Afghanistan

[hoyawatcher]

I keep going back to SSHoya's point that this looks like a lawyer's approach to trying to make an OK settlement == rather than a leader trying to accomplish a goal. A byproduct of the "politially influenced" decision but IMHO really something that sets him up for failure as he has no one really totally committed to the plan. Just assumes/hopes that everyone else sees it as the least of all evils and plays along. Not sure that is the way to win a war.

I would have much prefered for him to say look the goal is kick the taliban out of any meaningful part of Afghanistan. To do that we are going to

1) Increase US troop strength
2) Train Afghan troops
3) Dump a ton of money on Afghan tribal leaders to make sure they are on our side
4) Dump a ton of money on reconstruction projects.
5) We expect Packistan to do its part. We will be there.

We hope the Afghan gov't cleans up its act but we are going straight to the tribes.

Our goal is to clean this up as quick as we can and we hope we can start drawing back down sometime next year. But we are there to get the job done - full stop.

To some degree it is semantics and it certainly would Edited off the left more than they are already about this. But on issues of war and peace the Pres's job is to lead and drive for victory - or say victory is not possible and get out best you can (aka Eisenhower in Korea). Trying to muddle the middle ground in a settlement mode does remind me a lot of what we did in Vietnam - at least strategically.

[jerseyhoya34]

I think McChrystal had a couple of options - 1. Do what he did - supportive press statement, 1a. Supportive press statement without mention of resources, 2. Say nothing publicly, or 3. Resign (or retire), like Shinseki did. Option 2 would lead me closer to the direction of the 40,000'er position. I am not sure that there was anything compelling a direct comment from him on resources, and I would not have made my argument but for his comment on resources - (i.e. "I share President Obama's commitment" vs. "I share President Obama's commitment and agree with the commitments being made."). That McChrystal took the extra step is valuable.

To the extent that he was compelled in some way by factors underlying your argument, I am not sure why we can simply ignore yesterday's statement or view the earlier statement as more authentic, when it too may have been compelled by competing bureaucratic politics rather than an independent assessment. Still, I do think you hit on something as to yesterday's statement, which I agree was probably not motivated solely by McChrystal.

[Boz]

Are a lot of people really outraged at the 30,000 number?

So many that they deserve a mantle like "40,000-ers??"

If there are, I haven't seen it.

I think you are highly mischaracterizing the level and nature of of criticism being aimed at Obama here. The primary conservative concern is the timeline issue, not the number. The number has come up, but it is really not a strong point of contention in most of what I've read.

Heck, even ed (and I apologize ed, I know you don't like people speaking for you, but I'll just give my impression) seemed to be pointing out the number just to note that he thought the discrepancy deserved an explanation (I happen to agree with that; maybe not in the speech, no, but one of his policy people should have been able to speak to that by now, because no one buys that NATO is going to send 10,000; we'll be lucky to get 5,000).

I certainly don't think anyone questioning the number is undermining Gen. McChrystal. He is a general. He would have wanted more, I guarantee it (technically 40,000 is the MINIMUM he requested; I think his ideal number was more like 60,000-80,000), but he will support the President because that is his job and the President is supporting him. And he will get the job done with the resources he has.

[Elvado]

Dec 2, 2009 16:44:56 GMT -5 Cambridge said:

Dec 2, 2009 16:11:39 GMT -5 Elvado said:

The timetable is not only emboldening to our enemies, it is such a transparent political play that it calls into question any sincerity he may have brought to this decision.

Mr. Obama needs to remember he is President of the United States of America much more than he is Democratic nominee for re-election in 2012. Everything about this speech screamed political operation right down to moving it out of the Oval Office to West Point (where he expected lemming-like support but got cold stares from future officers who will lose friends and comrades).

For God's sake, stop campaigning and start governing. Send in the troops necessary to achieve a goal without an express time limit or else really serve your true masters on the left and cut and run as they all want you to do.

Again, I'm not really sure what you are saying. Could you clarify your position? Do you want him to send in more troops without any time table? Or do you want him to just pull out? I assume it's the former, but correct me if I'm wrong. However, I will observe that the focus and tone of your post did seem to suggest that you are more concerned with how he makes his announcement than with the actual plan of action.

While I don't consider myself a cynic, I do appreciate the trait in others. However, in this case I find your cynicism almost naive -- name me a president who wouldn't make a difficult policy speech that runs counter to some key beliefs of his political base in what he or she supposes is the best possible venue for a positive reception from the American people. I can't think of a modern example. Is it commendable? No. Is it understandable? Yes. Does it really matter? No. All that matters is the actual proposal he has made.

