More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Taylor Marsh

Taylor Marsh

Posted: December 31, 2010 03:33 PM

Obama's 2010 Moment

What's Your Reaction:

When President Obama sacked Gen. Stanley McChrystal and then appointed Gen. David Petraeus he was forced to do something he's not done before. Stand on a line and make a critical decision that would have lasting consequences for thousands of U.S. soldiers and Afghans. It was brilliant, as I wrote at the time. In a year that brought little inspiration from Democrats, there was no more important moment for the president and he executed it flawlessly. However, it was hardly the end of this saga.

2010-12-31-ScannedImage733.jpg

President Obama on June 23rd:

But war is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general, or a president. And as difficult as it is to lose General McChrystal, I believe that it is the right decision for our national security.


The conduct represented in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general. It undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system. And it erodes the trust that's necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan.

The day before Obama made his decision, everyone was debating what he might do, with friends and I going at it, including individuals I talked to at the State Dept. Quite a few were not convinced Obama could actually sack McChrystal. I knew he had no choice if he wanted to keep his presidency intact, but that doesn't mean I thought he'd do it. Not only did President Obama make the move, but choosing Petraeus turned his decision into perfectly crafted leadership.

For me, the entire event revealed something complex and catastrophic, which forced me to reevaluate reality. McChrystal's implosion in Rolling Stone signaled that things were much, much worse in Afghanistan than the administration was letting on or dare I say even knew or would admit. This was the moment my unwavering support for Obama's Afghanistan policy ended, because McChrystal's raw candor and his admissions were so brutal, it blew out all previous reporting. For a warrior of his stature to unmask the chaos so totally through his own naked stressful confession meant that the unraveling was now uncontrollable for outside forces. COIN had crapped out and not only would our strategy have to be altered, no matter what was being said in public, but even at that we had lost whatever control to influence events enough to connect a country that had never known this type of life.

Recent reports have confirmed just this fact. From the Wall Street Journal:

Internal United Nations maps show a marked deterioration of the security situation in Afghanistan during this year's fighting season, countering the Obama administration's optimistic assessments of military progress since the surge of additional American forces began a year ago.


[...] Many nongovernment organizations, or NGOs, operating in Afghanistan dispute that any progress has been made by the coalition this year. According to preliminary statistics compiled by the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office, which provides security advice and coordination to NGOs working in the country, the number of insurgent-initiated attacks surged by some 66% in 2010 from the previous year.

"The country as a whole is dramatically worse off than a year ago, both in terms of the insurgency's geographical spread and its rate of attacks," said Nic Lee, director of the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office. "Vast amounts of the country remain insecure for the unarmed civilians, and more and more areas are becoming inaccessible."

So, even as brilliant as the replacement of McChrystal with Petraeus was, the unfortunate reality is that President Obama didn't get the message from McChrystal's career ending confession.

And as we end 2010 there isn't any politician of either party who has the prowess to lead the U.S. do what's required and make the tough decision that's needed, which is to disengage from Afghanistan starting immediately, which would still mean we wouldn't be out of there for another 16 months or so.

The U.S. is carrying out military operations we cannot afford, that are not helping our nation or making us safer, while keeping us in a hamster wheel of never ending futility on battlefields we are not welcomed and no longer belong.

That we have no one to lead us out of this mess is the most depressingly alarming reality our country faces as the New Year dawns.

Taylor Marsh is a political analyst and veteran national political writer out of Washington, D.C.

Editorial cartoon by Paul Szep used with permission.

 

Follow Taylor Marsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/taylormarsh

 
 
  • Comments
  • 109
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Oldchef
Former Executive Chef, tr0ll watcher
11:20 AM on 01/03/2011
Obama's opposition to the war in Iraq was one thing that brought many progressive Democrats to his corner. It has been disappointing that the war emphasis has simply shifted back to Afghanistan. I sure would like to see the anti-war Obama come back around. Make deals with the tribal leaders in the different areas, they have a lot more influence than Karzai. We could save a fortune by paying them to keep order and bring our troops home.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NTT
Fighting rants with facts
09:40 AM on 01/02/2011
>>>"When President Obama sacked Gen. Stanley McChrystal and then appointed Gen. David Petraeus he was forced to do something he's not done before. Stand on a line and make a critical decision [...]"

