Monday, October 26, 2009
Obama Dithers While Afghanistan Burns
President Obama's deliberations over Afghanistan, ongoing since September, are proving to be agoni9zingly slow for many observers of international and military affairs. At the same time, American forces are still taking casualties in pursuit of the futile existing strategy as morale continues to drop and faith in the mission subsides.
Dick Cheney has emerged from the shadows to accuse president Obama of "dithering" in Afghanistan. General McChrystal has requested 40,000 troops to get the job done, so let's get moving. The White House retorts with a 'not so fast' and claims that the president wants to make the best decision possible.
For starters, there's two problems with the White House's justification for delay. If President Obama is spending a significant amount of time listening to Joe Biden's reservations, he needs to cut it out. After all, Joe Biden has never made a correct foreign policy decision in his life. He's delusional to think we can avoid major conflict with the Taliban, even if our mission focuses solely on fighting al Qaeda. As long as infidels remain in Afghanistan, the Taliban will fight them. There can be no coexistence in Afghanistan until American leaves or until the Taliban is defeated as a competent fighting force.
The other reason for possible delay would be the upcoming Afghan runoff elections, scheduled for November. The President likely wants a legitimate government before committing to a new strategy. But history doesn't support his decision. If anything, governments gain legitimacy when they can ensure the security of the common people. It's much harder for governments to start from a position of legitimacy and try to build security. The civil liberties available under a legitimate government often contradict the actions needed to impose security. Iraq is an example where the government lacked legitimacy because the common people felt threatened. It wasn't until he cracked down on the Shiite militias that Nouri al Maliki was able to gain a measure of legitimacy as Iraq's Prime Minister.
The delay in the Afghan decision boils down to two incompetent politician-leaders. One is Joe Biden, and the other is Hamid Karzai. Success in Afghanistan is too precious to be entrusted to either.
Dick Cheney has emerged from the shadows to accuse president Obama of "dithering" in Afghanistan. General McChrystal has requested 40,000 troops to get the job done, so let's get moving. The White House retorts with a 'not so fast' and claims that the president wants to make the best decision possible.
For starters, there's two problems with the White House's justification for delay. If President Obama is spending a significant amount of time listening to Joe Biden's reservations, he needs to cut it out. After all, Joe Biden has never made a correct foreign policy decision in his life. He's delusional to think we can avoid major conflict with the Taliban, even if our mission focuses solely on fighting al Qaeda. As long as infidels remain in Afghanistan, the Taliban will fight them. There can be no coexistence in Afghanistan until American leaves or until the Taliban is defeated as a competent fighting force.
The other reason for possible delay would be the upcoming Afghan runoff elections, scheduled for November. The President likely wants a legitimate government before committing to a new strategy. But history doesn't support his decision. If anything, governments gain legitimacy when they can ensure the security of the common people. It's much harder for governments to start from a position of legitimacy and try to build security. The civil liberties available under a legitimate government often contradict the actions needed to impose security. Iraq is an example where the government lacked legitimacy because the common people felt threatened. It wasn't until he cracked down on the Shiite militias that Nouri al Maliki was able to gain a measure of legitimacy as Iraq's Prime Minister.
The delay in the Afghan decision boils down to two incompetent politician-leaders. One is Joe Biden, and the other is Hamid Karzai. Success in Afghanistan is too precious to be entrusted to either.
Monday, October 19, 2009
FOX Hunt
The Washington "FOX Hunt" is definitely on as the White House steps up its war of words against FOX News Channel. Communications Director Anita Dunn, advisor David Axelrod, and chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel are all on record saying that "FOX News" 'isn't really news' and it exists to make money. FOX News, for its part, seems to be enjoying a ratings bump stemming from their newfound public exposure.
The simmering war of words forces me to pause and ask whether the Bush Administration ever singled out media outlets for criticism. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't remember Tony Snow ever getting on the case of Keith Olbermann and MSNBC, or Dana Perino busting on CNN. Like FOX, MSNBC and CNN have their share of pundits who try to pass opinion off as reporting. The difference is that FOX is very critical of the president, while CNN and MSNBC swoon every time he reads off a teleprompter. I always thought the White House was supposed to be above petty and partisan shots against their detractors in the media. Then again, we're in the season of "change" in the Oval Office. Apparently "change" also includes a coarsening of the political discourse in Washington.
I'm reminded of the presidential campaign, when the Obama campaign launched an "Obama Action Wire" to discredit and smear author David Freddoso for his thoughtful critique The Case Against Barack Obama. The technique reminds me of the rabble-rousers who aim to shout-down anybody they disagree with and dominate the stage. For an administration that seeks to break the conservative stranglehold on talk radio, it's not particularly good at opening itself to intelligent criticism. Rather, President Obama and his staff are trapped in perpetual campaign mode. All I'm seeing from the White House is election-style tactics at controlling the message instead of providing truly bipartisan leadership.
