Obama and Afghanistan: for want of 6,000 troops…
The buzz is that President Obama will finally announce his Afghanistan decision on December 1, and that the magic number of troops sent will be 34,000.
If so (and I must emphasize that this information is based on anonymous leaks, and therefore suspect), that would represent a compromise between two plans General McCrystal offered. They are the so-called “high-risk” position and the “medium risk” position, based on 20,000 and 40,000 troops, respectively (there was also a “low risk” option of 80,000 extra troops).
If this news turns out to be correct, it will represent Obama’s need to put his own stamp on things. Instead of choosing one of the options his own hand-picked general has suggested, he would be selecting “none of the above,” or rather “somewhere between two of the above.” That way he (supposedly) shows how thoughtful he is, and that he’s the one in control rather than being some sort of puppet of the military. It also would be an attempt to placate his Leftist antiwar base (“see, I sent fewer troops than they asked for”), pay attention to campaign promises that he’d tend to Afghanistan properly, and soothe those on the Right who think he’s not been doing enough.
Will it work? Depends what you mean by “work.”
Will it work in terms of meeting our military objectives in Afghanistan? I haven’t a clue—although I imagine the generals do, and I think they asked for those particular numbers for a reason. Obama’s decision would be neither fish nor fowl. His military knowledge and interest is nil. He famously opposed the surge, for example, and clung tenaciously to that opposition when other surge-opponents had grudgingly admitted the surge’s success.
However, there are good reasons that our founders placed the mantle of Commander-in-Chief, as well as the Cabinet positions that advise a President on war, in civilian hands. Presidents are not meant to merely rubber-stamp military recommendations. But they do need to remember that they appoint military experts for a reason. If Obama’s strategy is really to win in Afghanistan, and if he is dedicated to that task (as his campaign rhetoric indicated, although I found it unconvincing), why would he choose the medium risk option, and then nickel and dime things by shorting McChrystal 6,000 troops? Why not at least send the full 40,000?
The answer, of course, is politics. And if Obama does send 34,000 troops, will it “work” in terms of politics? I don’t think so; neither Left nor Right is likely to be placated or fooled by the compromise response, which looks weak and gives neither what they want.
And speaking of weak, Obama’s Hamlet-like vacillation over the last few months only plays well with die-hard supporters. Because the process of making up his mind about Afghanistan took so long, it’s unlikely that Obama’s final decision will be seen by most people as a tough one providing sorely needed leadership. On the contrary, it has made a great many people on both sides very uneasy.
The bottom line, however, is what happens in Afghanistan during the next year or so. If the situation improves there, Obama’s decision, with all its attendant dithering, will seem to have been a brilliant one in retrospect. Remember that, unlike Bush, Obama still has the goodwill of the MSM, who would dearly love to see him have a victory. Therefore, any improvement in Afghanistan will be deemed a success.
[NOTE: The title of this post comes from the nursery rhyme “For Want of a Nail.”]
[ADDENDUM: Ed Morrissey has more to say on the subject.]
So our president, who has never served; who has no relatives (on EITHER side of his family including his wife’s, to my knowleges) who have ever served; and who will never dream of sending his own daughters into military service, is now sending another 34,000 young Americans off to be shot at.
Good thing he and the members of his civilian advisors do not have an “R” next to their names!! Otherwise, I might be getting a little worried that a certain word, which USED to be thrown around constantly, but which is now completely EXTINCT, just might surface again.
Something about a chicken and a hawk, as I recall. Been so long since I’ve seen it used – my memory is getting hazy.
I don’t know how long the MSM can continue to ignore people like Lesley Gelb.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-11-22/think-before-you-travel
Once a crack appears in that mirror of Obama that everyone looks in to see himself, Obama will reveal himself. He either learns something about the world, or he plays Chicago and turns Congress against him totally. I guess total breakdown is also a possibility.
I have a boy in the USMC awaiting deployment, so all these thousands of soldiers up and down all boil down to one for me. President Obama, if you send my boy, are you sending enough of his fellows that they will be able to do their job without going on suicidal missions?
Neo,
I posted this earlier as a comment to the Walpin Firing as it is more appropriate here. (Great minds think alike.)
I have been mystified by Obama’s need to hold 10 think tank sessions to discuss how to proceed in Afghanistan. Apparently he made the comment that Stanley McChrystal is not a big picture kind of guy so he is not really taking his advice. The news this morning was that Obama was going to send 34,000 troops in response to the requested 40,000.
This says a few things to me:
1. Obama will likely micromanage what happens in the field.
2. McChrystal does not and will never have Obama’s confidence. Obama’s choice must have multiculturalism as his first priority, not fighting a war.
3. Obama will listen to every talking head about what to do in Afghanistan other than McChrystal, to the extent he will listen to anyone other than himself.
4. Shortchanging the requested number of troops by 6,000 is the epitome of stupidity. It can result in a disaster similar to what happened when Les Aspen, Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, refused to send a tank or two to Mogadishu as requested by the general in charge on the ground. For the lack of a nail, the horse’s shoe was lost, for the lack of …
5. This is our war, not that of the government of Afghanistan. If we do not have confidence in Kharzai, that’s our tough luck. We did not go there to support his government (which did not then exist) but to take on the Taliban. We are in the process of changing the mission. Now, we are looking for a purer form of democracy in Afghanistan than Obama intends in the USA using ACORN.
6. Biden stormed out of a meeting with Kharzai earlier this year and Holbrooke reportedly sat with his back to him at another meeting, a decided insult. Kharzai will no longer meet with Holbrooke. I think that Kharzai has no confidence in Obama’s team or in Obama and is most likely trying to figure out how to survive until the next presidential election in the USA. I bet he longs for Bush.
