So Gen. McChrystal is now a goner and Gen. Petraeus is back to save the day yet again. Anyway you cut it, this is a sad situation that can only make a difficult situation even worse. Gen. Petraeus is obviously a capable leader and he fits in well with the counterinsurgency strategy which we are smack in the middle of implementing, but this whole incident reaks of an overall policy in dissarray. The three month review process by the Obama administration, culminating the announcement of a troop surge with a definite time limit, created fissures that have obviously not been filled. Vice President Biden, Envoy Richard Holbrooke, and Ambassador Eikenberry, all targets of Gen. McChrystal and his aides in the Rolling Stones article, in one way or another voiced reservations about Gen. McChrystal’s plan for the Afghan war effort, with Biden and Eikenberry being outright opposition. Gen. Petraeus is adeft at Washington DC politics as he is at counterinsurgency and we can only hope that he and Obama’s civilian team can finally get on the same page. The only winners in this embarrassing incident are the Taliban.

I’ll have some more comments on the Rolling Stone article, McChrystal, Obama, Petraeus in a little bit

When President Obama announced that he was sending an additional 30,000 American troops to work under Gen. McChrystal’s leadership in Afghanistan, his very next sentence stated that US forces would be starting a withdrawal 18 months later on July 2011. I was critical of this at the time and still am. The US and the President are in a difficult position and all agree that we should not be in Afghanistan in perpetuity, but I feel that publicly announcing a withdrawal date works too much in the advantage of the Taliban-led insurgency. As George Will aptly put it, ‘The Americans are going home; the Taliban are home.’ The Taliban have been called many things, but ‘impatient’ isn’t one of them. The Obama administration is betting that this surge in troops following the guidance of Gen. McChrystal’s hybrid counterinsurgency/special forces strategy can create breathing room for the Afghan state to grow enough that it can prevent A. A Taliban takeover of the south or the country as a whole B. a safe haven for Al Qaeda and their ilk.

The Taliban are obviously aware of this goal and since their existence and future hold on power is directly threatened, one should expect them to fight on. Negotiations between President Karzai’s government and US/NATO with certain Taliban leadership and factions is a constant topic and it is to believed that a key reason for the American surge is to bring about an environment of Kabul government strength/Taliban weakness that pushes the talks in the former’s favor. Buuuuuuttttt, this is where the announced withdrawal date comes into play and it’s not in a positive way. We are already 1 year and 2 months from July 2011 and only half of Obama’s 30,000 troops have arrived. The Marja offensive in Helmand has been a short-term success, but it’s long term prospects are at best tentative and the coming surge into Kandahar will be much more difficult. We constantly here that the ‘holding’ of the territory is the crucial part of McChrystal’s counterinsurgency plan, but once again I turn to Mr. Will, ‘what can be held by a counterinsurgency force focused on an exit strategy?’ It is important to remember that the Obama administration (mainly in the voice of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates) has given much leeway in the extent of a withdrawal, specifically in terms of timing and troop numbers and no one should be surprised to hear the President announce that troops will be needed to stay and fight longer, but nevertheless a message has been sent that the US plans to get out sooner rather than later.

National Security Correspondent for the Washington Examiner Sara A. Carter recently did a report on military personnel’s views of Obama’s Afghan strategy and particularly of the set withdrawal date, and they are not pretty. The report comes with caveats as most of those military personnel quoted are either retired or anonymous and the piece only features comments critiquing the administration. Nevertheless, it is important to hear some words spoken by those in the trenches. Here are some of the them:

Retired Army Reserve Maj. Gen. Timothy Haake, who served with the Special Forces, said, “If you’re a commander of Taliban forces, you would use the withdrawal date to rally your troops, saying we may be suffering now but wait 15 months when we’ll have less enemy to fight.”

A former top-ranking Defense Department official also saw the policy as misguided.

“Setting a deadline to get out may have been politically expedient, but it is a military disaster,” he said. “It’s as bad as [former U.S. Secretary of State] Dean Acheson signaling the Communists that we wouldn’t defend South Korea before the North Korean invasion.”

Another U.S. soldier stationed in Afghanistan said that “making the announcement of a withdrawal date was a signal of defeat.”

He added, “It’s not whether we withdraw a little or a lot, but it’s the point we’re making. Once we made it public, the Taliban knew we weren’t going to stick it out, and I think that little bit of hope is all they need to keep going.”

