Obama -- Really the Afghanistan "Decider"?

There is something rotten in the current state of Washington's Afghan policy making. The White House, we are told, is in the midst of an intense review of our strategy with nothing having been decided. Yet the NATO defense ministers meeting in Brussels on Thursday gave their seal of approval to the 'surge' being actively promoted by General Stanley McChrystal. The General made a long presentation of his plan behind closed doors.

Secretary Gates was in attendance but afterwords claimed that he was there "in a listening mode." Supposedly, then, the United States as leader of the Alliance and in charge of the AFPAK campaign sat mute while a judgment was made that preempts a decision in Washington that in principle is weeks off.

A confused American public, and an ever credulous press, are buying this fairy tale. Obviously, simple logic tells us that the story doesn't hold together. Either Obama already has made up his mind to back at least the essence of the McChrystal plan or he is being boxed in a corner by his general who acts as if he is the commander in chief with Gates' tacit support. Both interpretations are dismaying.

A president who misleads the American people on a question of war and peace is continuing his predecessor's practice of deception that brought us to ruin in Iraq -- a practice that Obama swore oaths to reverse. The alternative is just as harrowing: the Pentagon is preempting presidential prerogatives. Sad to say, neither should be a complete surprise given the White House's record of having abandoned its much ballyhooed dedication to transparency while letting itself be pushed around by everyone from Goldman Sachs to Max Baucus to Bibi Netanyahu.

The unrelenting McChrystal lobbying campaign is undeniable evidence that something is seriously amiss. First he leaked a copy of his report so as to generate political pressure on Obama. He followed with a public address in London wherein he made the case for his escalation while disparaging alternatives. The White House reined him in at that point -- or so we are told. Yet the indefatigable general was back at it within a week.

McChrsytal curtly rejected Vice President Biden's idea of scaling back nation-building objectives while concentrating on al-Qaeda and Taliban military assets -- itself a plan that leaves in place all the key premises of present thinking. Taking that "shortsighted strategy" would lead to "Chaos-istan," he pronounced.

There is no precedent to this kind of conduct by a commanding officer in the American military -- at least not since MacArthur went rogue in Korea and was sacked by Harry Truman. It is a worrying comparison both because of the fateful matters at hand in the two instances and the simple truth that one cannot imagine Obama mustering the strength of character to do anything remotely as brave.

There remains, though, the competing interpretation of these goings-on. The White House may be giving McChrystal his head so as to cast itself as the embodiment of prudence when it announces only a modest expansion of American forces. That choice could then be presented as the considered judgment of a strong president who will not bend to pressure whether from his generals or his 'left wing friends' as he calls the people who elected him.

This is the sort of clever tactic that has the fingerprints of White House fixer Rahm Emanuel all over it. It obviously appeals to Obama who has followed a similar tack on financial 'reform,' health care 'reform' and restarting Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. The tactic's failure to produce tangible success in all those cases has not shaken the president's confidence in playing that game. A fluid definition of goals, and therefore success, eliminates any critical point of reference. Devaluing of the American people's trust in their leader eliminates an obligation to honest public discourse.

Obama also seems unmoved by the consequences of leaving the impression that he can be bullied by the Pentagon. That impression of him in the minds both of his generals and other governments is a distinct and dangerous liability.

Comments

[robdverity]

Michael Brenner's query re Obama the Real Decider is close to being spot on. Fell short in running through the sternum however. The MI oligarchs are the real deciders. Obama has been puppetized by MI plutocracy buyout money via lobbyists and venality through the putrefaction known as Congress. Obama was purchased by Citibank (via Rubin and Summers during the campaign). Raytheon et al during the lobbying bogus restriction show.

Matt Hoh's honorable resignation is good theater, but ineffectual long term. A democracy for sale to the highest bidder is ipso facto a plutocracy. The MI plutocracy has the puppeteers strings in this particular farce. Mr Brenner's query is a good first step.

[Zwaan]

What an awful, sad, complicated situation we are in. And it's not the doing of Obama. He has to deal with it but it is pretty obvious that there are so many different issues that complicate his decisions and no matter what he will decide, the critics that have been his critics from the start will always find a handle to badmouth him. Never mind who started it. It's so much easier to criticize the Obama then to think back a couple of years.

And if you feel you 'wasted' your vote, do you really think it would have been put to good use with the other choice??

