was. Will Karzai go the way of Maliki or the South Vietnamese?
My cohort in the Watcher of Weasels, Bookworm room, wrote what I thought was an excellent introduction, but it was the whole post. She did, however, give me carte blanche to use that intro and turn it into a full commentary. So, alas...
Reading the news today about, among other things, the Gulf oil spill, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Euro collapse, Iran, Israel, Turkey, the economy, the border, and illegal immigration, I’ve had two phrases that stuck in my brain and refuse to leave. The first is Janet Napolitano’s near-deathless bit of bureaucratese, “man-caused disasters,” one that she and her minions created to obscure the fact that Islamic fundamentalism is the common denominator binding together those mass killings around the world that involve guns, airplanes, tractors, rocket launches, beheadings, beatings, hangings, etc.
The second phrase is Obama’s statement, one with which I fully agree, that “elections have consequences.”
Combine those two phrases — “elections have consequences” and “man-caused disaster” — and you end up with this, the ultimate man-caused disaster:
This man caused disaster wasted no time. The chief of staff boldly proclaimed that we can't let a crisis go to waste, and the man caused disaster wasted no time. Not two months into his term, this man caused disaster spent $787 billion. That was supposed to keep our unemployment rate below 8% but of course it's hit 10% and hovers near there since. This man caused disaster told us we must spend this money. After all, the solution to a crisis in which families and banks took on too much debt could only be solved by the government taking on too much debt. Voila. Now, the government does have too much debt. This man caused disaster didn't create debts and deficits. Instead, the man caused disaster created debts and deficits 2.0. Now, we have deficits way north of $1 trillion as far as the eye can see. Our debt is nearing in on 100% of our GDP and Moody's is threatening to cut our bond ratings. They're only threatening but these threats haven't changed the mind of this man caused disaster. So, sometime in the next few months, a year, or a few years those threats will be a reality. Then, this man caused disaster will cause a disaster to anyone that wants to borrow for a car, a house, a credit card, or even a student loan.
So far, the only man caused disaster of this man caused disaster's notorious health care bill will be the man caused disaster at the ballot box for Democrats this November. Soon, though, everyone will feel the effects of this man caused disaster. We recently learned that about half of those that have health insurance will lose it. We've learned that health care costs will increase 20% more than they would have without the bill, and we've learned that about 15% of hospitals will go out of business trying to comply with this man caused disaster all caused by the man caused disaster known as Obamacare.
The border is so porous that Phoenix now only trails Mexico City in kidnappings. The state of Arizona is so desperate that they passed their own law to enforce federal immigration laws. The key difference will be that Arizona will actually enforce this law. How does the man caused disaster respond? He won't enforce any immigration laws until we all agree to grant amnesty to up to 20 million folks that entered the country illegally. Oh, and, he'll sue the state of Arizona for having the gall to do the job he refuses to do.
This man caused disaster spent the entire campaign telling Americans that Afghanistan was the good war (as opposed to Iraq which would then be the bad war) So, he escalated the war in Afghanistan. The man caused disaster couldn't leave well enough alone and so as he was announcing an increase in troops he also announced an end to the war. The analysts say this second pronouncement is for "domestic consumption" but our Afghan partner, Hamid Karzai, didn't get the memo. He seems to think that this pronouncement could be a man caused disaster to his own neck. So, he's hedging his bet and he's playing footsy with our enemies all while pledging allegiance to us. Since the closest this man caused disaster came to war policy was an especially rowdy night at the local coffee shop in Hyde Park, he may not realize that it's much more difficult to win a war when our partner is simultaneously partnering up with our enemies.
Of course, our so called ally in Afghanistan must feel in good company. After all, lots of our allies must feel like enemies by the way they're treated by this man caused disaster. Our only true ally in the Middle East, and the only true Democracy, has been disrespected, strong armed, threatened, all while the same man caused disaster has reached to most of her enemies with deference due a nobel laureate. Then again, Israel is in good company. Alvaro Uribe may wind up being Colombia's George Washington, but in the view of this man caused disaster, he takes a second seat to leftist Daniel Ortega. Then, there's the Brits. They've been our partners in war and peace since they were our enemies in war and peace. Churchill, Thatcher, and Blair partnered with FDR, Reagan and Bush to free Western Europe, then Eastern Europe and finally Afghanistan and Iraq from tyranny. Those accomplishments are insignificant in the mind of this man caused disaster. First, he sent the bust of Churchill back, then he gave Gordon Brown some DVD's that didn't work, but finally he sided with a leftist over Britain in a dispute over the Falkland Islands.
Meanwhile, our enemies are stronger and more ferocious. North Korea was feeling bold and so they shot up a South Korean ship. Iran laughs every time a limp Security Council resolution against it is passed, and soon China will own everyone's debt. The answer from this man made disaster appears to be to ask for more limp Security Council resolutions and to borrow even more from China.
Then, there's the ultimate man caused disaster, the oil spill. No one blames the man caused disaster for causing this man caused disaster. Instead, this man caused disaster made that man caused disaster exponentially worse. How much worse...no one knows. Maybe, if this man caused disaster had scratched the numerous White House concerts, fundraisers, and golf outings, the other man caused disaster would have been under more control. Instead, the oil spews, the pelicans choke, and millions watch their livelihoods evaporate. One man caused disaster meets another man caused disaster.
It's been just a bit less than seven years since then President George Bush ordered a surprise bombing on the palace of Saddam Hussein. In the interim, Iraq has gone through a remarkable transformation. Only four short years, the violence was so intense that most everyone thought loss was assured and it would soon disintegrate into a failed state or worse. Since, the country has roared back from the brink of uncontrolled chaos and is quickly becoming a model of Democracy and representative government for the Middle East. So, that is the backdrop for the vote in parliamentary elections in Iraq tomorrow. Those elections are nothing like the elections here. Already a car bomb has exploded and Al Qaeda promises to kill anyone that leaves their home to vote.
A car bomb exploded near a bus for pilgrims in the Shiite holy city of Najaf on Saturday, killing at least three people, including two Iranians, on the eve of key national elections, officials said.
Blasts in other Iraqi cities have killed dozens this week, underscoring warnings that insurgents would attempt to disrupt the vote with violence. An Al Qaeda front group issued a statement on Friday saying those who leave their homes on election day risk attack.
We've been here before. For each election, Al Qaeda sets off bombs and threatens anyone that dares to vote. They are successful in taking lives but entirely unsuccessful in scaring anyone from their new found rights.
In fact, as remarkable as the elections themselves will be, the run up to the elections have proven just how far Iraq has come. Their were a series of debates. These debates weren't only broadcast throughout Iraq, but through satellite, broadcast throughout the Middle East. The debates were so provocative that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was moved to call in himself to one of the aftershows and comment on one of the topics being debated.
The station said that they cut seven minutes from its running time to make more room for advertisements from various campaigns.
And the ads don’t come cheap: 15 minutes of airtime cost $100,000, according to station officials.
The shows are also being seen outside Iraq. Ms. Qaysei said she was pleasantly surprised when Egypt’s president, Hosni Mubarak, called the station and praised the debate program.
