The deliberative process behind President Obama's Afghanistan strategy has produced public disagreements, both within the cabinet and war council, over the proper way forward. On Monday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters that, with the president ordering his plans carried out, those divisions have largely been worked out. Certainly, he stressed, no one felt they "lost" with the final proposal.
"I don't think anybody participated in this process thinking, 'If I offer something in the Situation Room and it is not adopted, then somehow I've lost,'" Gibbs said. "I know there is a Washington game of trying to pick winners and losers. I think when the people step back and look at what the president's ultimate decision will be, I think that everybody sitting in that room had a valuable contribution in making this a better policy for the men and women in our armed services and, quite frankly, for each and every American."
Gibbs's remarks seemed aimed at the disparity that emerged between U.S. Army General Stanley McChrystal, whose memo calling for a 40,000-troop increase was leaked several months ago, and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl W. Eikenberry, who warned against a troop buildup very late in the deliberations. Asked specifically about those two people, Gibbs insisted that, upon leaving the final discussions with the White House on Sunday night, "both of those individuals in Afghanistan and the president felt very good about our way forward."
A far more interesting fallout of the Afghanistan debate, however, relates to Vice President Joseph Biden, whose skepticism about sending more troops to Afghanistan was made public in a Newsweek article this October. By Biden's calculations, it made shaky strategic sense to invest more resources and troops to Afghanistan when "al Qaeda is almost all in Pakistan and Pakistan has nuclear weapons."
Details of Obama's war plans going forward aren't fully illuminated at this point. And there may very well be a sufficient Pakistan component to the strategy. But if the two briefings Gibbs had with reporters on Monday provided any indication, the preponderance of attention seems likely to be on building up Afghani institutions to ensure that they aren't overrun by insurgents or terrorists.
"The threat from al Qaeda exists in very real ways," Gibbs said. "Not just emanating from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan but throughout the world. The reason that al Qaeda was in Afghanistan was because al Qaeda had the safe haven protection of the government run by the Taliban. What the president will discuss tomorrow is ensuring that we prevent the Taliban from being capable of controlling the government of Afghanistan as well as incapable of providing safe haven from which al Qaeda can plot and undertake terrorist activities like we have seen previously happen in the United States."