[Kittyfire]

How are these soldiers going to get home after the foreign credit runs out and the truth is out that the dollar is worthless paper?

[Artos]

Obama is simply a failure. He has failed to measure up to his promises. Sad, because I had had such high hopes for the man. I now feel I wasted my vote.

[buttonz]

It's shocking how Obama is turning his back on our military leaders and our soldiers after he promises them sanction just for the sake of political popularity. We went through most of the War on Terror with incompetent military and political leaders until we appointed Patraeus and McChrystal. McChrystal goes out to the Afghan villages and talks with the local population and tries to understand what they want. He is better connected with that culture than even our diplomats.

The facts are is that Obama will not pull out. Face it, it won't happen unless thing become terribly extreme. But failing to act quickly to reinforce the troops is costing lives. We don't have enough troops to protect villages so we wait for the Taliban to come and we fight the Taliban in a dangerous setting not to mention increasing the chance to kill innocent people. McChrystal doesn't want to be set up for failure.

[Eggsackley]

The last time I saw an interview of Rahm Emmanuel he stated that the real issue in deciding whether to send more troops in is whether the government in Afghanistan is viable. If it is not, we are setting ourselves up for failure no matter how many troops we send in. In South Vietnam our troops were victorious in combat, but we could not "win" because the South Vietnamese government was corrupt and ineffective. From what I have seen, the Afghan government is no better. The main difference in the two situations is that there was a competent government in North Vietnam that was able to govern when we pulled our troops out of the South. The history of the Taliban government before our intervention suggests that they will not be able to govern if we pull out. The only reason I can see for not pulling out immediately is to help Pakistan by keeping its rebellious extremists from using Afghanistan as a safe haven. In the long run, keeping our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan promotes terrorism and saps our strength.

[Nuyorican21]

Agreed that the Vietnamese had institutions and established political heirarchies which eventually made for effective governance in the traditional nation-state definition. But what is difficult about Afghanistan is that this region has repelled invasions since the time of Alexander. They have done this for thousands of years. "Nation-building" in this region requires massive mobilization an entire society, including economic and infrastructure development....but we haven't scratched that surface yet, and from what the resignation letter of Michael Hoh states, the corruption in the centers of power in Afghanistan will make any type of cooperation from those centers a dangerous proposition for American interests in that region for another 50 years at least.

Afghanistan has turned back invaders for thousands of years. They have no infrastructure (Iraq had a highly developed infrastructure) and no economic products (other than opium) to build a modern nation-state. And of course NATO endorses more U.S. involvement, no European nation has a large stake in Afghanistan as long American soldiers are sent over there everyday, and sent back of course.

[Artos]

When Vietnams Leadership was perceived as Corrupt our government merely decided that the Vietnamese President was expendable and had him terminated. That solved that dilemma. I'm pretty sure that if things go the same way with Kharzai and he is perceived to be an impediment he may also be similarly dispatched. When our Government sees fit to find a solution that satisfies the status quo they never let ideals stand in the way of pragmatic action.

[68Namvet]

What "war on terror"? The Iraq war had ZERO to do with terror! It was a pre-emptive war of choice against a country that posed ABSOLUTELY NO threat to the U.S. Iraq had no Air Force, no Navy and a decimated Army. There were no terrorists there and no reason given for the war turned out to be correct or truthful.
You talk like Patraeus and McChrystal did something of value. Like the "surge" worked. After 10% of the population left Iraq, another 10% relocated inside Iraq (Sunni's to Sunni areas, Shia's to Shia areas), and we paid local leaders not to attack us - violence subsided. We could have achieved the same results by leaving, and saved a fortune in the process.

You don't get war! All war does is harden the hearts of the people against us. And pre-emptive war is as dumb as it gets. Kind of like arguing with a neighbor and knowing he has a gun - so you kill him in "pre-emptive" self defense!

[Caralampio]

The public thinks war is a useful tool to achieve political and social goals. The people who make war know and care only that it is one of the most effective tools to make and preserve vast fortunes ever devised by man.

The trick is to keep the suckers on message and make them continue to vote in favor of war, be it on terror, drugs, or whatever.

