As he made the rounds of the Sunday talk shows, President Obama made one thing clear when asked about whether he'd send more troops to Afghanistan: the question was moot because Gen. Stanley McChrystal, his top commander in Afghanistan, hadn't yet asked requested any more troops.
But in McChrystal's confidential assessment, which was leaked to the Washington Post this weekend, the general makes clear his intention: "Broadly speaking, we require more Civilian and military resources, more ANSF, and more ISR and other enablers."
In plain language, that sounds like a request for more troops.
In plain language, that sounds like a request for more troops.
And so now, the president has been taken hostage, thanks to the leaker -- and it must have been an experienced leaker, because the timing was exquisite. So long as there is deniability -- so long as the White House exercised control over the framing of the report -- the president retained some measure of control over the political balance. Whoever leaked the document decided that the Commander in Chief did not deserve the latitude that he had claimed. The colloquial term for this in Washington is, and you'll pardon me, that the president was ratfucked.
An administration official pointed to several sentences in the review that prioritize fleshing out of a new strategy, including this line from the executive summary: "Additional resources are required, but focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely. The key take away from this assessment is the urgent need for a significant change to our strategy and the way that we think and operate." But Obama bears some responsibility for the predicament he is in. During the presidential campaign, he called Afghanistan the "good war." He repeatedly promised to give "commanders on the ground" the utmost consideration. In March, he announced what he called a "new strategy," one that called on NATO to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. "That's the goal that must be achieved."
Leaving aside the real constraints of domestic politics -- a skeptical Democratic Congress and a war-weary public, the heart of the internal administration conflict is whether a plausible Afghanistan strategy exists in universe. Simply put, the White House -- principally Vice President Biden and Gen. James Jones -- don't want to commit more troops to the region unless they can prevent the Taliban from taking over the government, now and in the future. Biden, in particular, argued against a "counterinsurgency for counterterrorism" strategy as overambitious and unsustainable. The deeply flawed election in Afghanistan, which, most importantly, was seen as deeply flawed by the Afghans, seems to have been the breaking point: the central government was not only corrupt, not only weak, and not only barely legitimate outside of Kabul; it was so weak and so corruptible that it would not even be able to sustain the standing army that NATO troops were desperately trying to train. Who was the U.S. fighting for? A weak, inept, ineffectual and ultimately disposable government? Implicit in this argument is that a strategy predicated on there being an alternative to the Taliban is like a hamster spinning on a wheel. In that case, removing the incentives for the Taliban to be radicalized and destroying the leadership of Al Qaeda -- basically, bribing people and killing people, and doing so indefinitely, but with irregular and special operations forces -- is the alternative. The Biden alternative focuses on the intricate connections between India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Briefly put, Pakistan facilitates the Taliban and various insurgencies in Afghanistan because it preserves the option of living space to the north -- part of the grand goal of turning Pakistan into a haven for Islam. Kashmir's fate is crucial to this dynamic. But India won't talk about Kashmir; Pakistan won't -- can't -- truly cut off ties with the Taliban until Kashmir is dealt with -- and the U.S seems to have no leverage whatsoever.
What are the alternatives? An intense, low-level war of attrition between NATO forces and the Taliban forever? Or a concerted effort by the US, Russia, Iran and China to essentially force India and Pakistan to resolve the Kashmiri dispute, combined with massive amounts of direct aid to Pakistan, combined with a massive influx of intelligence assets into the region, combined with the bribing of willing and bribable Taliban commanders? Basically, instead of focusing on Afghan civillians, this strategy would make it as expensive as possible for a Taliban leader to decide not to ally with the United States. In other words -- counterterrorism as counterinsurgency, and not the other way around.
As Washington synthesizes the new report and tries to gauge its effect on the administration, speculation naturally redounds to the source of the leaker. Various theories have been put forth; let's put aside Occam's razor and assume that McChrystal and his staff didn't just give the document to Woodward. Theory one: Woodward traveled with Gen. Jim Jones recently, so Jones gave him the report. Probably not: the trip was in July, before the review was finished. Admiral Mike Mullen's staff, anxious about White House dithering, leaked the report with Mullen's blessing. Probably not: Mullen shares Jones's concerns about mission drift and is counseling caution. The more probable communities of suspects: senior Pentagon civilian holdovers, lifers, who've cooperated with Woodward before and who have a stake in McChrystal's counterinsurgency doctrine; war planners at Centcom, or the large cadre of defense consultants with clearance.