7. Leslie Gelb had an article out today on the incompetence of the Obama foreign policy team. Given the stupid and silly things Obama has done to alienate our “friends”, such as return the bust of Churchill, to refuse to have dinner with the Sarkozys, put some distance between us and Israel, undercut the Poles and Czechs on antimissle defense, support the wrong sides in Iran and Honduras, tell the Chinese and Russians that human rights are no longer on our plate, and so on, I wonder if that team is just a bunch of “yes men and women”.
8. Does Obama start and end every discussion? Does he take input from the participants? What exactly was the positive accomplishment between, say, the first and second meetings, the 5th and 6th meetings, and/or the 9th and 10th meetings, so that Obama now can tell us his decision on McChrystal’s request for more troops? The net result is that he has introduced the Afghani political process into OUR war as an excuse to discuss and implement an exit strategy. When you are at war there is only two exit strategies. You win or you lose. I think Obama does not care if either result obtains.
9. Although unsupported, our troops in the field have to remain and fight the fight as losing a war with the Taliban exposes us to losing Pakistan, India, and several South American nations as allies. (Venezuela is now talking to Iran about nuclear somethings.) Imagine Pakistan’s nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands and being used literally or as threats against us, India and South America, all while Obama improves his lackluster golf game.
10. I am coming to believe that Obama is Satan.
The arrest and assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem, then president of South Vietnam, marked the culmination of a successful CIA-backed coup d’état led by General Duong Van Minh in November 1963.
Something for us and Kharzai to think about, no?
The telling term seems to be “exit strategy” as opposed to “victory”. It looks like he wants to send enough troops to say he tried but to assure a stale-mate. That to be followed by an increasingly war weary public that will eventually accept a withdrawal and a “decent interval” before the Taliban and Al-Qaeda takeover. He wants to make defeat popular.
I cannot see a man who desperately tried to destroy democracy in Honduras, harm the CIA, deny that the Global War on Terror exists and did everything possible to lose the war in Iraq regardless of the consequences trying to win a war for a nation whose strength he seems to be ashamed of. It is out of character.
He can even rationalize defeat by his own narcissistic logic : if the GWOT does not exist then why are we in Afghanistan? Like the enlightened self-anointed shepherd he believes himself to be he will lead us out and to hell with the consequences. His election promises to the contrary should be taken no more seriously than his pro-Israel comments.
I hope I am being paranoid.
Steve G Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Me too, and I’m not even religious.
And I’m not particularly kidding, either.
I believe that he wants America weakened and humiliated, and yes, defeated, by any means necessary. We have never had anyone like this as President.
Barack Hussein Obama is a traitor and a domestic enemy. Of course, that assumes he’s even “American” to begin with.
Hillary chastised him for not being ready and not knowing what to do when the phone rang at 3am. If she would have only known that he would answer the phone, but not be able to make a decision for 3 months and she could have shown this to the people, she might have been president today.
Obama says he intends to “finish the job” in Afghanistan. That phrase allows him the political cover necessary to adjust the criteria all the way from complete victory to turning the lights off and going home. Words are important – especially when dealing with a man as pathologically deceptive as our president is.
I pray that McCrystal asked for 40k but only really needs 30k because he figured Obama would screw him.
I am really, really glad that I don’t know anybody who is in or has a child in the military under this posturing peacock. Does he thing this is all a game of whack-a-mole? Silly question.
Well, the date for telling us the magic number was put off another week. No surprise there. I guess the odds of getting that number next week are less than 50/50, as this guy can’t be pinned down.
I just can’t fathom the process. You sit down with the “experts” (more accurately “mavins” in this administration), take up the request for more troops, hash out the issues, and make the best decision in the circumstances, everyone knowing that there is no “good” decision possible. But the very worst decision is to make no decision, as it sends the wrong signals to our allies and to our foes. Doesn’t someone in the room have a clue?
Is there a learning curve in this White House or do the hangers on and Obama know it all and have no need to learn from experience? Okay, so you foolishly embarrass yourself by returning the Churchill statue to the British embassy, giving the Prime Minister of our closest ally a bunch of DVDs that won’t play in Europe, and giving the Queen an iPod with your speeches on it. Shit happens. But, didn’t anyone tell Obama that things are not done that way when the heads of state meet? There are certain protocols that have been adopted after hundreds of years that are expected to be followed in order to assure that the proper respect is paid not only to a head of state but to the country he or she represents. Apparently not, because he continues to make silly miscues in EVERY meeting he has had with heads of state, whether inappropriate bowing, declining dinner, or some other silliness.
I’m concerned that the decision that will be announced next week is that Obama wants to either return or rename “Bo”. After all, he took as much care with selecting a pet dog as he is taking with keeping our troops in harm’s way.
It really is all about him. He is bigger than the USA. As our president, he has the really awful duty of having to represent us but, not to worry, he distances himself from us and our heritage every time he speaks. He is the man!
If I was the head of the Taliban or Al Queida, I would be analyzing Obama’s decision on the number of additional troops to determine if a new strategy was needed. One big TELL is the number of troops he puts in the field. McChrystal gave him options with the most robust being 40,000 additional troops. Anything less would indicate a reluctance by Obama to do little more than stay the course, as Obama would not have chosen to win. But, in a surprise to all of us, suppose Obama decides to put 50,000 additional troops in the field. I would read that as Obama’s decision to win, and quickly. He hasn’t done anything else right so far, so let’s see whether he wants to change course. (My view is that this is so speculative that I must be dreaming!)