Hopefully President Obama will realize that public attacks against FOX News, like the previous spat with Rush Limbaugh, only strengthens the opponents of the White House while eroding the dignity of the office. If he truly has what it takes to be a leader instead of a politician, he'd tell his staff to kill their childish bickering.
The simmering war of words forces me to pause and ask whether the Bush Administration ever singled out media outlets for criticism. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't remember Tony Snow ever getting on the case of Keith Olbermann and MSNBC, or Dana Perino busting on CNN. Like FOX, MSNBC and CNN have their share of pundits who try to pass opinion off as reporting. The difference is that FOX is very critical of the president, while CNN and MSNBC swoon every time he reads off a teleprompter. I always thought the White House was supposed to be above petty and partisan shots against their detractors in the media. Then again, we're in the season of "change" in the Oval Office. Apparently "change" also includes a coarsening of the political discourse in Washington.
I'm reminded of the presidential campaign, when the Obama campaign launched an "Obama Action Wire" to discredit and smear author David Freddoso for his thoughtful critique The Case Against Barack Obama. The technique reminds me of the rabble-rousers who aim to shout-down anybody they disagree with and dominate the stage. For an administration that seeks to break the conservative stranglehold on talk radio, it's not particularly good at opening itself to intelligent criticism. Rather, President Obama and his staff are trapped in perpetual campaign mode. All I'm seeing from the White House is election-style tactics at controlling the message instead of providing truly bipartisan leadership.
Hopefully President Obama will realize that public attacks against FOX News, like the previous spat with Rush Limbaugh, only strengthens the opponents of the White House while eroding the dignity of the office. If he truly has what it takes to be a leader instead of a politician, he'd tell his staff to kill their childish bickering.
Thursday, October 08, 2009
In Afghanistan, it's Go Big or Go Home
Recent reports suggest that President Obama is prepared to accept a bigger Taliban presence in Afghanistan, focusing on protecting the central government and ramping up offensive operations against al Qaeda. In doing so, he'll be rejecting the recommendation of General McChrystal for 40,000 more troops to regain ground lost to the Taliban.
Henry Kissinger has some important insights into the Afghan riddle. Instead of the current strategy analogous to holding 100 percent of Afghanistan for 75% of the time, he suggests that holding 75% of the territory for 100% of the time is the better choice. It appears that General McChrystal was of the same mindset, choosing to abandon remote outposts (like the one ambushed last weekend, where eight Americans gave their lives in its defense) in favor of keeping the cities safe from the Taliban. The question is how much of Afghanistan we can hold if the president is going to short-change his commanders of the resources he's requested to accomplish the mission.
When it comes to Afghanistan, you have to go big or go home. The current troop levels coupled with the current tactics have resulted in losing ground to the Taliban. It's not even clear that a change in tactics will help the situation as long as troop levels remain unchanged. The troops are getting demoralized as the Taliban regains its influence. They see their comrades dying with nothing to show for their sacrifice. If the president isn't serious about giving this mission the resources it requires, he should pull the troops out now and hand a major propaganda victory to Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. President Obama seems to be choosing the path of maximized casualties and delayed defeat if he keeps troop levels near today's current numbers.
Afghanistan has a good chance of becoming America's second Vietnam. The sad analogy includes the fact that presidential micromanagement of the war contributed to the mission's failure.
Henry Kissinger has some important insights into the Afghan riddle. Instead of the current strategy analogous to holding 100 percent of Afghanistan for 75% of the time, he suggests that holding 75% of the territory for 100% of the time is the better choice. It appears that General McChrystal was of the same mindset, choosing to abandon remote outposts (like the one ambushed last weekend, where eight Americans gave their lives in its defense) in favor of keeping the cities safe from the Taliban. The question is how much of Afghanistan we can hold if the president is going to short-change his commanders of the resources he's requested to accomplish the mission.
When it comes to Afghanistan, you have to go big or go home. The current troop levels coupled with the current tactics have resulted in losing ground to the Taliban. It's not even clear that a change in tactics will help the situation as long as troop levels remain unchanged. The troops are getting demoralized as the Taliban regains its influence. They see their comrades dying with nothing to show for their sacrifice. If the president isn't serious about giving this mission the resources it requires, he should pull the troops out now and hand a major propaganda victory to Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. President Obama seems to be choosing the path of maximized casualties and delayed defeat if he keeps troop levels near today's current numbers.
Afghanistan has a good chance of becoming America's second Vietnam. The sad analogy includes the fact that presidential micromanagement of the war contributed to the mission's failure.