This leak not, in other words, a shot in an ongoing conflict between the military and civilians. It's between those who are invested in the success of McChrystal's endeavor and those who harbor growing concerns about over-investing in a strategy that might not work.
Somewhat ironic that the Obama administration, which has so far shown a big preference for the "strategic pre-leak" (upcoming cabinet appointments, speech contents, new agencies or regulations, etc. - you've commented on some of these non-coincidences in the past), gets hit by one - guess the leaking can cut both ways.
This kind of stuff makes it tough to argue, as many have, that Congress, or whatever other group, should be kept more in the loop on national security issues, when there's a 100% chance that somebody will leak it (see any number of leaks from the Bush era - looks like they're just getting started in the Obama era). It almost makes one want to talk to them like children: "if you're not going to behave like grownups and keep national security secrets secret, you're going to lose your privilege to know them. And no allowance!" On the other hand, an executive branch and/or military where only a few people know what's going on is not that comforting either in the long run...
You've got to be kidding. The guy holding the President hostage is the President. He went on the Sunday talk shows and simply lied, saying more troops had not been requested when they had been.
I don't see how it took an "experienced leaker" to leak this info. Lots of people have seen the military assessment, and it was pretty obvious from the prior reports about it that more troops where being requested. And it's beyond any sort of reality to expect it stay quiet to the extent that Obama could get away with such an obvious lie.
In short, I can't interpret Obama's action as anything other than a middle finger extended toward his generals. He could easily have given non-answers on this point, but instead he had to go and make "one thing clear".
It seems to me the only guy holding Obama hostage is himself, by going on the Sunday shows, blatantly lying, and then getting caught on it.
The US has been Afghanistan for 8 years, Obama has been president for 8 months......what's been going on for the past 7 years and four months? If you can once get past your Obama Derangement Syndrome you might ask yourself that question. This is just another one of those huge messes bequeathed to the current president by his hapless predecessor. There is not a simple solution.......essentially deciding to adopt an indefinite military protectorate over Afghanistan which is implicit in any decision to send large bodies of new troops is not a strategy that is going to be acceptable to the American people whatever the militant nationalist crowd believe or more likely purport to believe. I suspect they realize this and hence their enthusiasm to sucker the president into adopting this strategy. Obama doesn't seem in any hurry to play patsy and ultimately I suspect he'll find a way to disengage. It will be an interesting exercise watching how he handles this.
Err... if you're a pot does everything else start to look like a kettle?
I really don't have the expertise to know what is the correct option, but if you look at history it's a pretty safe bet that Biden will be wrong (i.e., the fall of the Soviet Union, partitioning Iraq, Gulf War, etc.).
Yep, like it or not — the President deserved to be "ratfucked."
Focusing on the leakers — and trying to pin the blame on loosely-disguised Bush-holdovers — really misses the point. Again. Not everything is partisan. And calling people who disagree with you names is intellectually bankrupt.
up until @ 8 weeks ago, the United States did have a strategy. Clear, hold, build. It's in the Counterinsurgency manual and was agreed upon last year by Bush the JCS, and the field commanders. The number of boots on the ground has been starved by the United States and its NATO allies from the outset. In addition, Iraq took priority.
November 4, 2008, our commitment to Afghanistan was put in danger. A hard left 1960's radical Congressional leadership has been waiting for its opportunity to cut and run.
McKiernan asked for more troops and was fired, and now we find that Obama has had McChrystal's report for a month. He denied this on national television. Our president is a duplicitous liar.
He hung the intel community out to dry. What the hell did he expect? Payback is a bitch, and it's going to be the gift that keeps on giving because of his inquisition.
There are number of observations here:
1. It is impossible to accept that the leak is without any approval of the President considering how tight Obama runs his ship. The straight forward explanation is President decided to 'fudge' the military request. Beyond what President reacted on Sunday, it is very hard for the General to ask for more troops. He will have to resign first to say anything more than what Obama has made it clear what he wants to listen.
2. Biden being wrong in past - that is fair bit of a strong reason. For all the expertise, knowledge and acumen; there does not come to mind any spectacular 'call by Biden' which turned out to be true. Granted, as they say even a stopped clock is right twice a day and it could be Biden time now; but we have to understand that we are short of credibility here as far Biden's foreign policy prescriptions go.