President Bush firmly believed that liberty was a universal concept. His critics mocked him. They said that the Middle East wasn't ready for that kind of freedom. Yet, Iraqis vote in much larger percentages than we do, even though they face the threat of death when they do. These debates are among the most popular television in Iraq. They're our American Idol.
The critics also claimed that Iraq would quickly become nothing more than a puppet of Iran. Those critics were again wrong. They underestimated the sophistication of Iraqi society and politics.
In fact, Iraq's parliamentary system is far too sophisticated for that. While Shia are by far the most dominant sect, it's far too splintered politically to ever cause Iraq to merely be Iran's puppet. There are those Shia that merely want to be Iran's puppet and there are others that are Secular. Both the Sunni and Kurds have no use for Iran. In a parliamentary system, one party can't rule alone and so the interests of Iran must be balanced with the interests of smaller players in order to build a coalition.
That's the most remarkable thing of all. In seven short years, Iraq has gone from a dictatorship ruled by a strong man to a representative government GOVERNED by a sophisticated parliamentary system. The ruling government lead by Nuri Al Maliki is made up of a coalition of six different parties. This election features about six thousand candidates and they are all vying for votes by giving their platforms on issues like the future of Kirkuk.
General Petreaus often said that in counter insurgency there is no one moment where victory is made. Instead, the people reject the insurgents and embrace democracy. We have victory. The election, the debates, and the manner in which the Iraqi people have embraced their new found liberty is victory. No bombs, explosions, or fear will ever make them waver from what they have.
Any day spent talking terrorism isn’t automatically a good one for the Obama administration, given the Republicans’ traditional edge on the issue among voters.
But debating Dick Cheney on terrorism? The Obama White House says it’s happy to do that anytime, as it did with Sunday’s split-screen standoff between Cheney and Vice President Joe Biden.
The dueling appearances, along with what is a clear administration strategy to play up its newly aggressive approach in Afghanistan, show a White House determined to project a posture of strength on national security and trying to gain the upper hand with Republicans who wish to portray Obama as weak.
This is the height of political incompetence, in my opinion. Taking on the Bush administration is a total loser for the Obama administration. That's because no one in the Bush administration has anything to lose.
When you attack your opponent two things happen. First, your opponents negatives go up. Second, your negatives go up. The Bush administration won't be running for office. Dick Cheney's approval ratings can go to zero and it won't matter. He's not running for office. His criticisms will be run in a loop against Biden's.
So, think about that. Biden's defense is that they did the same thing the Bush administration did in the Richard Reid case. So, the negatives will go up for the Bush administration's handling of the Richard Reid case. That's not going to help with the approvals of Obama's handling of Farouk.
Democrats think they are winning because a recent WAPO poll gave the Obama administration 56% approval on its handling of the GWOT. Of course, the GWOT is a much broader thing: Iraq, Afghanistan, drones, etc. The public is overwhelmingly against civilian trials for KSM and they are none too happy with the Obama administration's handling of Farouk.
Let's go back to the Dick Morris theory. It doesn't matter how the media presents an issue. All that matters is what issue they are talking about. For the Obama administration anything in relation to the handling of the Farouk case is a total loser for the Obama administration. So, why draw more attention to it by getting into a spat with Cheney.
It could take weeks to reclaim the Taliban stronghold of Marjah, a top Marine commander said Sunday as thousands of U.S. troops and Afghan soldiers fought for a second day in NATO's most ambitious effort yet to break the militants' grip on Afghanistan's dangerous south.
"That doesn't necessarily mean an intense gun battle, but it probably will be 30 days of clearing," Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson said. "I am more than cautiously optimistic that we will get it done before that."
This is a McChrystal operation but it follows standard counterinsurgency procedures. That means that the first step in the process is to clear the bad guys from all their spheres of influence.
The clearing portion will also likely be the easiest part of the process. Holding said territory, the second part of the process, will be toughest part. In Iraq, that meant going house to house in an urban environment. In Afghanistan, the regions are much more rural. It means searching all sorts of land and mountains. When we begin the process of holding territory, that will test the limits of how well this strategy transfers.
The final part of the strategy is the build portion and that's entirely economic. That will also prove extremely challenging since Afghanistan has never seen economic growth.
President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize speech gave conservatives, or dare I say neoconservatives, plenty to love.
We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.
I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naïve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
...
Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
...
And yet too often, these words are ignored. For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists -- a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.
I reject these choices. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests -- nor the world's -- are served by the denial of human aspirations.
Without a doubt, sprinkled into his Nobel Peace Prize speech were shots at the previous administration and tacit acknowledgements to the Euro liberals about America's past moral failings. Still, the general tenor of the speech was a very vigorous defense of a muscular foreign policy.
The speech came within a week of the President's announcement that he would send more troops to Afghanistan. The speech was applauded by no less than Newt Gingrich, who called it Obama's best, and Sarah Palin. Meanwhile, Neoconservative stalwarts William Kristol and Fred Kagan had this to say following the announcement of Obama's Afghanistan strategy.
Obama's decision, and the speech in which it was announced, were not flawless. The president should have met his commander's full request for forces. He should not have announced a deadline for the start of the withdrawal of U.S. forces. He should have committed to a specific and significant increase in the size of the Afghan National Security Forces. He should also have explained more clearly the relationship between defeating the Taliban and defeating al Qaeda, the significance of such a victory, and the reasons his Afghan strategy can succeed. The secretaries of defense and state, as well as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made those arguments far more compellingly in subsequent congressional testimony than the president did at West Point.
We shouldn't miss the forest for the trees, however. When all the rhetorical and other problems are stripped away, the fact remains that Obama has, in his first year in office, committed to doubling our forces in Afghanistan and embraced our mission there. Indeed, the plan the president announced on Tuesday features a commendably rapid deployment of reinforcements to the theater, with most of the surge forces arriving over the course of this winter, allowing them to be in position before the enemy's traditional fighting season begins.
In fact, the Nobel Peace Prize speech moved Bill Kristol to say this.
There was a fair amount for Bush Doctrine-supporters, American-exceptionalist patriots, and neocon warmongers to like in Obama's Oslo speech. He sounded hardheaded and pro-American, certainly by contrast with his previous rhetorical forays abroad--his utopian world-without-nuclear-weapons remarks in Prague in April or his apologetic speech to the Muslim world in Cairo two months later.
In Oslo, Obama began "by acknowledging a hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes." The implication of that? "There will be times when nations--acting individually or in concert--will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified."
Note that "acting individually." Despite much talk elsewhere in the speech about the international community acting together, Obama held open the possibility that nations will have to act alone and will be morally justified in doing so.
Similarly, despite his professed admiration for Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., Obama explicitly said, "as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone." Indeed, Obama went on implicitly to rebuke Gandhi: "A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies."
Kristol goes on to speculate if the Oslo speech was a precursor to a strike on Iran.
One thing that was underreported was the reaction to Obama in Europe following this speech. The Nobel Peace Prize speech was by far the most bellicose acceptance speech for the Nobel PEACE Prize that I can think of. Yet, there was little if any criticism of its bellicosity. In fact, the general reaction was positive.
Obama has in fact set things up to lead the world into aggressive action against Iran if that's what he chooses to do. His foreign policy has slowly but surely moved away from the naive leftist fantasy that it started out as to a much more realistic one.