[bells1]

I find it incredible that Obama who knows nothing about wars and armies has the power to decide what will happen next in Afaghnistan while generals laden with experience find themselves needing to follow his orders.This is an upside down world - Obama needs to listen to them but then again , Obama is all about politics and not about fighting terror and this is the world we live in .

[viriatus]

And since when is the present subject to follow the military? Last time I checked the military was subject to civilian rule and not vice-versa.

[Chip W]

The military knows more about military stuff, but who then would they answer to? Themselves?
What you point out is the price of having the military report to civilian authority.

[billw8017]

This is the kind of mindset that says we lost in Vietnam despite our military victories and because of political betrayal at home. We now have a friendly relationship with a popular government in Vietnam. We could better call it a diplomatic and political triumph despite a military refusal to admit we had done as much as could be done militarily. The Taliban is less attractive than the Hanoi government which had considered itself an ally in WWII and modeled its immediate post war declaration of Independence on our own.

We have, of course, less moral authority in Afghanistan where our policies have alternated between indifference and destructiveness through the past quarter century. We don't seriously care what happens to Afghanistan. It is not exactly on the opposite side of the world which is further due south in the Indian Ocean. It is a landlocked nation in some of the most rugged territory of the world and less accessible than if it were merely on the opposite side of the world.

It is also on the fringes of Russian and Chinese interests. As these countries compete for the oil riches of central Asia and cut us out -- a process that is well begun, our concern for Afghanistan must become ever less. Finally, only hubris keeps us there.

[porsche996]

If Barrack Obama were indeed President of the United States he would appoint his own Sec Def and NSA Director and change the Joint Chiefs, but he's not allowed too.

[Enliberate]

Amen.

[billw8017]

The death tally in Afghanistan is less than die each year from ordinary medical neglect here in the United States. The cost is less than the Federal Reserve provided to underwrite the banks just in this year. The war tests our officers and materials while discrediting military service provided only there was other work.

The President may be right to concentrate on other priorities. I do believe that as when Reagan pulled out of Lebanon after the marine barracks was blown up, we can withdraw from Afghanistan and never miss it. One feels some obligation to Afghanis who have supported our efforts but these should be ever less as the war goes on. No doubt the continuing futility of the war will also disgrace McChrystal who is pushing it so hard.

What the President shouldn't want is for this to become 'his" war. The American people are entirely right to recoil from a perpetual quagmire.

[Artos]

While I got the gist of your post and that you favor getting out, I think the first statement about the equivalent deaths was unnecessary and would have been better left unsaid. No life lost in a useless and unnecessary war should be taken so lightly. Wars are avoidable and the deaths preventable. The cost of any human life in such a war is indefensible as an argument.

[cwcarman]

Fire McChrystal; he is violating the principle of civilian control of the military. Like MacArthur, he thinks his opinion trumps the Commander and Chief. It does not and never should!

[realistic2008]

It does appear, for some time now, that the military is involved in a game which they feel they can win a strategic blunder from the get go.I believe the president should follow Biden's advise and order the generals to get Bin Laden or to retire.

[cwcarman]

Your assessment of the military's malfeasance since the Bush administration is right on. They have become a serious threat to our security instead of its defender. Had several of our previous Presidents listened to the Generals, we wouldn't exist!

[danielet]

Krakauer's WHERE MEN WIN GLORY is a damning condemnation of the army's other self-promoter after Petraeus, McChrystal. His Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch frauds to cover-up friendly fire killing of our own troops suggests that McChrystal should have been fired, not put in charge. Still, I break in sweat wondering: what if I've got them wrong? Heroes or charlatants? Too much however leaves lingering doubt from McChrystal's Report which reads more like the Petraeus slick self-promoting "surge" propaganda that WashPost's Tom Ricks now finally recognizes as "unravelling" than an analysis of what went wrong and how to fix it. When everything is narrowed to one voice speaking in military “hoorah” one needs to step back and get a broader perspective. After decade-long experiencing Vietnam and watching the generals of those days I can say Petraeus and McChrystal are no match with their peanut gallery of Kagans who never heard a bullet fly by and the PR types like Exxum who tells us in twisted logic: we are losing BUT we can win. We heard this Bush-it before as once again illiterate peasants cream our lean mean green machine. Obama, more Americans are dying from lack of health care than from Taliban gunfire. It's time to save OUR economy instead of Karzai's larcenous government.

[realistic2008]

Well said.

