Afghanistan

[kchoya]

How's Obama going to manage our national security and troops abroad when he can't even secure his own house:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/25/AR2009112504113.html?hpid=topnews

[TBird41]

Looks like Obama is going to send 30,000 new troops and outline a timetable for withdrawal. Deployments to start by Christmas.

www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/01/obama-outline-plan-send-troops-afghanistan-months/

I think there are some issues with his plan because I'm not sure he's going to be able to achieve the goals he espouses. He seems to be going 3/4 of the way in, but not all the way, and I think the only way is to go all in.

His plan is about 2 full brigades less than what McCrystal wanted, and there's no concurrent ramp up of Afghani police/troops, which, coupled with an explicit withdrawal timetable seems to make it a lot harder to have the effect in Afghanistan that we've had in Iraq. Hoping that NATO fills in the rest seems like something of a pipe dream (has he had any success in getting other countries to increase troop levels? I can't remember, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). And from what I've heard, NATO troops tend to be a lot less effective than U.S. troops since they tend to act like the U.S. did pre-Surge (staying in their bases unless going out on a raid) v. post-Surge (living in the same areas as the people, gaining their trust and killing insurgents).

I think he definitely could have come up with a worse plan, but I don't think this is the best plan he could have adopted.

[SSHoya]

Britain, France, Macedonia (?!) maybe adding troops, but not enough. Wouldn't hold my breath on France stepping up.

www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4397310&c=EUR&s=TOP

[theexorcist]

Dec 1, 2009 11:00:37 GMT -5 SSHoya said:

Britain, France, Macedonia (?!) maybe adding troops, but not enough. Wouldn't hold my breath on France stepping up.

www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4397310&c=EUR&s=TOP

France has actually been much more helpful since Sarkozy got elected.

There are, however, two problems. The first is that Britain, who has been joined at the hip with the US on foreign policy in Afghanistan, has pledged 500 troops. This is a rounding error compared to the 30K+ Obama has pledged. No other country has the ability to pledge many more.

The other problem is one which has been slowly improving, but remains - rules of engagement. As TBird mentioned, most other countries are remarkably restricted in what they can and can't do, and this was true even before the surge (oh, and the Germans are getting rocked by a scandal regarding the deaths of civilians, which will make them even more gun-shy).

[SSHoya]

France:

www.ttc.org/200912011501.nb1f1jw12367.htm

[jerseyhoya34]

Some initial signs of support from the RNC/party leadership - thepage.time.com/2009/12/01/senior-moment-of-truth/

On edit - I think this may be a classic example of something for everyone, although folks will find some reason to be upset. Progressives will like the timetable but dislike the escalation. Conservatives will dislike the timetable and like the escalation (but may want more as a matter of degree).

I think the timetable is incredibly valuable, although I also agree with TBird's point (the line being drawn may end up good or bad). Still, at least there is a measuring stick where none existed before, and my sense is that is valuable as a matter of limiting this country's adoption of military welfare policies, and the problem with it is inherent.

[Boz]

I think metrics and objectives are good, not timetables, depending on how you mean the word "timetable."

For instance:

If Obama announces this troop surge with the goals of seeing Objectives A,B, and C met within a year (18 months, two years, whatever), I think that is good. And I think it is fair for him to say the we will have to re-evaluate our role if we/the Afghanis do not meet or exceed those objectives.

If Obama announces a troop surge with the objective of completing our involvement or military presence in Afghanistan within a year (18 months, two years, whatever*), I think that is bad.

I'm not sure if I can watch tonight, but I'll certainly read his address and evaluate more completely after that.


* these are arbitrary numbers. I don't think anyone in their right mind expects such a short deployment)

[hoyawatcher]

Seems to me the key to this whole thing is whether the Afghan people decide to take this on as their own crusade (sorry can't come up with a better word and it stinks here). If Obama conveys to the Afghan people that we will be there long enough and strong enough to give them protection from the Taliban - then they will do it and we can make the country reasonably Taliban/Al Qaeda free. If he conveys that we are looking to weasel out as soon as we can then they will keep their head down and wait for us to leave. Fine line to walk for sure but spending too much time talking about how we are going to set ourselves up to get out of there will eventually backfire. So fine with all the metrics and objectives but the jist of the talk better be we are there to get the job done period - or get the hadies out.

