While running for President and hoping to avoid the perception that as a Democrat, he was naturally soft on national security issues, Barack Obama joined the chorus of Democrats trying similarly to burnish their defense bona fides by criticizing the Bush administration for the war in Iraq--and its concomitant distraction from what they saw as "the good war" in Afghanistan, being waged against people who actually attacked us.
Most of us realized what that was then--a campaign gimmick, easy to pull given that a Republican was in the White House.
But now that the Dems are in the White House and control the Congress....the "good war" belongs to them. And it is getting ugly. Our Viceroy in Afghanistan, General (Afghani)Stanley McCrystal, recently produced a 66 page report for the President that basically says, "if we don't pour a bunch of troops in, we'll lose within a year". So that's what he gave the President--two options. Do what I want, or lose the war. Apparently the President didn't like those options--so he began some independent thinking with his national security staff. Someone--I don't know who but I have my suspicions--leaked the McCrystal report to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post--who published it yesterday. Now the cat's out of the bag and the President's got a real turd on his hands.
A couple of things:
1. This does not appear to be good staff work. Giving the President two options--this or lose--is not the way we're taught to do things. Make your staff stretch--even if it results in a low probability of success course of action--and send that COA up with a statement of low confidence.
2. This leak is dirty pool, even in Washington DC. This was designed specifically to embarrass the President and to tie his hands.
3. The President should absolutely now seek another opinion, some other options. Even if he eventually does what McCrystal asks, he is obligated to listen to other opinions. Do I have one? No. I am so out of my depth when it comes to Afghanistan it isn't even funny. But there are good, smart people out there who can help.
Wow, lots of good stuff today CW. Who do you think is the leaker?
ReplyDeleteGen Jones, if I was a betting man.
ReplyDeleteLeak or no leak a president should ALWAYS seek other opinions.
ReplyDeleteTo not seek other opinions increases the chance of failure.
Last week, we thought we knew what Barack Obama's Afghanistan strategy was; today, we do not have much of a clue. His out-of-the-blue musings in his Sunday morning TV interviews that "until I'm satisfied we've got the right strategy, I'm not going to be sending some young man or woman over there", indicated an alarming funk at the White House. That it coincided with the leak of his Afghan commander General Stanley McChrystal's assessment, that without significant reinforcements the campaign "will likely result in failure", only adds to the sense of disarray. On the US's most pressing foreign-policy issue, there appears to be a divergence between the political and military leaderships.
ReplyDeleteJust a few months ago, President Obama was fruitlessly beseeching his Nato allies to show greater commitment to the Afghan mission. Now, it seems, his own commitment is wavering. It is easy to see why. The fraudulent re-election campaign of President Hamid Karzai has helped accentuate public and political resistance to the war in the US. But the President's wobble will lead many in the alliance to conclude that they are right not to pull their weight. It will also embolden the Taliban and its al-Qaeda allies, for the President's words will be taken across the region – rightly or wrongly – as a precursor to the scaling-back of America's commitment to the war. This is a potentially disastrous turn of events. Following on from last week's decision to scrap the missile defence shield in eastern Europe, it adds to the impression that Mr Obama is struggling to cope with the complexities of foreign affairs. This week he will address the UN General Assembly and chair a meeting of the Security Council. He must take the opportunity to clarify his war aims in Afghanistan – and dispel the dangerous confusion he has so carelessly created.
Sally--no comment; I've got enough enemies as it is....
ReplyDelete