Sorry, that's grossly misrepresenting the facts. President Obama ALREADY made a critical decision when he appointed McChrystal. The general was Obama's appointee, his appointment heralded as a great choice. Then, without consulting McChrystal, Obama made another critical decision -- that of announcing to the world a deadline for withdrawal. Publicly setting a deadline was a tremendous boost to Taliban; it basically told them "you can easily wait us out -- and you won't have to wait very long, either". Of course, Taliban was not just going to wait idly. It was going to bleed us in the meantime -- for several reasons: a) violence is its raison d'etre; b) so we don't change our minds; c) so they can proclaim themselves victorious after the withdrawal as the outfit that forcibly kicked USA out.

Obama's politically-motivated announcement pulled the rug from under the military's feet, making McChrystal's mission impossible. Hence his huge frustration, which came out in that famous article.

To try and salvage the last crumbs of his credibility, Obama then had to make the hugely embarassing decision of sacking his own appointee and falling back on... Bush's choice. That some choose to praise Obama for making that "critical" decision is a testament to how irremediably biased some people are.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
verycold
01:36 PM on 01/02/2011
I think your assessment is spot on. 

I do think the article above is right that McChrystal's interview was a huge cry of deep frustration.  Nobody in the military with that many years experience would ever speak so easily in front of virtual strangers.  His hands were tied and he was saving himself by taking that interview and allowing the resentment to be aired publicly. 

I also agree that there isn't a soul out there that really is willing to admit how things are really going and what the future will require. 

But the biggest question I want an answer to is why on earth did a left leaning progressive like Obama decide to expand this war in the first place?  Who got his ear early on and led him to believe it was the policy that was wrong and that Obama could right that and win this long protracted war?  So who was giving Obama military consultation during the campaign?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
hornedcog
Tax Tea Now!
07:50 AM on 01/03/2011
Do you believe that the funding of wars should follow the same constraints and considerations as other public policies? Would you be alright with a U.S. military presence in Afghanistan twenty years from now?
08:13 PM on 01/01/2011
Brilliant, short piece.
05:23 PM on 01/01/2011
I support the President and always will, I think he's doing a phenomenal job, especially considering the congress he's been dealt...but I agree, we simply must leave A-stan, and leave NOW. Enough of my brothers have died for an unwinnable war. Declare victory and come home. Bring us home, Mr. President. Show yourself to be every bit the leader I know you to be. Bring us home. Please.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Chubbster
Always Under Moderation
10:01 AM on 01/02/2011
>I think he's doing a phenomenal job.

Sort of.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
verycold
01:42 PM on 01/02/2011
I must disagree that he is a good leader and doing a fine job.  It is true that with 3 branches of government in his pocket he did pass a lot of legislation, but we have yet to determine if that legislation is helpful.

Let me give you just one example of a tsunami headed our way.

Currently Medicaid comprises 21 percent of most state budgets.  CMS projects that this year alone Medicaid will increase 41.4 percent which would then make Medicaid 30 percent of most state budgets.  CMS projects that by 2014 85.2 m Americans will be enrolled in Medicaid, and increase of 23.3 percent. 

Actions always have unintended consequences that eventually get revealed.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Oldchef
Former Executive Chef, tr0ll watcher
11:32 AM on 01/03/2011
If we get out of these wars, we'll have billions more dollars to spend domestically.
05:06 PM on 01/01/2011
What Gen. Petraeus finds hard to comprehend is that the very presence of US military forces in Afghanistan causes instability. Most Afghans want all foreign troops out of their country.
04:06 PM on 01/01/2011
You call the choice of Petraeus brilliant but give us no reasons why. I guess because there aren't any.
Please finish your assignment and resubmit.