It's true that Obama continues to insist on closing GITMO and trying KSM et al in country is disastrous. At the same time, Obama has effectively continued Bush's Iraq policy. He's followed a similar strategy in Afghanistan. If the Nobel Peace Prize speech is any indication, he may be moving to a muscular policy toward Iran as well.
The beauty is that if that's what he chooses he's in fact set himself up perfectly. The Europeans are enthralled with Obama. Only President Barack Obama could convince the Europeans to take a muscular stance against Iran. That doesn't necessarily mean a rush to war. In fact, he could lead the charge against serious sanctions, a Naval blockade, removal of ambassadors, and any other meaningful act against that nation. He set out a muscular foreign policy in Oslo and the Europeans didn't merely not criticize but applauded.
Obama can in fact demand such a policy of the Europeans and he's about the only person capable of leading it. It's too early to tell if Obama's policy real has moderated on foreign policy. There is however plenty for those like me to like lately.
There is always an X factor in any presidency. That is that the office itself changes and evolves the holder. It's very possible that the office has shown President Obama that the policies he was in favor of when a candidate are untennable and the office is forcing Obama to moderate. It's something to watch as his own presidency evolves.
Navy Seals involved in the capture of a wanted terrorist in Iraq may face assault charges.
Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.
The three, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral's mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.
The "key" piece of evidence if you will is a bloody lip on the suspect, Ahmed Hashim Abed. Abed is the alleged ringleader in the infamous burning of four contractors in Fallujah that served as the bloody symbol of how out of control things had gotten in Iraq and especially Fallujah.
There's a leak from the White House. It appears that President Obama is unhappy with any of the war plans so far produced.
After months of deliberating, President Obama opted not to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.
That stance comes in the midst of forceful reservations about a possible troop buildup from the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, according to a second top administration official
The president is looking for ways to improve the political situation before committing to a troop increase. Now, try and put this into perspective. The president has scant military and foreign policy experience and he's looked all the military options on the table suggested to him by generals and other military experts and decided he doesn't like any of them.
Here's the problem for the president. No matter what path he chooses it will be a path filled with pitfalls. The president is looking for a plan that simply doesn't exist. Even in the best of circumstances, war plans are filled with pitfalls. We are under much less than ideal circumstances in Afghanistan. The president is looking for ideal where there is chaos.
The president also wants to look at ways to improve the political situation. All third world countries have terribly corrupt governments. That's the main reason that they are third world. This government will be terribly corrupt for years, decades, and maybe even centuries. That's what happens in the third world. That's one of the reasons that strong men flourish in third worlds. The people get sick of the corruption and that vacuum gives a strong man the opportunity to take over.
Plans must take all this into account. They must also account for reality. The idea that Hamid Karzai will suddenly root out corruption is naive and unrealistic. If we provide a plan that tamps down the violence, there will be a decrease in the corruption. It will give Karzai an opportunity to exert more control. President Obama is expecting miracles when he needs to expect reality. The Iraqi government was similarly hapless and corrupt, and then we cut the violence exponentially and what followed was a significantly more effective government.
Let's make no mistake. No one will mistake Nuri Al Maliki for Thomas Jefferson any time soon. There's still plenty of problems in the Iraqi government, society, and overall. Still, once the violence was tamped down, everything else followed. The same thing can happen in Afghanistan. President Obama must begin to realize that forty year military folks know more about military strategy than he does. He must start being realistic and make decisions based on what is happening not what he'd like to happen.
It would be irresponsible to send more troops to Afghanistan until a legitimate and credible government is in place, the White House and top Democrats said Sunday.
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said the most critical issue facing U.S. strategy is whether the Afghans can be an effective partner in destroying Al Qaeda safe havens and bringing stability to the region.
"It would be reckless to make a decision on U.S. troop levels if in fact you haven't done a thorough analysis of whether in fact there's an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that U.S. troops would create and become a true partner in governing," Emanuel said in an interview Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union."
In Iraq, there was never an election widely viewed as fraudulent the way this one was, however that government didn't get legitimacy until after the security situation was resolved. At the end of 2006, the government of Nouri Al Maliki was anything but legitimate. That's because they couldn't protect the citizenry. The Bush administration was, thus, dealing with a similar problem. Had President Bush said that until there was a legitimate government we wouldn't commit to more troops, Al Qaeda would now share Iraq with Iran.
The rub, if you will, is that the government won't be legitimate until there is security. Afghanistan has voted three times in its history and so widespread fraud shouldn't have been all that surprising. If the Karzai government was able to protect the citizens, widespread corruption in the election wouldn't become a problem we'd have to deal with.
This idea of a legitimate government has been used by the current administration as a red herring so that they can delay the decision to send troops. The most significant issue in Afghanistan is security. Security isn't going to happen with the current number of troops. The general is asking for more troops and Obama simply refuses to give him his troops. If you're looking to not make a decision, then Afghanistan will provide you with a plethora of reasons not to do exactly that.
The election certainly complicates the matter. No one should minimize just how explosive that is in an already explosive situation. That said, to wait until that is resolved is to simply vote present on making a decision. Unfortunately, by voting present, all the president really does is keep the status quo for another month or two. Of course, we know the status quo won't work. So, the troops are stuck in a failing strategy with a president looking for any excuse not to make a decision. That the president voted present over 100 times in the Illinois Senate was a point opponents made on occasion. Supporters dismissed this lack of decision making. Yet, it's becoming clear that on all major decisions the President continues to vote present. As an Illinois Senator, he had that option without causing too many problems. As president, it's deadly, and that's playing out in Afghanistan.
Today, I'm announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. And this marks the conclusion of a careful policy review, led by Bruce, that I ordered as soon as I took office. My administration has heard from our military commanders, as well as our diplomats. We've consulted with the Afghan and Pakistani governments, with our partners and our NATO allies, and with other donors and international organizations. We've also worked closely with members of Congress here at home. And now I’d like to speak clearly and candidly to the American people.
The situation is increasingly perilous. It's been more than seven years since the Taliban was removed from power, yet war rages on, and insurgents control parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Attacks against our troops, our NATO allies, and the Afghan government have risen steadily. And most painfully, 2008 was the deadliest year of the war for American forces.
So, let's review. In March, the president announced a new strategy. In May, he fired the general in Afghanistan and brought in his own. Now, that General wants tens of thousands of more troops for this effort and warns of failure without them.
The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict "will likely result in failure," according to a copy of the 66-page document obtained by The Washington Post.
President Barack Obama is warning U.S. commanders that he's "skeptical" about whether more troops will make a difference in Afghanistan, saying he'll approve an upcoming request only if the forces fit into a strategy to beat back al-Qaida and protect the United States.
"Until I'm satisfied that we've got the right strategy I'm not gonna be sending some young man or woman over there — beyond what we already have," Obama said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "I'm not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan or saving face or, in some way – you know, sending a message that America is here for the duration."
This statement is all parts troubling, absurd, and totally disingenuous. How can you be satisfied that more troops are needed unless more troops are there? Worse than that, President Obama is saying that a strategy still hasn't been finalized. That flies in the face of his statement on March 27th that a new strategy was formulated. He brought in a new General to implement that strategy. Now, that General wants more troops.