Friday, October 02, 2009
Obama's Crucible in Afghanistan
Whether he knows it or not, the legacy of the Obama presidency hangs on the decisions he makes during the next few months in regards to Afghanistan. Forget healthcare, cap & trade, card-check, or stimulus spending. If President Obama doesn't take decisive action soon, he'll be the man who lost Afghanistan and handed Osama bin Laden a major victory. If he endorses General McChrystal's strategy for stabilizing Afghanistan, there's at least a fair shot Afghanistan will resemble something other than a failed state, and give the Muslims of Southwest Asia an alternative to the Taliban's hardline rule.
On one side of the debate are General Stanley McChrystal, commander of US forces in Afghanistan, and CENTCOM commander David Petraeus. The military commanders see the need for a great number of reinforcements to Afghanistan to secure their tenuous grip over the country. The US is currently playing whack-a-mole with the Taliban. The Islamist militia pops up in areas where there is no US presence, the US and allies send in the cavalry, and the Taliban melts away to fight another day. More troops are needed to protect the Afghan populace and prevent the Taliban from regrouping.
On the other end of the debate are politicians like Joe Biden, Carl levin, Dianne Feinstein, and even pubdits like George Will. They would rather save US offensive efforts for wiping out al Qaeda fighters in Pakistan, turning the Afghan mission into one of training an Afghan army.
The last time anybody asked for Joe Biden's opinion on foreign policy, he proposed splitting Iraq into three states, which would only have exacerbated the tensions during that country's period of sectarian violence. Like that proposal, his Afghan ideas might sound good at first glance, but they're entirely impractical. As the generals have pointed out, Afghanistan may be just a year away from slipping into irreversible Taliban control. The politicians have a good point that more foreign troops may alienate the Afghan people, but increased Taliban violence and control over their lives is guarnateed to alienate them even more. Training an army is a very difficult task; the Iraqi Army training began in earnest in 2004; it wasn't until 2008 that it was capable of independent counterinsurgency operations. The task is even more difficult in Afghanistan, where the lack of a uniformed military tradition is a serious impediment to creating a professional army. A professional army also needs a somewhat-stable government to issue marching orders, dictating massive nation-building effort in Afghanistan. Clearly, more time is needed to stand up an Afghan Army, and foreign troops may be the only way to block the Taliban's return to power.
One assumption of the Biden argument is that the Taliban's return to power will not mean the return of al Qaeda to Afghanistan. At this juncture, al Qaeda would rather hide out in the lawless Pakistani frontier than take their chances with the Americans in Afghanistan. But if America were to leave, would the equation change? Odds are good that it will. Bear in mind that al Qaeda's ultimate goal is establishing fundamentalist Islamic governments in all Muslim nations. There's no doubt that Osama bin Laden would view American abandonment of Afghanistan as a major victory, and Jihadis around the world would be emboldened to carry out new offensives against all vestiges of secularism within the Muslim world, and possibly outside the Muslim world.
Back in late 2001 or 2002, the "Out of Afghanistan" debate would have been unthinkable in a country that was still engulfed by the righteous anger stemming from the 9/11 attacks. That things have gotten so bad reflects poorly on President Bush and his cabinet. In reading the book Cobra II, I was struck by Donald Rumsfeld's premature declarations of victory in Afghanistan, to the point where his staffers used the token US force in Afghanistan during that time frame as part of its calculus for the size of force that was needed to stabilize Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld disdained nation-building, even though nation-building was exactly what Afghanistan needed. If the Bush Administration was ever serious about nation-building in Afghanistan, the necessary troops for doing so were tied up in Iraq. Barack Obama was right to say that Iraq was a distraction from Afghanistan, but now he faces a greater challenge. Criticism from the sidelines is easy, but making the decisions as an untested commander-in-chief is hard.
In some ways, the internal White House debate on Afghanistan is confusing. Didn't the president say back in the early spring that there would be a military and civilian surge to accomplish the goals of nation-building in both Pakistan and Afghanistan? A pair of Newsweek articles (here and here) give some great insight into the current debate. So what changed since early spring? There are many factors, including Hamid Karzai's dirty re-election in Afghanistan and rising US and allied casualties. But I think the biggest factor is sticker-shock. President Obama's early rhetoric on Afghanistan came before General McChrystal's assessment that possibly 40,000 more troops are needed, bringing the total NATO forces in Afghanistan to 110,000. It's a military force rivaling the one that had occupied Iraq, and it couldn't be deployed to theater overnight. It also means this war is going to get very costly in terms of casualties and budget. The Biden approach is advertised as "Faster, Cheaper, Better." Unfortunately, it's a faster way for the Taliban to wrest control of Afghanistan away from its admittedly-crooked government and nascent army.