[TBird41]

Dec 1, 2009 17:01:18 GMT -5 hoyawatcher said:

Seems to me the key to this whole thing is whether the Afghan people decide to take this on as their own crusade (sorry can't come up with a better word and it stinks here). If Obama conveys to the Afghan people that we will be there long enough and strong enough to give them protection from the Taliban - then they will do it and we can make the country reasonably Taliban/Al Qaeda free. If he conveys that we are looking to weasel out as soon as we can then they will keep their head down and wait for us to leave. Fine line to walk for sure but spending too much time talking about how we are going to set ourselves up to get out of there will eventually backfire. So fine with all the metrics and objectives but the jist of the talk better be we are there to get the job done period - or get the hadies out.

One of the things that made the Iraq surge successful is that include us building up and training the Iraq police force/army so that there was/is a viable force to maintain stability as we pulled out. Any success we might have will be fleeting if we don't do something similar in Afghanistan

[The Stig]

Dec 1, 2009 18:42:22 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

Dec 1, 2009 17:01:18 GMT -5 hoyawatcher said:

Seems to me the key to this whole thing is whether the Afghan people decide to take this on as their own crusade (sorry can't come up with a better word and it stinks here). If Obama conveys to the Afghan people that we will be there long enough and strong enough to give them protection from the Taliban - then they will do it and we can make the country reasonably Taliban/Al Qaeda free. If he conveys that we are looking to weasel out as soon as we can then they will keep their head down and wait for us to leave. Fine line to walk for sure but spending too much time talking about how we are going to set ourselves up to get out of there will eventually backfire. So fine with all the metrics and objectives but the jist of the talk better be we are there to get the job done period - or get the hadies out.

One of the things that made the Iraq surge successful is that include us building up and training the Iraq police force/army so that there was/is a viable force to maintain stability as we pulled out. Any success we might have will be fleeting if we don't do something similar in Afghanistan

And training an army/police force in Afghanistan is infinitely harder than it was in Iraq.

In Iraq, you had a lot of ex-soldiers to draw from. Those who weren't soldiers usually had a decent education, and those that didn't have an education were at least literate.

Most of the recruits for the Afghan National Army are illiterate peasants with no military experience whatsoever who are just joining up for the money. The ANA usually pays less than the Taliban, so recruits aren't exactly streaming through the door. The police is even worse - the salaries are so low that the policemen have to be corrupt just to sustain themselves.

The obvious solution would be to pay recruits more, but that's simply beyond Afghanistan's means. To maintain the size of army that McChrystal is calling for would require about 5 times the Afghan government's yearly income per year, and that's at current pay levels. The money and recruiting base simply isn't there for a sizable, professional Afghan Army.

At best, the attempts to build an Afghan National Army will simply fail. At worst, it'll be a huge help to the Taliban. Back in the 1980s, the Soviets tried to build up an Afghan Army. That Army ended up being nothing more than a weapons supplier for the mujaheddin. Instead of shipping weapons all the way from the US and through Pakistan, the CIA could just pay a local peasant a few bucks, have him enlist in the Soviets' Afghan Army, get a gun, and bring the gun back to our guys. It was a great deal for us, and the attempts to create a new Afghan National Army could be a great deal for the Taliban.

[jerseyhoya34]

Nov 25, 2009 18:42:11 GMT -5 Boz said:

That's not entirely fair, Ambassador.

I do support the President preliminarily and in principle on this, pending more detail. But I said I would like to see a rationale for the variance in the number, and I would. It seems pretty logical to me to ask why 34,000 instead of 40,000, doesn't it? I am not rejecting the number, certainly not, but can you think of a single reporter who wouldn't also want to ask that question? I would also like to see the details of his plan, to judge whether they are in accordance with the strategy that has been proposed. Also reasonable.