So, we have a president with near zero foreign policy experience and even less military experience proclaiming that he's not certain that the General, with thirty plus years of both, knows what he's talking about. Worse than that, this General is the one that Obama wanted to implement the strategy that supposedly started on March 27th.
To be fair, President Bush fired Donald Rumsfeld the day after the November 2006 elections. The surge wasn't announced until the end of January. In between, November and January, the troops were fighting without a coherent strategy. (most would say that they were fighting without one the whole time up until that point) So, we can't necessarily expect the President to have a strategy formulated immediately.
Still, if you're on the ground in Afghanistan, you are going to battle with no overriding strategy right now. The President, having claimed opposite six months ago, is saying that there is still no strategy. He's hinting that he will not take the recommendations of the generals on the ground. Since taking over as president, President Obama has yet to show that he is committed to victory in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in the GWOT period. This latest fiasco is more evidence that commitment to victory is not his main priority.
It's really simple. You follow the recommendations of your generals or you fire your generals. Lincoln went through Generals like Liz Taylor goes through husbands before settling on US Grant. Obama brought in his guy and now he refuses to give his guy the manpower the General is asking for. As such, we have a former State Senator with scant foreign policy experience overriding a life long military person. That's dangerous and it's unacceptable. Some point soon, the president will have to decide whether to follow McChrystal's recommendations. If he's unwilling to do so, he needs to replace McChrystal and figure out an exit strategy. If the president is unwilling to fight to win, then the only option is withdrawal.
If you read the counter insurgency manual by General Petreaus, it's amazing just how much of counter insurgency is very similar to grassroots politics. In fact, Petraeus' overall strategy: clear, hold, and build is rooted in grass roots politics much more than it is in military strategy.
The clear portion of the strategy involves going in door to door and finding the terrorists. This portion of counter terrorism involves clearing the terrorists neighborhood by neighborhood. Because most of the people are NOT terrorists, the key to this strategy comes from building rapport with the folks stuck in the middle of the fighting. After all, they are the ones that know who the terrorists are. This involves convincing the population to throw in with you and not the terrorists. The key to turning things around in Iraq was to flip the Sheikhs who then created the sons of Iraq. Suddenly, thousands of Iraqis that were siding with Al Qaeda were now siding with us. This took many months of military and diplomatic outreach. It involved hours upon hours of outreach and negotiation. The whole process was grassroots politics at its finest.
The second portion is the hold portion. This involves leaving forces back in each neighborhood that was cleared to make sure that the terrorists don't come back. In this portion, you convince the population that you are here to stay. You convince them once and for all that your side will be the one that wins. You convince them that not only have you removed but that they aren't coming back. This involves building pseudo military/pseudo police stations. It means patrolling the streets, interacting with the populace, and reaching out more to the community leaders. It is grassroots politics at its finest.
The final piece is the build piece. This means you rebuild the neighborhood and create an economic boom. The greatest example of this in Iraq was in Ramadi. This was turned from one of the most dangerous cities in the world to a booming economy. Furthermore, Ramadi had created during this transformation a vibrant local government. It goes without saying that all of this is grassroots politics at its finest.
We now face a moment of truth in Afghanistan. All insurgencies/counterinsurgencies are a battle for the hearts and minds of the populace. Or you could call it the ultimate battle of grassroots politics. The insurgency wants to create some much mayhem and chaos that the populace either jumps in with them to avoid being killed or simply loses hope and becomes apathetic. The counterinsurgency, on the other hand, wants to show that no matter what the insurgency does they want be beaten. Another way to look at it is a battle of wills.
So, right now we are in a battle for the hearts and minds of the Afghans. For too many years in Iraq, we took this battle for granted. We likely assumed that because we gave so much blood sweat and tears to the cause that the public would be with us. It wasn't until we aggressively took the war to the insurgents that we captured the hearts and minds of the populace. Once we did, we won the war with it.
The only way to capture the hearts and minds of the populace is to show them unequivocally that we will be there for the indefinite. We will be there until the insurgents are no longer there. The Afghans know that the Taliban and Al Qaeda have no plans to leave. Can we blame many of the peasants for joining in with them. Both had been there for more than a decade before we arrived. Neither is giving any hints of leaving. We just got there and we're from a place far away that most have never visited.
To capture their hearts and minds we must first convince them that we are not leaving. That's why folks like Carl Levin and George Will are so dangerous. If we create the image that we aren't 100% committed to winning, the populace is not going to go in with us. Al Qaeda and Taliban are 100% committed to winning. They aren't leaving. They will have to be removed. The average Afghani is not going to jump in with us if they think we won't be around in five years. If that's the case, they face a very brutal death. They're much more likely to jump in with them. On their side, they aren't as likely to face the brutality.
In order to win this war, we must first show full commitment to winning. Unless we show that, we aren't going to win the Afghan's hearts and minds.
I think it's time for the country to face reality. Our President is lost. There's not one major issue that we can reasonably say he has a good handle on. Instead, on every major issue, it appears as though there's a grand piano hanging over him being held up by a small string. What the president needs is to find some direction, and quickly.
1) Gitmo
Talk about a disaster. In fact, there's no bigger disaster than GITMO. Then only reason it hasn't had more attention is that this disaster won't be official until January of next year. That's when the president will have had to move each of the detainees to destinations still unknown. His first mistake was arrogantly pronouncing that GITMO would be closed within a year on his second day in office. As such, he sowed the seeds of his own destruction in only his second day on the job.
It's clear that he has no plan where to move these folks. In August, a town hall was held in the town of Standish, Michigan. Standish is a site that the administration is considering moving some or all of the GITMO detainees. Here's how that went.
You can bet that anywhere in America the reaction will be the same to the reaction in Standish. On top of this, moving them overseas is also not an option. Beyond this, most countries claim that if these folks are safe to incarcerate, the U.S. should do it on its own.
So, we're less than five months away from the day that GITMO must be closed per the Presidential order that President Obama himself, and he has no clue how he's going to exact that order. He's a president in serious need of direction.
2)Afghanistan It's not getting much media attention, but Afghanistan looks worse than Iraq ever did. We had our worst death totals for any month in the month of August. That topped July's totals by two which held the record for one month. The situation is spinning out of control and the president had this stunning statement in July.
We’re not dealing with nation states at this point. We’re concerned with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Al Qaeda’s allies," he said. "So when you have a non-state actor, a shadowy operation like Al Qaeda, our goal is to make sure they can’t attack the United States." …"We are confident that if we are assisting the Afghan people and improving their security situation, stabilizing their government, providing help on economic development … those things will continue to contract the ability of Al Qaeda to operate. And that is absolutely critical.
The General in Afghanistan, General McChrystal, just came out with this assessment.
That's sobering and stark. It remains to be seen if President Obama will give the general the resources he needs to win. It actually remains to be seen how committed he is to victory at all. The situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating and the president has barely even mentioned it in speeches. He's made little mention of Afghanistan. This was supposed to be the good war and yet, it's not totally clear that the president has the commitment to win. Again, the president is in need of direction.
3)Iran Remember when the president was making videos that were overtures to the government and the people of Iran. Those are gone. In fact, the president's policy toward Iran has gone into neutral ever since the aftermath of the election. The president refused to choose sides. As such, he gave an implicit approval of the crackdown.