Those in charge of the decision making for this troubled, yet critical foreign policy decision deserve our sympathies as these are life and death choices that will affect the future of the US, Afghanistan, Pakistan, NATO, etc. for years to come. As I said before, the Obama administration has given itself enough wiggle room to backtrack on this withdrawal date if they believe it is not in the best interests of the country at the time, but there will be domestic political ramifications. (I believe these will be smaller than some claim, but there is definitely a portion of Obama’s base that would be very disappointed if they saw him as leading us deeper into ‘another intractable war’.) However, what will disappoint the American public the most would be the use of our human and financial resources on a strategy that may be flawed from the very beginning.

I’m a believer in the McChrystal strategy and believe the US cannot leave Afghanistan to just drones and small special forces. President Obama made a brave decision to back Gen. McChrystal and provide the war effort with badly needed resources. But I remember flinching in my seat when in his West Point address he followed up the 30,000 troop announcement with the words of ‘withdraw’ literally seconds later. We deserve a winning strategy all the way through.

'Our health care system is broken....Oh, I mean.....Our Afghan strategy is broken'

Barack Obama made his first trip to Afghanistan as president a few days ago, and during his 6 hours in the country he met with President Karzai, Gen. McChrystal, and Ambassador Eikenberry. It has been reported that Obama pressed Karzai on clamping down on corruption and that their conversations were very much ‘down to business’.

In related news, the US president’s approval rating (WaPo poll) for his management of the Afghanistan situation, unlike other areas such as health care, jobs, and the economy, is on the rise. During the height of his ‘dithering stage’ on choosing an Afghan strategy in October, November of 2009, his ratings had turned upside down, with more disapproving (48%) than approving (45%). This was a long fall from early in 2009 when Obama held strong in the low 60’s. As I argued in late 2009, it wasn’t so much the situation on the ground that was causing Americans to become disenfranchised with our presence and ability to win in Afghanistan, though that certainly was a factor, but a lack of leadership from the nation’s leaders. The only time Obama talked about Afghanistan was about how difficult a situation it was him and the US. Don’t believe me? The American public wanted to see a leadership that had a plan that it believed in. ‘Either we are in to win or let’s get the heck out!’

Since the announced Afghan surge strategy at West Point, the Obama administration has enjoyed ever growing levels of support, November 45%, December 52%, January 50%, and the latest from a couple days ago, 53%, with an incredible only 35% disapproving. These numbers come despite the fact that American combat deaths have doubled and injuries tripled from this time last year. The uptick in the poll numbers is good for the president and should show the administration that the American public is willing to give him time to show positive results from McChrystal’s surge strategy. This latest visit by Obama, especially with images like the one below, will only help.

Garnering domestic support for a war over seas is a crucial part of any winning war strategy. President Obama must spend political capital on fostering support for the Afghan war effort by reminding the American public the stakes involved and communicate that we have a strategy in place that can bring success. Now that the health care debate is thankfully not dominating his agenda any longer, I expect more public attention to be shown by President Obama about this critical issue to US foreign policy. The poll numbers show he’ll have a somewhat friendly audience.

Decisions, decisions, decisions.

There have been growing signals, some blatant, that the Obama administration is looking for a way out of Afghanistan, even as they are still in the process of deciding on a new strategy, which is likely to involve the deployment of thousands more American and NATO troops. It of course is prudent for the US government to have long term plans for such an important foreign affairs’ issue and all Americans and Afghans look forward to the day when a US military presence in the country is not needed, but this type of planning, especially when voiced publicly, is a cause of concern for the present and future prospects for success in stabilizing Afghanistan and defeating the insurgency.

The recent words of White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on the issue speak volumes:

“An exit strategy is as important as ramping up troops.”

“It’s important to fully examine not just how we’re going to get folks in but how we’re going to get folks out.”

A story from Bloomberg.com also asserted that administration officials told them that the President was ‘seeking an approach to eventually ending U.S. involvement in Afghanistan’. The New York Times also ran an article on Sunday about how the financial cost of the war was causing members of the administration to balk at sending more troops. Obama himself has definitely backtracked on the ‘necessity war’ talk, instead voicing concerns about Karzai, corruption, cost, etc.  

Though it would be irresponsible for the Obama administration to not being working on a long-term plan featuring a US exit plan, when one combines this with the length of decision making process, the fact that it will be the administration’s second Afghan strategy in a year, the public outing of key figure opinions (Eikenberry, McChrystal, Emanuel, Axelrod, Kerry, Biden, etc.), a blurry, uninspiring picture emerges. After all, if Obama is to send thousands of more troops to attempt to bring stability and battle Al Qaeda, the US cannot at the same time appear to be always looking for a way out.  The Taliban have one thing to their advantage and that is time.  If the US sends signals, as I believe we are doing right now, that we want to get out as soon as possible, than that only strengthens the Taliban’s position as they now that with every attack, with every NATO death, they are closer to their goal. 