Boz - I was not reacting to your approach in making my comments. I was referring to others, perhaps without enough detail. I think your approach is generally measured and responsible. The President would have wanted the same analysis from his commanders and would only make a decision when he felt comfortable with the details at his disposal. At least retrospectively, maybe some Republicans can give him credit for that as they seek time of their own to weigh evidence that can be made publicly available.

[Boz]

I think Obama delivered a pretty strong case tonight. Obviously, I agree with his overall decision. I know some don't, but I will be supporting him in this strategy.

I do have a few criticisms. Mainly:

1. First and foremost, the timetables he set are too soon and too strict. As I noted in my previous post, I am not against benchmarks, but he made too strong a commitment to having our troops out 18 months from now. That, in my opinion, is not nearly enough time to set such a hard and fast deadline, but I will keep an open mind on this and hope that Obama listens to Gens. Petreus and McChrystal more than his left wing base. He did say he would take into account conditions on the ground, so that is encouraging on that front. (To support my position that this is not the right move, I cite the words of the President tonight. He said we are pulling out of Iraq responsibly by 2011. That is a good four years after the surge in Iraq began. I don't think there is anyone who believes that a counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan will be easier or take less time.)

2. It may just be rhetoric, and I'll allow for that, but Obama's continued emphasis on a "world without nuclear weapons" is ridiculously naive on his part. It's fine for a pipe dream, but if we're going to talk about pipe dreams in a major policy speech, why not imagine a world where we all hold hands drinking Coca-Cola. I think his emphasis on this does not make him look visionary, it makes him look babe-in-the-woods-ish, maybe not to the populations of nations, but certainly to their leaders.

3. Just once, Mr. President, see if you can have your speechwriters use words like "victory," or even just "win." Try it on for size, wouldja'? "Successfully end" is not language a strong commander in chief uses (but I will at least give him credit for adding the adverb, which is an adverb he never used while campaigning for his current job). And the people you were speaking to in the audience tonight? They like to hear words like the ones I mentioned from their commanders.

4. I still didn't hear anything tonight that we all didn't know two months ago, but that is in the past. I, for one, will not bring up the delay in this decision anymore (at least not without a damn good reason to do so, and I don't envision one).

The decision is made, I believe it is the right one, my first point notwithstanding. So, for the most part, I applaud the President for his speech tonight.


[snark]
....now if you and your friends in Congress can just stop with all this nonsense that will destroy our OWN economy......
[/snark]


EDIT: Chris Matthews is an idiot. I don't believe i am breaking news on that one though.

EDIT 2: I want it noted for the record that I made my point about using words like "victory" and "win" before Erick Erickson did, so no, I did not steal that from him.

[jerseyhoya34]

McChrystal Statement:
www.isaf.nato.int/en/article/news/statement-of-general-stanley-mcchrystal.html

I think Boz's point on diction is interesting from a political point of view, but I wonder whether Obama can make the change. To suggest that the war has not been won by identifying what it takes to win has some ramifications vis-a-vis certain legal issues (i.e. treatment of prisoners, sovereignty, and the like). It may also be too late to turn that language on a dime given analysis below.

If possible, I would like to see him adopt such language because it implies that the war can be won, which the previous administration suggested was not possible - war of terrorism as war of undetermined length and indefinite commitments. Some may have even gone so far as to say that a win/loss paradigm does not apply to the War on Terror (contrary to the centuries-old history of war) as if it were akin to the War on Drugs or War on Poverty.

One term that I hate is "Obama's War." Why is it that some people now want no part of it or do not want to share responsibility for it? That's gutless and what some of them would previously call "cut and run." America's or NATO's War would be a far more appropriate term IMO.

[TC]

Dec 1, 2009 23:03:38 GMT -5 Boz said:

3. Just once, Mr. President, see if you can have your speechwriters use words like "victory," or even just "win." Try it on for size, wouldja'? "Successfully end" is not language a strong commander in chief uses (but I will at least give him credit for adding the adverb, which is an adverb he never used while campaigning for his current job). And the people you were speaking to in the audience tonight? They like to hear words like the ones I mentioned from their commanders.

I like that he *doesn't* do that in this context because using the word "win" in terms of Afghanistan is just stupid nebulous bull. What exactly are you winning?