Yet, since then, his entire policy is now in disarray. The president won't side with the revolutionaries. He won't come out firmly on the side of those that are attempting to bring democracy to Iran. Yet, he can't very well try and reach out to the Ahmadinejad government either.
So, where does that leave his policy toward Iran? It leaves it in disarray. He has no policy toward Iran. He isn't siding with the forces against the government. He isn't siding with the government. He also isn't siding with opponents of the government. He isn't engaging Iran but he also isn't trying to isolate Iran. We, unfortunately, don't have time to waste. It's months if not years before Iran is successful in creating a nuclear bomb and then the game changes entirely. Let's hope the president gets some direction soon.
4)Health care The president's leadeship on health care has been so non existent that it's frankly laughable. The democrats are fighting themselves, the media, the tea parties, and anyone else. It's effective to pick and choose enemies in politics but everyone can't be your enemy and right now that's where the Democrats are. It's entirely the fault of the president. He refuses to take a stand on anything and he continues to defend everything. As such, no one really knows what direction the bill should go. So, the liberals create a liberal bill. The moderates scream and the Senate can't get a compromise. All of it is played out in front of the public on television, the internet, the newspapers and radio. The president is simply lost and in need of direction.
5) GWOT Right now, the Justice department is investigating the CIA. The CIA is no longer in charge of interrogating high value detainees. Instead, a unit run from the White House will be in charge of run these interrogations. At the same time, the interrogations will be limited to the Army Field Manual. This September 1th will be marked as a National Day of Service. GITMO is a mess. Afghanistan is disintegrating. Even our gains in Iraq are being lost since we pulled back. What's the strategy? It's unclear. It appears the administration is more aggressive in prosecuting its own than the terrorists. Once again, the president is lost.
We're all now familiar with this viral exchange between Secretary Clinton and a questioner in Africa.
What's startling is that nearly seven months into her job as Secretary of State, this scene appears to be the most exposure that Clinton has received. I won't try and pretend to know what set her off. What I do know is that our top diplomat has been given little room for diplomacy.
It is the State Department that is supposed to be in charge of foreign policy and diplomacy, along with the president of course. Yet, in the Obama White House, diplomacy and foreign policy appears to be a decentralized process and much of that power lies outside of the State Department chain of command.
For instance, there's Richard Holbrooke. He's been appointed by Obama as an envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Then, President Obama made Afghanistan and Pakistan the center of his GWOT policy. With it, he made Holbrooke, not Clinton, his point person on those two vital countries.
Then, there's George Mitchell. He was named special envoy to the Middle East. The Middle East is always a vital foreign policy area. Now, it's Mitchell, and not Clinton, that is the point person on that region. It was Mitchell that took the administration's first trip overseas when he went to Israel and Palestine in January. Until recently, Dennis Ross served as a special envoy to Iran. He continues to maintain, some though unclear power, within the administration over the region as well.
Meanwhile, the Vice President, Joe Biden, recently took a high profile trip through Russia and its neighbors and he appears to be carving out that region as his sphere of influence. In Iraq, Obama has continued Bush's unwritten chain of command which set most of the decision making power in the hands of our ambassador, Christopher Hill, and the General on the ground, General Ray Odierno.
That leaves very little room for Secretary Clinton to direct. As such, she spent a full week travelling through Africa. With due respect to the continent, that's not where our most important strategic decisions will be made. Instead, the Secretary of State, our main diplomat, has faded int the background on most diplomatic decisions. In most of the world's hot spots, the main decision and advisory roles are left to others.
We can only speculate as to why however this all appears to be political and strategic. It appears that President Obama took his main rival pushed them into his team and then marginalized them. Clinton was always considered of having an outside chance of challenging Obama in 2012 if things really went bad for him. Now, Obama has put her in the administration and effectively stripped her of all her power. She would have exponentially more influence right now in the health care debate as a Senator from New York. Instead, she's making trips to the Congo.
It remains to be seen how all of this will play out but it's very dangerous to run foreign policy through such a political strategy. If, in fact, President Obama orchestrated all of this simply to weaken a political rival, he also weakened the State Department with it. That has real consequences on our foreign policy and they're much more important than the rivalry between the two of them.
That's what I was thinking about when I was reading this column by Obama supporter, Michael Crowley. Crowley lays out a very strong case for why things are in trouble. Then, he says not to worry. Only, the way in which Obama will succeed seems something akin to magic. First, Crowley lays out why Obama maybe on the brink of serious problems.
So it was an ominous sign for Barack Obama last week when he appeared in the White House for a press conference that was his most uncomfortable to date. Reporters who had thus far treated him with deference and even admiration treated him with something close to disrespect. Obama, as the New York Times put it, "has rarely experienced as combative and contentious an hour on live television as he did on Tuesday afternoon". Had his response to Iran, one asked, been "timid and weak"? Another tweaked the president's "Spock-like language" about healthcare reform. One even grilled an increasingly irritated president about his furtive smoking habits. The treatment left Obama a bit testy. "I got it," he groused. "You're pitching, I'm catching."
Indeed he has been catching - catching flak, that is, from critics on left and right and over both his foreign and domestic agendas. As he approaches the six-month mark of his presidency, his job has become less glamorous and more gruelling. Allies in Congress are restive and for the first time, the whiff of failures and defeats is in the air. Thus the new tone from the White House press corps, which, like animals in the wild, preys on the weak. But don't be fooled by this dark patch. Obama's long-term prospects remain bright.
Crowley, then makes an even starker point.
The only thing that makes his congressional Democratic allies more nervous than supporting sweeping and expensive healthcare reform is the grand climate-change plan, passed by the House on Friday.
So, let's see if I have this straight. The press corp is becoming more combative. His allies are getting more nervous. There's more and more talk of failure. Furthermore, the center piece of his entire domestic agenda lies in bills that make his own allies nervous to pass. Now, there's a recipe for success if I've ever seen one.
So, how does Crowley believe that all will go well? Magic, that's how.
Congress is beginning to craft a healthcare plan with Obama's guidance and the early going hasn't been pretty. Proposals have carried eye-popping price tags ($1.6 trillion, according to one preliminary estimate by a Senate finance committee), while covering a disappointingly small number of Americans. Nor have the Democrats quite settled on how they will pay for a massive expansion of care. Last week, a prominent House Democrat pronounced that "healthcare reform is on life support".
Don't be surprised if Obama resuscitates it. Although many Democrats are nervous about his plan's cost,
As for climate chage, again, Obama will magically create a winner here.
However urgent it may be to fight global warming, public support for environmentalism drops dramatically in times of economic distress. But look for Obama to settle for a modest plan - a symbolic victory - rather than accept a stark political defeat.
Crowley makes a few good points. That is that we still have 16 months until the election. That gives the economy plenty of time to recover. Furthermore, more people than not still blame Bush for our troubles. Finally, we should see stimulus money spent faster going forward.
All of that maybe true, but Crowley continues to ignore reality. First, unemployment is headed to ten percent. Once it crosses over, September or October, then, it will officially be Obama's economy. Second, unemployment will likely reach 11% at least before it tops out. Furthermore, it's a laggin indicator. That means it will continue to rise long after the economy has begun to recover. So, even if jobs begin to come back this time next year, we'll be looking at double digit unemployment numbers come November 2010. Try explaining a three percent increase in unemployment after you've run up the deficit by nearly two trillion dollars.