For me, the surge in Iraq was largely successful because it told the Iraqi population, especially the Sunnis and Al Qaeda and the Sadrists, that the Americans were not going anywhere and they better either come along or lose their ability to influence their country’s future. In other words, time was not on their side anymore. A surge is not just an increase in troops and resources, it is tangible symbol of a commitment. A commitment to keep the population safe, battle the insurgents more aggressively and in more places, to give the young government time to prove itself to its citizens, and a commitment to the US public that we are in it not only because we need to be, but also to win. No one knows that such a similar policy will work in Afghanistan, but it does offer a fighting chance. 

If the Obama administration does in fact decide an something close to McChrystal’s recommendations there will need to be a strong commitment by the administration to present a unified front and a persuasive argument to the US, NATO, and Afghan publics. This will take some work as the dissenting voices of Ambassador Eikenberry and Vice President Biden, among others, have been very public. Respected envoy and Afghan expert James Dobbins has stated that the Obama review ”has gone on long enough and it is starting to create fissures”. Convincing the American public is another matter as the war in polls has dropped consistently. Obama will definitely need to utilize political capital and use his velvet sounding pipes to effectively defend his strategy choice.

I’ll end with some curt advice offered to the President by Washington Post columnist David Broder:

If we can’t afford to lose, then play to win.

"War is Hard!"

Stanley McChrystal’s Long War – Dexter Filkins excellent profile  of America’s top commander in Afghanistan clearly showcases the challenges of going ‘all-in’ and ‘getting out’.  McChrystal comes off as vibrant, smart, and worthy General, but the task ahead of him is depicted as likely insurmountable. Here are some choice bits…

McChrystal on counterinsurgency:

“The insurgency has to have access to the people,” McChrystal told me. “So we literally want to go in there and squat among the people. We want to make the insurgents come to us. Make them be the aggressors. What I want to do is get on the inside, looking out — instead of being on the outside looking in.”

McChrystal on negotiating with parts of the Taliban:

“Pashtun culture adjudicates disagreements in a way that mitigates blood feuds. The Pashtun people go out of their way not to do things that cause permanent feuds. They have always been willing to change positions, change sides. I don’t think much of the Taliban are ideologically driven; I think they are practically driven. I’m not sure they wouldn’t flip to our side.”

Filkins felt that McChrystal had undervalued the importance of Karzai’s legitimacy:

But increasingly, McChrystal, as well as President Obama and the American people, are being forced to confront the possibility that they will be stuck fighting and dying and paying for a government that is widely viewed as illegitimate.

When I asked McChrystal about this, it was the one issue that he seemed not to have thought through. What if the Afghan people see their own government as illegitimate? How would you fight for something like that?

“Then we are going to have to avoid looking like we are part of the illegitimacy,” the general said. “That is the key thing.”

Filkins does a fair job in showing both sides of the debate facing the Obama administration right now, more troops to fight the Taliban or a more Al Qaeda-focused counterterrorism strategy, but the aspects that stayed with me the most were the words of Afghans in the Taliban controlled south who voiced their concern that the US could not be trusted because there was no telling how long they would be there.  On the other hand, the Taliban weren’t going anywhere.  This factor alone affects nearly all other strategic inputs and outputs.

Think Again: God – Vaunted religious historian Karen Armstrong tackles conventional wisdom on the role and importance of religion in today’s Western world.  Armstrong tackles such topics and ‘truths’ as ‘God is Dead’, ‘God and Politics Don’t Mix’, and ‘God Breeds Violence and Intolerance’.  Armstrong reminds us that religion continues to be a major factor in US culture and politics and international relations.

The Next 100 Years – Stratfor lead analyst George Friedman takes a stab at predicting the next century’s major geopolitical shifts and events.  Here’s his eye-grabbing introduction: “Japan and Turkey form an alliance to attack the US. Poland becomes America’s closest ally. Mexico makes a bid for global supremacy, and a third world war takes place in space….”

US Arms Sales – This is more a bit of news than an analysis, but the facts here tell an astounding story. American arms sales lead the world and its not even close.  The US sold nearly 70% of all global arms with total sales reaching nearly $38 billion.  Second place?  Italy with $3.7.  Now that’s a gap!

Assassination: A Brief History – This one’s pretty self explanatory.  Like all policies or strategies, assassination has its benefits and drawbacks.  

Iraq-Afghanistan-Pakistan Op-chart – A simple, but telling story of the progress in Iraq, and degradation of Afghanistan and Pakistan in the last few years.  Short and sweet geopolitical info!

The CIA in Double Jeopardy – Another good reason why the Obama administration should drop their prosecution of CIA agents.

That’s it.  Well, almost….

Obama To Enter Diplomatic Talks With Raging Wildfire