Putting Bush's guy in charge along with Gates, and we wonder why the military does what it wants regardless of the President? Those guys are more loyal to the neocon agenda that to the "change" most of us wanted. You even mention Afghanistan is not getting better which seems to indicate that Petraeus is more of the same stubborn failed thinking that we can "win". A failed thinking that is causing daily deaths on both sides.
05:08 PM on 01/01/2011
humble - - Sir Max Hastings (former editor of Sunday Times, UK) says Obama is "in thrall" to General Petraeus. Clearly this is a large part of the problem.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Dan Stewart
03:23 PM on 01/01/2011
Petraeus was a horrible choice and is performing poorly.  Petraeus' intent is to stay in Afghanistan and ultimately destabilize Pakistan.
05:14 PM on 01/01/2011
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:38 PM on 01/01/2011
Why have we been there for 10 years?
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Dan Stewart
01:24 PM on 01/02/2011
That was persuasive.
03:15 PM on 01/01/2011
While McCrystal has been cast in the role of the fallguy, the biggest problem is at the top, in the Oval Office, where, beginning on the 2008 campaign trail, a commitment to truth has apparently been cast aside. The "60 votes are needed to pass anything in the Senate" excuse has been used by President Obama to avoid making hard choices. Putting aside the Afghan tragedy, the biggest and most cynical lie from the White House is the oft-heard claim that "60 Senate votes are needed for middle class tax cut legislation".

When President Obama looks the American people in the eye and claims that he had no choice but to extend the Bush tax cuts because 60 votes are needed in the Senate, it is helpful to recall that the second Bush tax cut, The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, passed in the Senate via reconciliation with a 51 to 50 vote. Then-Vice President Dick Cheney cast the tie-breaking 51st vote in his Constitutional role as President of the Senate.

Until January 20, 2011, when the new Congress is sworn in, there is no reason why President Obama cannot call Congress into emergency session, and pass via reconciliation the middle class tax cut bill passed by the House, but derided by the White House with the 60 vote falsehood.
08:15 PM on 01/01/2011
We are all learning to detest this craven, opportunistic, unprincipled president. Lower case "p" because the joker face, which at first I rebelled at, now seems most apropos.
02:30 PM on 01/01/2011
GOOD MORNING!!! MY FELLOW HOMO SAPIENS WHICH MEANS THE SPECIES WHO IS WISE.
2011 DREAM LIST:
The U.S. Government will get out of the warmongering business and instead apply those trillions in wasted tax money toward rebuilding America.
Everytime a innocent American is killed with a handgun the NRA will be required by law to give that family 1 million dollars.
It will occur to the Robber Baron Stooge Party members that they are suppose to be representing the best interests of the people not the Robber Barons and it will occur to the Tea Partiers that they have been Robber Baron Stooges!!
All of America's universitites will teach their students that greed and lying is wrong.
The words Armageddon, apocalypse and rapture will not be spoken or written anywhere on the planet since these words are based on pure fantasy and those who are preaching these fantasies are making millions each year.
Hopefully it will occur to those global warming naysayers when the floods reach up to their eyeballs that all that scientific data collected over the past half century is really true.
Effective reforms that will be enforced will be implemented to prevent the scamming, swindling, manipulating and other criminal activities in the banking and financial markets and corporations
All Federal Regulatory Agencies will be totally reformed and anyone involved in corporations will not be allowed in these agencies.
All of America's legal systems will be reformed.
08:16 PM on 01/01/2011
Progressive Connie 2012.
photo
unionave
Old Codger
02:08 PM on 01/01/2011
If you are betting person put your money on McChrystal as being the next Republican Presidential candidate ! The Republicans will then dust of their old "We like Ike" buttons , scratch out the "Ike" , and replace it with "Mack" . McChrystal has all the attributes Republicans like .
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mjc
Avoid printing any..
03:31 PM on 01/01/2011
Perhaps, but besides trashing the president and his advisors, McChrystal had some different notions about ground and air warfare in Afghanistan and those would probably put him at odds with most Republicans as they basically did with Petraeus.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tom Iarossi
A proudly progressive veteran and educator
01:26 PM on 01/01/2011
Two things:

First, Obama HAD to fire McChrystal. The general violated basic tenets of military leadership by openly criticizng the Commander in Chief. He basically fired himself. I just retired from a 27-year military career and backed the President on this one.

Second, wars are started and ended poltically. The military is merely the tool of choice for conflict; the conflict itself arises from poltical differences and strategic interests defined by a country's leadership. Too many of our conflicts have been fought to support economic interests, but whatever the reason, there is no solely military solution to Afghanistan or anything else. Fighting native insurgencies with massed forces is virtually impossible.