President Obama has some tough decisions to make, and I hope for our country's sake he succeeds. In fact, if he succeeds in Afghanistan, it will outweigh all the damage he's done to our country with his reckless spending. He talked tough on Afghanistan as a presidential candidate; as a president, he still needs to prove that he wasn't just joking when he promised to refocus America's attention on "the real war on terror" in Afghanistan.
On one side of the debate are General Stanley McChrystal, commander of US forces in Afghanistan, and CENTCOM commander David Petraeus. The military commanders see the need for a great number of reinforcements to Afghanistan to secure their tenuous grip over the country. The US is currently playing whack-a-mole with the Taliban. The Islamist militia pops up in areas where there is no US presence, the US and allies send in the cavalry, and the Taliban melts away to fight another day. More troops are needed to protect the Afghan populace and prevent the Taliban from regrouping.
On the other end of the debate are politicians like Joe Biden, Carl levin, Dianne Feinstein, and even pubdits like George Will. They would rather save US offensive efforts for wiping out al Qaeda fighters in Pakistan, turning the Afghan mission into one of training an Afghan army.
The last time anybody asked for Joe Biden's opinion on foreign policy, he proposed splitting Iraq into three states, which would only have exacerbated the tensions during that country's period of sectarian violence. Like that proposal, his Afghan ideas might sound good at first glance, but they're entirely impractical. As the generals have pointed out, Afghanistan may be just a year away from slipping into irreversible Taliban control. The politicians have a good point that more foreign troops may alienate the Afghan people, but increased Taliban violence and control over their lives is guarnateed to alienate them even more. Training an army is a very difficult task; the Iraqi Army training began in earnest in 2004; it wasn't until 2008 that it was capable of independent counterinsurgency operations. The task is even more difficult in Afghanistan, where the lack of a uniformed military tradition is a serious impediment to creating a professional army. A professional army also needs a somewhat-stable government to issue marching orders, dictating massive nation-building effort in Afghanistan. Clearly, more time is needed to stand up an Afghan Army, and foreign troops may be the only way to block the Taliban's return to power.
One assumption of the Biden argument is that the Taliban's return to power will not mean the return of al Qaeda to Afghanistan. At this juncture, al Qaeda would rather hide out in the lawless Pakistani frontier than take their chances with the Americans in Afghanistan. But if America were to leave, would the equation change? Odds are good that it will. Bear in mind that al Qaeda's ultimate goal is establishing fundamentalist Islamic governments in all Muslim nations. There's no doubt that Osama bin Laden would view American abandonment of Afghanistan as a major victory, and Jihadis around the world would be emboldened to carry out new offensives against all vestiges of secularism within the Muslim world, and possibly outside the Muslim world.
Back in late 2001 or 2002, the "Out of Afghanistan" debate would have been unthinkable in a country that was still engulfed by the righteous anger stemming from the 9/11 attacks. That things have gotten so bad reflects poorly on President Bush and his cabinet. In reading the book Cobra II, I was struck by Donald Rumsfeld's premature declarations of victory in Afghanistan, to the point where his staffers used the token US force in Afghanistan during that time frame as part of its calculus for the size of force that was needed to stabilize Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld disdained nation-building, even though nation-building was exactly what Afghanistan needed. If the Bush Administration was ever serious about nation-building in Afghanistan, the necessary troops for doing so were tied up in Iraq. Barack Obama was right to say that Iraq was a distraction from Afghanistan, but now he faces a greater challenge. Criticism from the sidelines is easy, but making the decisions as an untested commander-in-chief is hard.
In some ways, the internal White House debate on Afghanistan is confusing. Didn't the president say back in the early spring that there would be a military and civilian surge to accomplish the goals of nation-building in both Pakistan and Afghanistan? A pair of Newsweek articles (here and here) give some great insight into the current debate. So what changed since early spring? There are many factors, including Hamid Karzai's dirty re-election in Afghanistan and rising US and allied casualties. But I think the biggest factor is sticker-shock. President Obama's early rhetoric on Afghanistan came before General McChrystal's assessment that possibly 40,000 more troops are needed, bringing the total NATO forces in Afghanistan to 110,000. It's a military force rivaling the one that had occupied Iraq, and it couldn't be deployed to theater overnight. It also means this war is going to get very costly in terms of casualties and budget. The Biden approach is advertised as "Faster, Cheaper, Better." Unfortunately, it's a faster way for the Taliban to wrest control of Afghanistan away from its admittedly-crooked government and nascent army.
President Obama has some tough decisions to make, and I hope for our country's sake he succeeds. In fact, if he succeeds in Afghanistan, it will outweigh all the damage he's done to our country with his reckless spending. He talked tough on Afghanistan as a presidential candidate; as a president, he still needs to prove that he wasn't just joking when he promised to refocus America's attention on "the real war on terror" in Afghanistan.