[Boz]

I don't want to get too hung up on the language, I just find it troubling that he seems to have a problem with these words.

Saying we will win does not have to have 30,000-foot level global and geopolitical implications.

He is sending soldiers into a fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. I really don't see how it is a problem if he tells those soldiers that he knows they will win that fight.

He did say that the mission is to dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda, right? So, if the military accomplishes that mission, why is it a problem to note that as winning, or a victory?

We can argue about this some more if you'd like. It's not my primary concern, just a troubling note for me and others. My main concern with his speech -- and I will reiterate that though I have this concern, I do support what he said last night overall -- was the first point I made, not the succeeding three.

[Boz]

The phrase "July 2011" certainly seems to be dominating the Armed Services hearing today...from both sides.

voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/12/live-senate-armed-services-hea.html?hpid=topnews

(or at least it is dominating the thoughts of this particular blogger)

[jerseyhoya34]

I think the issue of July 2011 gets to what TBird was raising. It may be a good timetable or it might not. That is quite a different inquiry than one where we ask whether a timetable generally is a good thing. The latter question is far less controversial IMO at this time, which represents significant progress in our political thought IMO.

[EasyEd]

I have a mostly negative reaction to the president's speech. First and foremost is that al Queda is our enemy that must be crushed and kept crushed and we can't palm it off on the Afghans or the Pakistanis to keep it crushed. It's our national interest that's involved.

Second, where's the new strategy? Despite the hoopla and the three months of agonizing, as stated in the speech it's still the same strategy with more troops.

Third, General McChrystal said he needed at least 40,000 troops to get things under control. President Obama said he's sending 30,000 with the hopes the allies would also send some. That implies McChrystal will get up to 10,000 less troops than he needs. Where's the explanation for 30.000? Why not 20,000? Or 50,000?

Fourth, his decision: "And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 monts, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan". Where is the new strategy in this pronouncement?

Fifth, it's getting older and older to see President Obama continue to criticize former President Bush at every turn. Even when talking about "we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end", he credits it solely to the troops without giving credit to the strategy of the surge.

[theexorcist]

Dec 2, 2009 13:13:40 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

I think the issue of July 2011 gets to what TBird was raising. It may be a good timetable or it might not. That is quite a different inquiry than one where we ask whether a timetable generally is a good thing. The latter question is far less controversial IMO at this time, which represents significant progress in our political thought IMO.

I can actually favor the timetable. Everybody wants a timetable, fine, they have a timetable. McCain said he wouldn't have a timetable, he lost, American people have spoken.

WITH THAT SAID, Obama didn't say we were going to fully exit by then and put a lot of caveats into any troops leaving at all. Come spring 2011, right during the Republican primaries, a decision on this really gets made. I'm fine with punting the decision since we really don't know how things are going to turn out.

[hoyawatcher]

Dec 2, 2009 13:38:59 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

Dec 2, 2009 13:13:40 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

I think the issue of July 2011 gets to what TBird was raising. It may be a good timetable or it might not. That is quite a different inquiry than one where we ask whether a timetable generally is a good thing. The latter question is far less controversial IMO at this time, which represents significant progress in our political thought IMO.

I can actually favor the timetable. Everybody wants a timetable, fine, they have a timetable. McCain said he wouldn't have a timetable, he lost, American people have spoken.

WITH THAT SAID, Obama didn't say we were going to fully exit by then and put a lot of caveats into any troops leaving at all. Come spring 2011, right during the Republican primaries, a decision on this really gets made. I'm fine with punting the decision since we really don't know how things are going to turn out.

While the wonderfully nuanced statement of saying we will get out in June plays very well in the US where we expect our politicians to weasel on us - but the other side of the question is how is this playing in Packistan and Afghanistan. While certainly a limited sample, the interviews on NPR and the BBC this morning from Packistan certainly gave one the impression that they were taking it that this meant the US was leaving in June - full stop. Lost nuance. While the leaders in Packistan may understand the nuance, it seems quite possible that the rank and file in this area see it as a "we are out of here" statement which makes getting them to do the dirty work while we surge all that much harder.