It's time to cut our losses and end it. We have not and will not derive long term benefit from this war.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
MyTake
Release the Hydrogen Economy now!
03:14 PM on 01/01/2011
I respectfully disagree with you statement that "wars are started and ended politically".

No doubt that corrupted history teaches this theory but it is far from being correct.

Wars are started privately and then politics and the Corporate controlled media are brought into play.

Study the WWII and the American Corporations that profited from both sides of that war.

Study the Rockefeller Syndicate and ask why their chief lawyer, Allen Welsh Dulles, was on the Board of Directors for Germany's IG Farben (the principal Corporate conglomerate behind Nazism). Or why Dulles was set up in Switzerland throughout WWII. Or why Dulles was first in to Germany to control the cover-up. Or why Dulles brought all those thousands of key Germans into the U.S. under Operation Paper Clip which included Dr. Ernst Rudin (Mengela's boss) who was set up in the Rockefeller Syndicate to engage in global depopulation method's. Or why Dulles was installed in one of the most publically sponsored corrupt organizations on earth called the CIA. Or why Dulles, who was fired at CIA by Kennedy over the Bay of Pigs, came back as the sitting Warren Commission member that controlled what evidence went before that commission.

So, no, rarely do politicians start wars. They are almost always started by powerfully private elite people for which their Corporate controlled interests will profit and populations can be reduced as a side benefit.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tom Iarossi
A proudly progressive veteran and educator
08:08 PM on 01/01/2011
Actually, you and I are in agreement on most points. Economic (i.e., private) interests have driven far too many of our military and intelligence actions - Hawaii, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Iran, Cuba, and so on - but it also involves the political leadership supporting those interests, and that's where the real crime is. In addition to the Dulles family, look at the Harrimans, the whole Bush clan,and the families behind the major banks. When I say wars start and end politically, I'm talking about the civilian leadership.

The main thing to remember is that there is never a purely military solution to conflict, especially when there is no state to defeat (as in the current conflicts). Even the world wars ended because the poltical will of the enemy was broken, and not before. For all the right's talk of kicking a**, it accomplishes nothing in the current conflicts.
05:15 PM on 01/01/2011
Well spoken brother
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tom Iarossi
A proudly progressive veteran and educator
11:02 PM on 01/01/2011
Screamin' Eagle! Dude!
photo
dhinds
A Collection of Quotable Gems
12:56 PM on 01/01/2011
"The U.S. is carrying out military operations we cannot afford, that are not helping our nation or making us safer, while keeping us in a hamster wheel of never ending futility on battlefields we are not welcomed and no longer belong."

Absolutely no goals are obtainable by continuing to occupy either Iraq or Afghanistan.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:22 PM on 01/01/2011
You're being silly. Plenty of money is being made by the people who matter.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
marthamothra
12:39 PM on 01/01/2011
I agree. The president needs to make a DECISION to leave.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
texgal7
Under starry skies....
12:31 PM on 01/01/2011
I believe we have to stop thinking of Afghanistan as a "war." We need to be there, working with other nations, because our small world requires it. We cannot afford to let Afghanistan be taken over by an infestation of malignancy that will continuously sap the rest of the world. We need to help bring the people of Afghanistan, if not into this century, at least out the 14th century. I am not commenting on the specific amount of money we need to spend or the specific methods we need to use. Simply that we need to maintain a long-term presence, we need to be smart about it, and we need to stop framing it as a war.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mjc
Avoid printing any..
01:18 PM on 01/01/2011
Honey, it is a war, Your denying it by saying we need to be there is so similar to what the Europeans who went into the Congo, or any parts of Africa either to take slaves or to clean the resources out of the small countries or regions, said: "We need to bring our civilization to these besotted peoples. They need our religious values. They need our political values." "Our little brown brothers are depending on us to bring them into the 19th Century....the 20th Century...." The malignancy that was spread...and is spreading is our own imperialism, our inability to respect any culture but our own. That is the "infestation". And it is very sick for us as well as for the people in the other cultures we come in contact with.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:24 PM on 01/01/2011
Do you prefer the term "occupation"? They go so well... Just look at the wonders of the occupation of Palestine.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
texgal7
Under starry skies....
12:27 PM on 01/01/2011
This was a great moment for Obama. He did exactly the right thing and did it forcefully yet with a minimum of bravado. I was proud of him at that moment.