Speaking of the deficit, Crowley seems to think that massive health care reform can pass even if it adds to the deficit even more. That's pure fantasy. First, the only way for health care reform to pass is if the so called reconciliation rule is used. That can only happen if health care reform stays revenue neutral. Furthermore, Crowley appears totally tone deaf to what Americans are concerned about. The deficit is quickly becoming the biggest fear of Americans of the Obama administration. Crowley seems to think that we can add to it with a massive new health care policy with no political fallout.
On foreign policy, Crowley is equally naive.
Then there are Afghanistan and Pakistan. Thus far, Obama has been in crisis-management mode, trying to keep the government in Islamabad from falling apart and firing his top general in Afghanistan for poor management of the war effort there. But conditions may soon improve in both countries; the Pakistani military is finally cracking down on Islamic radicals. Meanwhile, Obama has ordered 21,000 more American troops to Afghanistan. But many analysts think that, much like the Iraq surge, the fight against the Taliban is eminently winnable if there are enough troops and the right counterinsurgency strategy is adopted.
The Pakistanis have supposedly been cracking down on militias many, many times in the last five years. None of them have amounted to much of anything. Yet, now, it's the real deal if you believe Crowley. Furthermore, we're going to turn a dire situation in Afghanistan into a winner through some cryptic counter insurgency strategy that many unnamed "experts" claim is available.
What's missing from Crowley's analysis is any mention of GITMO. That situation is such a mess that Crowley doesn't even pretend Obama will fix it.
Obviously, no one knows what will happen in the future. It's possible that this time next year there will be peace and prosperity everywhere. If it's so, Obama will get credit. However, if that were to happen, it will happen with a plan by the Obama administration that even his supporters don't know about.
First, here is an update of the latest in Iran. The Grand Ayatollah Khomenia certified the election results and warned any further protesters that they would face serious repercussions if the continue to protest.
Iran's supreme leader said Friday that the country's disputed presidential vote had not been rigged, sternly warning protesters of a crackdown if they continue massive demonstrations demanding a new election.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei sided with hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and offered no concessions to the opposition. He effectively closed any chance for a new vote by calling the June 12 election an "absolute victory."
...
It must be determined at the ballot box what the people want and what they don't want, not in the streets," he said. "I call on all to put an end to this method. ... If they don't, they will be held responsible for the chaos and the consequences."
At the same time, protests are planned for 4PM local time tomorrow and they will be spearheaded by the opposition candidate Ali Mousavi.
Meanwhile, the House voted 405-1 (with Ron Paul opposing) in favor of a resolution that shows solidarity with the protestors though the resolution was softened so that Democrats would back it.
Finally, the president continues to slowly ratchet up his language. He now says that he is "very concerned about the regime's tone". (H/T to Ben Smith)
These days, it seems there are very few pundits supporting the measured response of the president to the protests in Iran. The right has been merciless. Charles Krauthammer sums up most people's thoughts on the right with this column.
Millions of Iranians take to the streets to defy a theocratic dictatorship that, among its other finer qualities, is a self-declared enemy of America and the tolerance and liberties it represents. The demonstrators are fighting on their own, but they await just a word that America is on their side.
And what do they hear from the president of the United States? Silence. Then, worse. Three days in, the president makes clear his policy: continued "dialogue" with their clerical masters.
Dialogue with a regime that is breaking heads, shooting demonstrators, expelling journalists, arresting activists. Engagement with -- which inevitably confers legitimacy upon -- leaders elected in a process that begins as a sham (only four handpicked candidates permitted out of 476) and ends in overt rigging.
President Obama's tepid response to the evidence the Iranian election was stolen from the people of that country by current president President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his thuggish allies is disappointing.
The president gets mixed grades on his promises of transparency: good to the public and the press, not so good to the other two branches.
This president does not need to make threats to champion democracy. It was Tom Paine, ink-stained wretch and citizen of the world, who first roused American patriots to action.
The United States has no military role to play with regard to Iran. In fact, too many threats in the past have made it hard for the United States to speak effectively--and have raised fears that a strong statement from Washington would simply give Ahmadinejad an foreign "enemy" to rally against. But Obama must recognize that he is not George Bush. He has credibility that his predecessor lost, and the world wants to hear him speaking as the leader of a great country that stands on the side of democracy.
The United States does not need to make threats to explicitly and unequivocally champion democracy and the right of peoples in countries around the world to advance the cause of their own freedom. Such championship requires truth-telling and blunt language. Unfortunately, Obama is avoiding hard truths and speaking far too softly.
In fact, these days one of the only people still defending Obama's policies toward Iran's revolution is Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly's reasoning is interesting. Sometime in early 2007, Moqtada Al Sadr was pulled back into Iran. His thugs have effectively stopped perpetrating acts of terror in Iraq ever since. Furthermore, so far the Iranians have NOT meddled in Afghanistan. If President Obama encourages the protesters too much, the Iranians can put down the protests and then let Sadr loose in Iraq and change their stance in Afghanistan. This is a rather nuanced approach to geopolitics.
The problem is that you never make deals with the devil. I don't know why Sadr stopped terrorizing Iraq, and it might have been due to a deal made by the U.S. and Iran. Selling out is never a good idea, and more than that, it's never necessary. First, there's a way for President Obama to side with the people of Iran without appearing to meddle.
Second, and far more importantly, President Obama can still insure that Iran doesn't retaliate if they do put down the protesters. President Obama has an ace in the hole, a hammer even, that he needs to use toward Iran. That hammer is Israel. If I were President Obama, I would make an unequivocal Reagan like statement of support for the protesters. I would condemn the elections, the violence against the protesters, and make it clear that freedom, liberty, and the right to peacefully speak and assemble is a human right open to all. Second, I would make it clear through our proxies the Swiss (who act as our reps in communications with Iran) that if there is any retaliation, be it in Iraq or Afghanistan, we would give the Israelis the green light to take out their nuclear sites and back them in any military action.
Rather than making deals with the devil, I would stand up for democracy and make sure that our enemies know that we still hold the important cards.
Back in 1991, under the encouragement of then president, George HW Bush, the Shia in Iraq were encouraged to rise up and overthrow Saddam Hussein. They did but with little outside support their uprising was crushed. All too often in totalitarian regimes, uprisings are crushed and then that leads to a consolidation of power, internally, of the ruling power structure. That's what happened in Iraq.
The blueprint for a successful uprising lie in the examples of the Ukraine and Georgia. In both those nations, the ruling class had a much weaker grip in power than the Mullahs do in Iran.
Still, right now the situation is spinning so far out of control that soon no one may have a grip on power. We are living in a new age and the revolution in Iran is now being brought to you by Twitter. The revolutionaries are communicating with each other and the outside world by that microblogging site. So far at least, the Mullahs are unaware of its power and it hasn't yet been shut off.