[Enliberate]

Yeah, thanks. It's hard to imagine how U.S. combat forces can do anything of value there, except, perhaps with a complete change of attitude, which, of course, will never happen. The question is, what are the limits within which Obama must operate. And, gulp, I have to say it-I do see, though I don't really agree, how Obama does seem insincere sometimes to some Americans. His oratorical pauses sometimes have an awkward feel as he proceeds to be so careful in picking his words. Who knows what he is facing? He should have just fired McChrystal when he overstepped.

[mysaaed]

The commentator should know that Afghani is for Afghans as dollar is for American and pound is for British, the monetary unit. ( part D of your instaid.) The word for people in Afghanistan is Afghans.

We, the Westerners, should understand if Russian and Chinese governments got involved, then Afghanistan will be a Vietnam. Fortunatly they can't right now, because they will be losing as we , the Amricans, do. The reason is that our monetary unit '$' is their '$' to. This is the best time that our governments should join Russian and Chinese and other governments to build a democracy from the bottom up with people who can be trusted by the people of Afghanistan and get red of Karzai( Bush's puppet). This is a golden chance, we don't have to lose it. We destroyed it, let us fix it. Finally, Mr. Vendrell agreed with me about a temporary government but not about local and provincial representatives first. ( This a part of my ideas.)

[FirstShirt]

Well we will just wait breathlessly for the rest of your plan.

Meanwhile, we didn't destroy it...the Taliban did long before we got there. We are liberators not conquerors. Under the Taliban girls were not allowed any civil rights. Now they can go to school. People risked their lives to vote for a corrupt regime but one better than the Taliban.

America's intervention saved people. Blame the perps, not the cops.

Now, as to staying there, Obama has only two choices. Get out or increase troops to help stabilize the country. Then put in permanent bases [like we did in Germany].

Obama is dithering. How much time does it take to make up his mind?

Result: He will increase troop strength. Watch.

[Unsui]

Just as he said he would during the campaign.

[Enliberate]

Well, it's a better approach than yours. Didn't destroy Afghanistan? Are you kidding? Who was it that said the fall of the Soviet Union was worth a few angry Muslims? That guy whose name I can barely spell-Breszinsk(?). Anyway, we helped create a huge problem along with the Saudis of fostering extreme "Islamist" rhetoric and militarily-oriented education. Basically, we got them all riled up and then split. And, then, the Taliban begins to emerge. I don't like the Taliban. But, we are not the cops any less than we are the perps Permanent bases? Obama should take a long pause before this one. And, just an afterthought, what's with all the drugs? What's that all about? Where does All the money go?

[Artos]

I am constantly amazed by many of my Fellow Americans a goodly majority of whom do not even know their Geography well enough to know where certain countries are until our Military gets involved in one of them. Most of you don't even know or understand a good many peoples of other nations, Hell, a good many Americans don't even understand British Humor or French food much less the Afghani citizens psyche. Why do so many try to make decisions that supposedly are designed to solve their problems when they barely learned about these people until about 9 years ago, even then very little. i think it would behoove us to relinquish this notion that we Americans are so Superior and so much more sophisticated about world issues that we can go around solving world problems. It seems pretty obvious from the present economic fix we are in that we don't even know how to solve our own problems. Nuff said.

[rcarifla]

One has to wonder what General McChrsytal would do to one of his subordinates who ran his mouth
off without it being filtered thru Him. I think this General is another McArthur, hell bent on making a name for himself at the expense of more dead young men and women. And for what? Some God forsaken backward country that should be nuked off this earth. Fire the General, Pres Obama and
get yourself someone else who wants to extract us from this country.

[Caralampio]

Stop believing and promoting superficial storybook narratives. Follow the money instead.

[rmco]

This comment has more truth to it than one might think. A soldier would be dragged through the UCMJ and court-martialed for speaking out on policy over the heads of his superiors. McChrystal is completely out of line and is overstepping the President in a sleazy manner. I'd give McChrystal his walking papers because I also agree with rcarifla that he is motivated by a personal agenda and that agenda does not include doing the best thing for the United States and our soldiers in uniform.

[msbeal]

McChrystal's mission was to 'win' in Afghanistan. Obama's mission is to make America safe from terrorist. They're entirely two different missions.

Occupation is to expensive. I say we back up, get out and deal with what ever pops up.