Personally, I would like to see more troops than 30,000 and while I'm uneasy about a withdrawal date, if its more akin to what TBird suggests -- a more flexible timetable contingent on results -- then I am okay with it.

Bolied down to its essence, my wish list is giving the general in charge that which he requested and not setting a withdrawal date (be it flexible contingent or otherwise).

Here, the President opted to include a timeline for no apparent reason other than political cover.

I'd be less disappointed if he (and his hallelujah chorus) had not assured me that he was different and it would no longer be old style Washington politics. He is so much better than that. Remember, he will lower the seas. He said so.

[jerseyhoya34]

Dec 2, 2009 18:48:49 GMT -5 Boz said:

Are a lot of people really outraged at the 30,000 number?

So many that they deserve a mantle like "40,000-ers??"

If there are, I haven't seen it.

I think you are highly mischaracterizing the level and nature of of criticism being aimed at Obama here. The primary conservative concern is the timeline issue, not the number. The number has come up, but it is really not a strong point of contention in most of what I've read.

Heck, even ed (and I apologize ed, I know you don't like people speaking for you, but I'll just give my impression) seemed to be pointing out the number just to note that he thought the discrepancy deserved an explanation (I happen to agree with that; maybe not in the speech, no, but one of his policy people should have been able to speak to that by now, because no one buys that NATO is going to send 10,000; we'll be lucky to get 5,000).

I certainly don't think anyone questioning the number is undermining Gen. McChrystal. He is a general. He would have wanted more, I guarantee it (technically 40,000 is the MINIMUM he requested; I think his ideal number was more like 60,000-80,000), but he will support the President because that is his job and the President is supporting him. And he will get the job done with the resources he has.

A couple of points -

1. In the lead up to the decision, I think most critics had a presumption in favor of the McChrystal strategy, and Ed expressed earlier in this thread some disappointment that Obama had taken so long to make a decision given when McChrystal set forth his ideas. It seems logical that there would be at least some criticism now that Obama has not followed this element of the McChrystal strategy.

2. Even pointing out the discrepancy suggests that there is some value to acknowledging a difference with the McChrystal strategy. I do not agree. It was an unfortunate disclosure by McChrystal that needs no extra attention in the public debate.

3. I am cynical, but view this is as a damned if you do/don't situation based on what a 30000 v. 40000 argument would look like. He would be characterized as "professorial" or something else when trying to distinguish the two. I mean - what does it boil down to? We are able to more easily secure Cave Y with 30,000, and we'll get another cave secured with 34,537, and that's all the caves we need to secure here, so 34,537 it is? It would make Ross Perot seem digestable. The analysis is entirely speculative, so it would fail for some of the same reasons that the timetable has been criticized - we don't know if we're right.

Furthermore, Obama would get the weird attack from the quasi-Taliban spokespeople in our politics as to how the Taliban would benefit from the analysis - i.e. they'll double down on Cave Y and take their chances on Cave Z. I do think this has some merit inasmuch as the Taliban argument on timetables has merit - that the Taliban will merely wait us out and launch attacks the day after we withdraw.

[EasyEd]

Ed will speak for Ed.

General McChrystal informed the President he needed a minimum, I repeat minimum, of 40,000 additional troops; and, without it we might be facing failure in Afghanistan. The President has decided to give him 30,000 instead. Ergo, in the general's opinion we are facing possible failure. Has something changed in the mission to change the above? If so, please enlighten us so we don't think we're sending 30K troops with a risk of failure. If not, let's bring all of them home.

President Obama is the Commander-in-Chief and General McChrystal is his subordinate so the general's duty is to say "aye aye sir" and do the best he can with the troop levels allocated.

[jerseyhoya34]

I think General McChrystal can speak for himself, and he did so yesterday. The articulation above is in direct conflict with what General McChrystal articulated, which was clear and unambiguous on its face. If one needs to identify an example of doing injury to General McChrystal's position, no better example can be given. I trust that the General made a truthful statement and hope others do too.

Compare to the real statement:

"The Afghanistan-Pakistan review led by the President has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task. The clarity, commitment and resolve outlined in the President’s address are critical steps toward bringing security to Afghanistan and eliminating terrorist safe havens that threaten regional and global security."