This revolution can go either way, and its results will have ramifications for geopolitics for decades. Israeli intelligence believes that these protests will die out unless they receive significant support from the outside. If the Mullahs are able to put down the protests, restore order, and arrest most of those responsible for organizing them, then their grip on power will be strengthened not weakened. Those seeking freedom and democracy in Iran will be weakened not strengthened. With a stronger grip on power, they will be that much more free to continue to pursue provocative acts in the Middle East.
It is moments like this that clearly show that when dealing with a despotic regime, the only proper policy is regime change. Had that been our policy since the 1970's, we would have had the communication lines in place with many of the folks working behind the scenes to organize these demonstrations. The demonstrators would also know that the U.S. would be behind them should they attempt to overthrow the government from within.
The revolutionaries need both the financial and organizational support from both within and without Iran to maintain these protests until the government is finally taken down. It's difficult to get either from within a totalitarian state. (though the twitter phenomenon proves not impossible) Developing that support network from without takes years of cultivation. That's what years of a policy of regime change would have done.
Ultimately, this revolution could wind up benefiting most of the world if most of the world simply encouraged it. The leaders of the world are hesitant to use any language that is too strong or risk breaking diplomatic protocols. That's because the rest of the world has engaged in a diplomatic strategy of engagement. Had regime change been the prevailing policy among the U.S. and its allies, this revolution could very easily be turned into a total takedown of the government. Since it isn't, this could now go either way, and the ramifications couldn't be larger.
What if I told you that neo Con Robert Kagan was wholeheartedly supporting a foreign policy decision by President Obama at the same time the liberal, the Nation magazine, was condemning the same decision. Let no one say that President Obama is a straight down the line ideologue who's every move is easily predictable. Most his moves I would say are predictable, but there are moments when he surprises the political world.
His decision to double down in Afghanistan and outright own the war going forward is just one of those moments. Here's how neoconKagan views the decision.
Hats off to President Obama for making a gutsy and correct decision on Afghanistan. With many of his supporters, and some of his own advisers, calling either for a rapid exit or a “minimal” counter terrorist strategy in Afghanistan, the president announced today that he will instead expand and deepen the American commitment. He clearly believes that an effective counter terrorism approach requires an effective counterinsurgency strategy, aimed not only at killing bad guys but at strengthening Afghan civil society and governing structures, providing the necessary security to the population so that it can resist pressures from the Taliban, and significantly increasing the much-derided “nation-building” element of the strategy. The United States, he argues, has to help the Afghan people fulfill “the promise of a better future,” by rooting out government corruption, helping the elected government provide basic services, fighting the narcotics trade, and, in general, advancing “security, opportunity, and justice.” This is the opposite of a “minimal” approach.
It is also evidence that the president is pragmatic in the best sense of the word. He and his key advisers, such as Richard Holbrooke, understand that better and more effective government in Afghanistan is a key to the successful defense of American security. Self-proclaimed “realists” argue, as always, that the pragmatic course is to pull back in Afghanistan. But President Obama recognizes in Afghanistan what the previous administration only belatedly recognized in Iraq: that the only way out is forward.
Here is how the Nation viewed the same decision.
The Obama plan instead will accelerate any plans Al Qaeda commanders have for attacking targets in the United States or Europe. The alternative for Al Qaeda is to risk complete destruction, an American objective that has not been achieved for eight years. A terrorist attack need not be planned or set in motion from a cave in Waziristan. The cadre could already be underground in Washington or London. The real alternative for President Obama should be to maintain a deterrent posture while immediately accelerating diplomacy to meet legitimate Muslim goals, from a Palestinian state to genuine progress on Kashmir.
...
Escalation of American troop levels is a slippery slope. John F. Kennedy sent 16,300 Americans to save South Vietnam from the Vietcong.
President Obama obviously has no intention of sending hundreds of thousands of American troops into Afghanistan or Pakistan. But escalation, once it begins, is increasingly difficult to stop. Already Obama's generals want more troops than the president is sending. The neoconservatives and Republicans are demanding a "must-win war" and denouncing any talk of an exit strategy. A gradual American escalation may play into the jihadist game plan, drawing more Western troops into jeopardy or permitting a retreat into mountainous wastelands if necessary. Any "redeployment" (another word for retreat in the minds of the neocons), other than returning with Bin Ladin's head on a platter, provokes a right-wing reaction at home. The easy solution to these pressures is another escalation followed by another, like one drink at a time.
...
In summary, be prepared for a war that spans the length of the Obama presidency, an Obama War. Expect the Congress to be inert and distracted. Expect little help from the media. But hey, we've been here before.
It's time for a new movement against reckless escalation, especially one that threatens to divert our attention from the crisis at home, while only leaving poverty, malnutrition and anti-American hatreds rising abroad.
President Obama, declaring that coalition forces must "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" Al Qaeda, called on Friday for thousands of additional U.S. troops and billions of dollars in aid to fight terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The president, announcing what he called a "comprehensive new strategy" for the region following a two-month review, outlined an approach to the war that places far more emphasis than before on Pakistan.
Obama said he was ordering 4,000 additional U.S. troops to help train Afghan security forces and was calling on Congress to approve $1.5 billion a year in aid for Pakistan over the next five years.
The increases are aimed at making the security forces, governments and infrastructure of both countries more self-sufficient and stable, as well as capable of taking on Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
With that President Obama has embraced the war in Afghanistan even if it is still a cautious embrace. On domestic policy, President Obama can be referred to as solid liberal, far left, or radical depending on whether or not you want to identify his position as a pejorative. On foreign policy, his overall philosophy is difficult to place. His rush to close down GITMO and to attempt to give suspected terrorists rights similar to criminals make him rather dovish. On the other hand, he has largely kept Bush's policy in Iraq in place and now he has reluctantly embraced victory in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, he is simultaneously embracing diplomacy over military action when dealing with Iran. So, on foreign policy at least, President Obama gives everyone plenty to cheer and to criticize.
I will say something that everyone likely already figured out. Just about everything on foreign policy will be done differently by President Obama than it was by President Bush. It took President Obama one day to sign an executive order committing himself to close Gitmo within one year. He announced that combat would end in Iraq by August of 2010. He said that we would have a renewed focus on Afghanistan. He announced a roll back on our diplomatic stances toward Iran, Syria, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea. He announced that all enhanced interrogations would end. The most recent decision was that the term "enemy combatant" would end.
Someone needs to tell the president that we are still in a war because he isn't paying much attention to it. Right at the beginning of his administration he set out George Mitchell for a listening tour of the Middle East. He sat down with Al Arabiya for an interview in which he promised to reach out to Iran with an unclenched hand. He added an additional 17,000 troops to fight in Afghanistan.
What we haven't heard yet is even a hint of a specific program on anything. While he's promised to close down Gitmo, the president has given no hint about what he will do instead. Even his latest pronouncement that "enemy combatant" would no longer be used gave no hint about what the prisoner's status would be. Besides sending more troops to Afghanistan, the president has said nothing about a change in strategy.
While it's clear what the Obama foreign policy won't be, it is very unclear what it will be. After only two months, this wouldn't be such a big deal, if President Obama hadn't roundly rejected just about every single anti terror measure put into place by the Bush administration. One would think that with so much to criticize, the administration would have some alternatives that they would put in place. Instead, all we have had is a systematic dismantling of the Bush anti terror program with absolutely no alternatives to offer instead.