I haven't been all that impressed with the support the Afghanis or Pakistanis have given us up to now so what do we owe them? Nothing!

[TommyMcCarthy]

There is a third possible interpreta­tion....an­d by my lights the most likely.........

The plan is all Obama's and always has been.......Obama believes he has a mandate to expand the war in Afghanistan dramatically...... based on the positive response to his frequent allusions to it as "the good war" during the late campaign.
Forget about all about those OTHER mandates WE thought he had.....this is one Obama wants to do.

As we have learned, no matter how opposed his loyal constituents may be if Obama want's it ...it's MANDATE time.
Conversely, no amount of loyal constituants are too many to toss under the bus when O decides it's NON-mandate time.

Sound familiar? Conflicting statements about what the President's position is, plenty of patsys and fall guys to float trial ballons (and take the blame, should the idea flop)
All the while the mystery Prez. remains behind-the-scenes and above-the-fray ever-ready should a speech ora photo-op be needed.

Delegate, delegate, delegate,...don't get bogged down in details....Smile for the cameras!!

It's no accident the first president I ever heard Obama express admiration for was that OTHER "great communicator" Ronald Reagan.

meet the new boss
tm

[dadw5boys]

BULL.

Obama would leave Afganistan tomorrow if the security for the Oil and Gas industry was in place.

Right now the Religious Right at the Pentagon and Big Oil hold the game in check.

[TommyMcCarthy]

Please explain...­"dadw5boys­"

The only "industry" I know of in Afghanistan is the Herion trade.
tm

[Artos]

Yah and all that, while I disliked Reagan intensely as a President, he at least had an excuse for taking such a detached and hands off approach to his situation, because he was no more than a puppet. Obama has no such excuse. He made us believe that he would be on top of things and that he was the great hope of America, Turns out he's just as lame as so many Presidents before him.

[cutesky]

Isn't McChrystal supposed to lay out his plan only to his Commander in Chief and not to anyone and everyone else who will listen?

[thehummelr]

Just because this commentator says something you don't have to believe it. He claims the general leaked the report. Did you see the evidence he offered? I didn't either. He says the general outlined his plan in Europe, implying that was not approved. I have read elsewhere that the speech was (and is the practice within the pentagon) okayed by the administration before its delivery.

[Artos]

Look, a report like that is supposed to be treated like a classified document. A General is obligated to keep such a report secret and if it gets out, which this apparently did, then he has failed to do his job. It is as simple as that. Either a General can be trusted to know how to keep a secret or he is not worthy to be a General. Simple as that.

[RobZantay]

It is time to reconcider what we really want to do in Afganistan. History has proven that a military option is doomed to failure. since we are not at war with a nation we should decide what it is we want out of this conflict and try to acheive that goal. If we want to defeat the Taliban and the other terrorist organizations that are fighting against us we must stop their funding. The first thing to do would be to buy up all the opium fields from the farmers.This would stop most of the money that Alcadia and the Taliban earn from narcotic trafficing, and would win the hearts and minds of the people of afganistan. It would also help with the International war on drugs. we could use the opium to make a less toxic than methadone substitute for heroin. next we should focus on making schools and hospitals available to the people of Afganistan. By building their infrastructure we would provide jobs for them and for Americans who would like to travel there to work. This is the way that Osama Bin Laden won the hearts and minds of the people in every country he set up operations in. To defeat the terrorists we need to use the pin point accuracy that small black ops units would bring to the fight. Our militery is too big and vunerable for the job. You don't remove a cancer with a machette.

[Caralampio]

Their funding comes from wealthy donors in certain Arab states in the Persian Gulf. By funding violence, they justify higher oil prices. It's that simple. More violence also justifies spending hundreds of billions on the US military industrial complex, money which passes through the financial establishment. Each link in the chain takes a cut, and each link has a squad (or more) of lobbyists trying to increase the flow of money. They've all made sure that some part or other gets done in every state of the union so that the votes in congress are always there.

Keep on pretending there is a "War on Terror," that our military is defending our nation and our people, and that we are fighting for democracy. It's still a free country, you can still believe in fairy tales and opium pipe dreams.

[Artos]

No Static Military has ever done well against irregular forces. At best they either become hopelessly bogged down or they eventually resort to heavy handed methods which only serve to reward them with more opposition.