On Edit: Asked today about troop levels, General M said, "We're going to have exactly what we need." Again, I trust that McChrystal made an honest statement of his position, and it surprises me that some people would make an argument based on an idea that a clear statement by our commander is not truthful. It will be interesting to see what happens to the argument if McChrystal makes the same statement under oath next week. Will his purported adherents then claim he made a false statement under oath?

[EasyEd]

Dec 2, 2009 20:15:40 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

I think General McChrystal can speak for himself, and he did so yesterday. The articulation above is in direct conflict with what General McChrystal articulated, which was clear and unambiguous on its face. If one needs to identify an example of doing injury to General McChrystal's position, no better example can be given. I trust that the General made a truthful statement and hope others do too.

Compare to the real statement:

"The Afghanistan-Pakistan review led by the President has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task. The clarity, commitment and resolve outlined in the President’s address are critical steps toward bringing security to Afghanistan and eliminating terrorist safe havens that threaten regional and global security."

On Edit: Asked today about troop levels, General M said, "We're going to have exactly what we need." Again, I trust that McChrystal made an honest statement of his position, and it surprises me that some people would make an argument based on an idea that a clear statement by our commander is not truthful. It will be interesting to see what happens to the argument if McChrystal makes the same statement under oath next week. Will his purported adherents then claim he made a false statement under oath?

Have you ever been in the military? I have. When a senior officer (like a Commander-in-Chief) gives an order it is the duty, yes duty, of subordinate officers (like Gen. McChrystal) to first say "aye-aye Sir" then to support that decision and pass it on to his subordinates so as to make the decision his and that of his subordinates. Anything other than this is disobeying an order. He is duty bound by his oath to obey orders even when he may dispute the content. Clearly, what General McChrystal is doing is telling his subordinates that this is the plan so get in step with it.

[jerseyhoya34]

Again, that perspective does injury to the words of McChrystal, and it does not take a military officer to identify the absurdity. I do not believe a duty arises or is communicated from a statement such as "We have the resources we need." I also am not sure that the commander is duty bound to give two press statements expressing agreement with the policy. I am also unclear as to how or why a general would communicate orders via a press release or a press gaggle as is the case here, nor do I think it would be effective to communicate something like "We have the resources we need" and expect something like concrete action from troops on the basis of that alone. Maybe I'm wrong, so to the extent anyone with a military background has received orders via press release or a press gaggle on this board or has taken action based on a single statement in support of resource allocations, I'd be curious to learn of the experience if it is something that can be shared.

To the extent you're right, I would be very concerned since Obama had made the orders well before he gave his address to the country, so, if McChrystal was indeed communicating the plan, there was a considerable delay in getting the wheels in motion.

Nonetheless, your position does not overcome the problem that you have to believe that McChrystal does not fully believe in the approach to be right and is not resigning despite those deep-seated beliefs.

History also tells us that McChrystal had several options. To the extent he disagreed, he could have resigned as someone like General Shinseki did.

[SSHoya]

A more pertinent example would be Gen. John Batiste, who retired in lieu of receiving a 3rd star because of his disagreement with Rumsfeld, et al. He addresses the issue of being heard from within and carrying out orders or retiring. (General Shinseki retired, he did not resign, a technical point but retirement from the military and resignation of your commission are two entirely different things). I can only assume that Gen. McChrystal is comfortable enough with the CIC's decision to go forward, even if he has reservations, and to that extent, easyed is correct (salulte smartly and go forward -- and I have served as a mlitary lawyer and naval intelligence officer).

www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june06/iraq_4-13.html

[TBird41]

Dec 3, 2009 12:49:06 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

Again, that perspective does injury to the words of McChrystal. I do not believe a duty arises or is communicated from a statement such as "We have the resources we need." I also am not sure that the commander is duty bound to give two press statements expressing agreement with the policy. I am also unclear as to how or why a general would communicate orders via a press release or a press gaggle as is the case here, nor do I think it would be effective to communicate something like "We have the resources we need" and expect something like concrete action from troops. Maybe I'm wrong, so to the extent anyone with a military background has received orders via press release or a press gaggle on this board, I'd be curious to learn of the experience if it is something that can be shared.

To the extent you're right, I would be very concerned since Obama had made the orders well before he gave his address to the country, so, if McChrystal was indeed communicating the plan, there was a considerable delay in getting the wheels in motion.

History also tells us that McChrystal had several options. To the extent he disagreed, he could have resigned as someone like General Shinseki did.