President Obama has indicated to the New York Times that he might be willing to reach out to moderate portions of the Taliban.
President Barack Obama says he hopes U.S. troops can identify moderate elements of the Taliban and move them toward reconciliation.
...
There may be opportunities to reach out to moderates in the Taliban, but the situation in Afghanistan is more complicated than the challenges the American military faced in Iraq, Obama said.
U.S. troops were able to persuade Sunni Muslim insurgents in Iraq to cooperate in some instances because they had been alienated by the tactics of al-Qaida terrorists.
Obama cautioned that Afghanistan is a less-governed region with a history of fierce independence among tribes, creating a tough set of circumstances for the United States to deal with.
President Obama goes on to say that reaching out to the Taliban is something that military including General Petraeus. Before we attempt to do this though, we must all understand the differences between Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Taliban.
The so called Sunni Awakening that started in the end of 2006 (before Petreaus even arrived back in Iraq) reached out to Iraqi Sunnis that had alligned themselves with AQI. AQI, formed initially by Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, had been formed mostly by foreigners, but reached out to locals to act as so called foot soldiers. Throughout 2004-2006, Iraqi Sunnis faced a choice. Either they could move forward with their nation and act nationalistically. In this way, they would move forward as part of a new unity government in a new Iraq. Of course, this would have meant a significant reduction of power, Since Sunnis are a minority ethnically in the country.
On the other hand, the could join up with AQI and get into bed, so to speak, with their ethnic brethren (since AQI were almost exclusively Sunni themselves). Initially, Iraqi Sunnis joined up with AQI. They joined in the insurgency in hopes that AQI would over take the country and they would get power again.
Then, AQI's brutality overplayed its hand. (famously recounted in this Michael Totten piece) Their brutality knew no end. They would beat and rape women that put their vegetables in the wrong order in their grocery bags. They would invite families for dinner and then serve their own child's head on a platter. They would cut off the fingers of men that smoked. Worse than that, this brutality was often perpetrated on the very Sunni Iraqis that had allied themselves with AQI.
As such, when the U.S. reached out to Iraqi Sunnis in late 2006, they had an interested ear. Calling these Iraqi Sunnis "moderates" would be an unsophisticated way of analyzing the situation. The marriage of Iraqi Sunnis and the foreigners that made up the leadership of AQI was one of happenstance and convenience. Furthermore, the Iraqi Sunnis had another natural place to go, alligning themselves with their country, when they turned on AQI.
The dynamic in Afghanistan is entirely different. There are likely so called "moderate" elements of the Taliban, but there are two problems with this identification. First, moderate is a relative term. Choosing a moderate out of the Taliban is like choosing the sober one out of a bunch of drunks. Second, even if there are truly moderate elements, how do we identify them? With Iraqi Sunnis, it was easy. The Taliban is not a new group like AQI was. It's both a nationalistic movement and an ideological one. No one in the movement is obviously someone that would be moderate.
So, I say, please try and reach out to the "moderate" Taliban, Mr. President. Before you do though, please know which one is moderate and what you have to offer them.
As far as military knowledge and analysis there are few people more astute, in my opinion, short of General Petraeus himself than Ralph Peters. I have generally found his analysis of all things related to war as rather spot on. As such, his latest piece is in many ways startling.
• Best. Instead of increasing the U.S. military "footprint," reduce our forces and those of NATO by two-thirds, maintaining a "mother ship" at Bagram Air Base and a few satellite bases from which special operations troops, aircraft and drones, and lean conventional forces would strike terrorists and support Afghan factions with whom we share common enemies. All resupply for our military could be done by air, if necessary.
Peters' assertion is that we are going along in a never ending cycle of escalation with no strategy, and worse yet, no hope of success. Peters believes that we call it a day and remove our troops from Afghanistan as quickly as logistics allow leaving a residual force for certain and very limited roles.
What is startling about Peters' assessment and recommendations are how both are eerily similar to those of folks like the President himself in the beginning of 2007 about Iraq. Peters lays out a hopeless quagmire in which historical alliances and rivalries provide an environment in which we have no hope of bringing about any stability.
Peters is no ideologue and he better than most understands all the diferences, subtle and otherwise, between Afghanistan and Iraq. In Peters view, Afghanistan holds little strategic value for the U.S.
Even if we achieved the impossible dream of creating a functioning, unified state in Afghanistan, it would have little effect on the layered crises in the Muslim world. Backward and isolated, Afghanistan is sui generis (only example of its kind). Political polarization in the U.S. precludes an honest assessment, but Iraq's the prize from which positive change might flow, while Afghanistan could never inspire neighbors who despise its backwardness.
Peters also sees a government that's totally dysfunctional and using our presence in a counter productive manner.
Even "our man in Kabul," President Hamid Karzai, put his self-interest above any greater cause. Reborn a populist, he backs every Taliban claim that the U.S. inflicts only civilian casualties in virtually every effort against terrorists. Karzai is convinced that we can't abandon him.
So, he sees an ever increasing quagmire with no hope of succeeding.
We should do just that. Instead of floundering in search of a strategy, we should consider removing the bulk, if not all, of our forces. The alternative is to hope blindly, waste more lives and resources, and, in the worst case, see our vulnerable supply route through Pakistan cut, forcing upon our troops the most ignominious retreat since Korea in 1950 (a massive air evacuation this time around, leaving a wealth of military gear).
Much like in Iraq, Peters also sees Afghanistan's neighbor, this time Pakistan, as the key for success in the region.
In any event, Pakistan, not Afghanistan, will determine the future of Islamist extremism in the region. And Pakistan is nearly lost to us — a fact we must accept. Our strategic future lies with India.
It is a rather remarkable stance that Peters takes. Peters was an early defender of the surge. He always believed that Iraq was winnable. Furthermore, Peters firmly believed that Iraq was of vital strategic importance.
On many of these fronts, there are clear differences between Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, I can't help but feel there is some cynicism in Peters pessimism. Certainly, the President has provided no plan to go along with his increase in troops in Afghanistan. Yet, there is one common thread between Afghanistan and Iraq. That is that we are facing an insurgency in Afghanistan like we faced in Iraq. The details of the insurgencies are certainly totally different. The terrain is different. Yet, no two insurgencies are the same. Before taking over command in Iraq, General Petraeus wrote the Army's counter insurgency manual. In the manual, he drew on experiences from such obscure wars as one fought in Algeria in the 1950's. While insurgencies are never the same, the blue print comes down to three basic principles: clear, hold and build. Whether in Iraq or in Afghanistan, ultimately any successful counter insurgency perfects those three principles. You clear out the bad guys from all trouble spots. You hold the newly safe area. Then, you rebuild it so that they never come back.
The same person that wrote the manual, that so successfully turned around Iraq, is now head of Central Command. He is in charge of the whole region including Afghanistan. The same principles that brought such a remarkable turn around to Iraq can be applied to Afghanistan. Before we declare defeat, maybe we should let Petraeus apply these principles there.
Please note. I welcome any and all comments from any political perspective. I will not stand or approve any swearing, and personal attacks will likely also not be approved.
Former General Stanley McChrystal put President Obama into a near impossible position and President Obama may have turned that into a deciding turning point in the Afghan war.