3. If the real reasoning is if Karzai government cannot even in the end control and manage the Afghan Army, then indeed there is no point going that route; the route of 'building Afghan Army'.
4. When Pakistan openly allows the perpetrator of Mumbai attack to go free (Hafiz Saeed); there does not seem to be any chance that India will accept any meditation by out side powers for the Kashmir problem. Americans are culpable here for unable to control Pakistan which continues to pursue all sorts of violent methods against all its neighbors.
5. Directly controlling Afghan Army for long time to come, that's about the solution. Such implicit colonization is simply not tenable and acceptable in today's world. Even one is not sure whether Americans want to do such thing, or can do such a thing even if wanted.
6. General McCrystal wants to go further and he wants to make the mission as securing Afghan population; meaning 'forget going after Taliban but die while guaranteeing security of Afghans'. American parents being ready to sacrifice their kids for killing Al Queda and Taliban is one thing; but letting American soldiers die while guaranteeing safety of Afghans from their own people (Taliban); that is completely a different matter and very, very unlikely to be accepted politically.
7. If General McCrystal's above stated strategy is the only game in the end and then it is not acceptable for larger Americans. This means Obama 'folding the tent' and the General will be on his way out too. There is no pleasing outcome here.
What strategy and tactics in Afghanistan or Pakistan will make it safer for the United States and its citizens? Our security as a nation is the only "metric" worth having.
Counterinsurgency is a Cold War military fantasy, that has been largely unsuccessful since WWII.
The alternatives to Counterinsurgency doctrine are very brutal and entail large losses of life, particularly among civilians. "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."
Is our national security so precarious that we have to kill a large number of civilians and destroy population centers in order to maintain our safety?
These are the military and ethical questions that the United States has to answer for itself in the 21st Century. General McChrystal, President Obama and the rest of the administration along with the citizens of the US have some serious decisions to make. You can run, but you can't hide.
Two things, the shortest first:
If indeed the military is trying to shape policy, they are breaching their Constitutional role. MacArthur got fired for less. Hint. Same with the CIA "rebels."
Second -- the war in Afghanistan is un-winnable by us. We simply don't have enough troops. The Russians, who just squashed an insurgency -- at least for a time -- in Chechnya, couldn't do it.
The only practical way out is with the help of the only power demonstrably able to tame and weed out the Taliban -- Pakistan. They're mopping up successful operations in their own nation, where they have the support of their people. Which we will never get in Afghanistan.
Pakistan wants something simple in Afghanistan -- a state not especially friendly to India. They can present us with Pakistan-friendly Taliban with whom we can negotiate a withdrawal, and who Pakistan can assure will not attack us.
Their ISI knows what they are doing in the region, unlike our reckless military and "intelligence" experts, who are much better at producing PowerPoint presentations than results.
Relieved of Indian pressure at their backs, Pakistan may feel more secure and this could aid in a Kashmir settlement, which would benefit everyone, except maybe China.
We need to start learning something from our failed foreign adventures.
We lost 50,000 soldiers in Vietnam and killed maybe two million Asians to keep these commie dominoes from falling in Asia. Vietnam went communist anyway, communism failed, and now they have a stock market. We kept hearing from our military and "intelligence" experts how that was win-able.
We invaded Iraq under premises as false but certainly more spectacularly dishonest than the Tonkin "incident." We lost a few thousand troops, killed and displaced maybe several hundred thousand Iraqis and achieved -- an Iranian client state.
In Afghanistan, we flubbed the killing or capture of Osama years ago. We're installed a government of corrupt dope-dealers as valid as the Iranian mullahocracy and our leading military mind is telling us we have to send more troops to "protect" the Afghans from the Taliban, who are so hated that they are able to get into central Kabul every so often and blow something major up.
Are we just too stupid to learn anything?
Or do some ambitious military officers and "intelligence" executives want a shot at enhancing their careers? General Petraeus bribed some Sunni Arabs, got a very temporary cease-fire, and was declared a genius. I'm sure he wasn't the last ambitious officer on the block.
Yeah, no kidding.
What changed? A flawed Afghan election? If the Obama team really expected a clean election with a different result, it makes them look naïve — both back in March and now, too.
If they didn't, then what's their problem now? Inconvenient timing? Or are we beginning to see the true colors of a dangerously inexperienced Commander-in-Chief?