Jersey, I think Ed has a point that you don't really understand the military ethos / way of thinking. Its one of those things that's hard to understand if you haven't served / spent a lot of time working members of the military.

Additionally, I'd agree with you if we were talking about a politician's press release, but I don't think your line of reasoning applies unless McChrystal is more politician than soldier (understanding that General's know how to play politics), at which point we're probably in trouble in Afghanistan anyway.

McChrystal isn't going to want to undermine Obama's decision in any way. It serves him no purpose and goes against the military ethos. He would have done that by not answering the resource question b/c people who feel it necessary to parse his release would have noticed he didn't mention resources in his response. And McCrystal is a good soldier and a good general--he's not going to spend time fighting / complaining about a decision after it's been made. He's just going to suck it up and do his job to the best of his abilities with the resources given to him.

And while resignation was an option available to him, it would not have been keeping with the military ethos in this case. I don't know enough about Shinseki's reasoning for retiring to pass judgment on him, but good generals don't abandon their troops unless there is a really, really, really good reason. It's an extreme / last resort decision. I don't think Obama's decision to give McCrystal two brigades fewer then the minimum McCrystal asked for would have qualified.

[Boz]

Daily Show on Afghanistan:

www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-december-2-2009/30-000

This is Jon Stewart at his best. Not going for the partisan applause line, but attacking both sides (and the media) going to the laugh.

The film clips at the end are hilarious.

I don't normally consider Afghanistan to be a laughing matter, but I felt I had to step in before Jersey and Ed kill each other.

[TBird41]

NATO's going to send 7,000 more troops:

online.wsj.com/article/SB125992554118976499.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop

That'll definitely help, though if they have the same ROE issues as other non-US troops have had in Afghanistan, they won't be as effective as 7,000 U.S. troops would have been.

[jerseyhoya34]

Interesting -- tactically, I agree, but there is probably something to be gained from having an international surge as opposed to a US-only surge from a political point of view. Chances are that we had solid commitments in advance of the Obama announcement, making the need for a 30000 vs. 37000 vs. 40000 discussion less salient and the original request for a 30000 vs. 40000 discussion inappropriate.

[hoyawatcher]

Dec 4, 2009 13:04:49 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

Interesting -- tactically, I agree, but there is probably something to be gained from having an international surge as opposed to a US-only surge from a political point of view. Chances are that we had solid commitments in advance of the Obama announcement, making the need for a 30000 vs. 37000 vs. 40000 discussion less salient.

Between the potential for NATO troops who do relieve the US Army of a lot of backroom operations, and the opportunity for McCrystal and Obama to negotiate the specifics of the mission going forward I agree the troop count differences are less salient. And I can accept that McCrystal could say the troop number is fine to meet the mission (though I am still a bit hazy on what the specific mission is).

But going back to Boz's point, the logic breaks down to me around the timetable. When Obama states that this mission is a "Vital US National Interest" I understand that and expect the troops are sufficient. What I don't understand is how we can say it is a "Vital US National Interest" today but apparantly it will not be in 18 months when we have committed to begin withdrawing regardless of whether we have acheived the "Vital US National Interest" or not. And I understand the nuance of the speed of such a withdrawal but "Vital US National Interest" is not a nuanced term.

[theexorcist]

The more I think of this, the more I think of Obama in this issue as a stealth Republican. Bear me out.

The day after Obama gave a date that everyone seized on, Gibbs didn't backtrack. SecDef and CJCS did. If Gibbs putzes around and says "that's not what the president meant", it means a backtracking. This, to me, is Obama assessing that Europe and Congress (right after a major policy speech, only 51% of people support what we're doing) want a timetable. And he gave them a timetable, even if he has no plans to stick to it (and, given that SecDef and CJCS said it and weren't rebuked, I tend to buy this).

Ambassador - the military is interesting in that debate is fierce before a decision gets made, but once it gets made, everyone falls in line. McChrystal would have been fired had he objected in public to the plan - that's insubordination, and it's a big deal (when it kind of happened when Shinseki testified that more troops were needed in Iraq than Bush proposed, he was let go almost instantly).

Had McChrystal really objected, he could have resigned. Numerous military sources have attacked Tommy Franks for not resigning as head of CENTCOM before and during OIF (similar criticism was levelled at Peter Pace, who wasn't reappointed as CJCS and who came in for brutal treatment for some who said he didn't care about his fellow Marines).

[The Stig]

Dec 4, 2009 11:26:55 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

NATO's going to send 7,000 more troops:

online.wsj.com/article/SB125992554118976499.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop

That'll definitely help, though if they have the same ROE issues as other non-US troops have had in Afghanistan, they won't be as effective as 7,000 U.S. troops would have been.

My *guess* is that the increased European strength will mostly go towards training the ANA. That's a much easier sell for the European leaders dealing with their voters. We sort of did that in Iraq, with the Germans playing a big role in training the Iraqi Army and police.

Every extra European troop training the ANA means one extra American soldier that can get away from the training and into the field. It works out pretty well.

But that's all my guess - I don't have anything concrete to back that up right now.

[SirSaxa]

I started this thread on Afghanistan with a request that we treat this issue with the seriousness it deserves and with substantive discussions of various viewpoints. The first page or two of the thread largely lived up to that standard.

We have now reached a threshold moment with the announcement of the new strategy and plans. Obama surprised a number of conservative members of the board by substantially upping our commitment to Afg. He also surprised a number of Democratic supporters, for opposite reasons. I would like to renew the request for substantive and informed comments.

Many here have posted about what the number of troops should be, or that the number announced is not precisely the same number requested by Gen. McCrystal some months ago. I think it is reasonable to expect that -- given the substantial review of our overall strategy for AFG, neighboring PAK, and Islamic Terrorism in general -- the number evolved, as did the significant commitment of additional forces from NATO and many individual countries.

Having "skin in the game" from our international partners speaks volumes about their belief in US strategy and Obama's commitment, and their need to protect their own national security interests. AFG isn't just about AFG, but about the serious threats of Nuclear weapons to Al Qaeda and the Taliban (as raised by Ed), of Pakistani security (as raised by The Stig), and of fomenting global insecurity via an Islamic "civil war" to exert their extremist religious views and Sharia law on Islamic nations around the world.

For those who are really interested in the substance of Obama's new strategy -- developed with the full participation and "buy-in"of his national security team -- there is a link below to a briefing by Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. CSIS is a non-partisan Washington Think Tank whose board members include prominent foreign policy experts from both parties. Cordesman is one of the world's leading experts on terrorism, counterterrorism, national security, military affairs and intelligence. He is also an adjunct Prof. at GU. He was once Sen. McCain's senior staffer for National Security issues. Maybe most importantly, he also worked closely with Gen. McCrystal over recent months to help formulate what US strategy should be.

The briefing is a video of his comments followed by questions from global press representatives. Cordesman endorses the new plan and says a lot of very interesting things such as "this is the first time in 8 years in AFG that the US will be devoting the resources needed for the job". He also addresses directly the Karzai govt. and explains US strategy to demand reform from that govt., but also to work directly with AFG ministries, and regional and district leaders.

Cordesman Briefing


Secondly, the threat from Islamic radicalism is very real and long term -- and global. Bin Laden and pals tapped into the deep unrest, displeasure and frustration experienced daily by a civilization that has never embraced modernity. Their solution is to return to the ways of 1000 years ago. They cite many of the less admirable traits of "modern society" as proof of our corruption and debauchery.

We cannot afford to lose sight of or to minimize this long term threat. We don't look at this as a Religious war, but THEY DO!

Several years ago, the NY Times magazine ran a lengthy article about the philosophical leader of this extremist way of thinking, Sayyid Qutb. He emerged from the Egyptian Fundamentalist movement in the 50s and 60s, and died in an Egyptian prison in 1966. Some have called him the "Karl Marx" of Islamic Fundamentalist extremism. He and the line of thinking/beliefs he inspired are what underly the Terrorist movement we experience today. How to defeat such a movement? Years and years -- decades -- of engagement, education, economic development, and international cooperation. Regardless of what happens in AFG, this bigger battle is one we are facing and will be facing on a global basis. Every nation on earth is threatened and it is in everyone's best interest to cooperate to defeat it.

For more on Sayyid Qutb, you may want to read the Times piece from 2003 Sayyid Qutb

[EasyEd]

Regarding Islamic radicalism, isn't this also a reaction to what they call Western values? This includes rampant violence, drug addiction and loose sexual practices in our society. These are exported to Islamic-majority nations via movies, DVDs, musical lyrics and the internet, among others. This is not to say any of these do not exist in Islamic cultures, but I think this is the makeup of what they react against and call it Western values.

[TC]

Nice to see that 33 Senate Republicans aren't interested in funding Afghanistan anymore after trying to filibuster the funding bill......