Obama rejects Afghan war options

[XBoxWarrior]

Seems like he wants a 'way out'.
President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.
~snip~
Military officials said Obama has asked for a rewrite before and resisted what one official called a one-way highway toward war commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal's recommendations for more troops. The sense that he was being rushed and railroaded has stiffened Obama's resolve to seek information and options beyond military planning, officials said, though a substantial troop increase is still likely.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_afghanistan

He may send more young lives, but he is definitely weighing his options.

Good on him for being able to think...Cheney will be on Sunday shows screaming "ditherer"!

[Sporanox]

Actually, he's just waffling while our undermanned force sits there, still fighting.

McChrystal gave him an accurate synopsis of the situation on the ground and a summary of what exactly it would take to correct it. Obama's response? "Uh..."

Nobody can accuse McChrystal of being afraid to speak his mind, a criticism that was leveled at much of the brass during the heights of Iraq. He's saying what he really believes. So what's the holdup?

[quadraginta]

Actually, he's just waffling while our undermanned force sits there, still fighting.

McChrystal gave him an accurate synopsis of the situation on the ground and a summary of what exactly it would take to correct it. Obama's response? "Uh..."

Nobody can accuse McChrystal of being afraid to speak his mind, a criticism that was leveled at much of the brass during the heights of Iraq. He's saying what he really believes. So what's the holdup?


As heretical as it might seem to suggest, but maybe what he believes could be wrong.

His opinion isn't the only one. From the same article cited above ...

Eikenberry, the top U.S. envoy to Kabul, is a prominent voice among those advising Obama, and his sharp dissent is sure to affect the equation. He retired from the Army this year to become one of the few generals in American history to switch directly from soldier to diplomat, and he himself is a recent, former commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.The unbroken two century long track record of everyone failing to win in Afghanistan by sending in more troops, in spite of fervent support of the idea by some of the military minds involved at those times, could also present something of a precedent.

[Sporanox]

The unbroken two century long track record of everyone failing to win in Afghanistan by sending in more troops, in spite of fervent support of the idea by some of the military minds involved at those times, could also present something of a precedent.

You know, Eikenberry isn't the only one in opposition. (He also isn't the one specifically appointed to make this sort of recommendation; that would be McChrystal; but let's leave that aside for a moment.) A lot of people seem to take a similar stance. Afghanistan will not be won by military means, they say.

THEN WHAT ARE WE STILL DOING THERE?

Let me tell you. Obama is caught in a Johnson moment. He's a Democratic president who, in his case, tried to earn some tough cred by trumpeting Afghanistan as "the good war." He can't pull out now, or else he'll be exposed as the craven opportunist he very well may be. So, like Johnson, he's continuing a conflict against OpFor. Unfortunately, due to his aforementioned insincere beliefs, he doesn't have a real commitment to the mission and so will leave the current force there to fight a mission he believes they can't win.

Not. Leadership. Obama '12!

[Unabogie]

You know, Eikenberry isn't the only one in opposition. (He also isn't the one specifically appointed to make this sort of recommendation; that would be McChrystal; but let's leave that aside for a moment.) A lot of people seem to take a similar stance. Afghanistan will not be won by military means, they say.

THEN WHAT ARE WE STILL DOING THERE?

Let me tell you. Obama is caught in a Johnson moment. He's a Democratic president who, in his case, tried to earn some tough cred by trumpeting Afghanistan as "the good war." He can't pull out now, or else he'll be exposed as the craven opportunist he very well may be. So, like Johnson, he's continuing a conflict against OpFor. Unfortunately, due to his aforementioned insincere beliefs, he doesn't have a real commitment to the mission and so will leave the current force there to fight a mission he believes they can't win.

Not. Leadership. Obama '12!

What kind of leader fails to take into account new information? What kind of leader appoints someone to write a recommendation and then follows the recommendation whether or not it makes sense? What kind of leader refuses to demand a timeline for ending hostilities?

Not this leader.

So what kind of country would criticize its leader for reacting to new information, rejecting piss poor advice, and demanding a way out as part of his plan for a war that he didn't start?

I suspect the right wing will howl over this but the majority of the people will support it.

[Praktik]

Actually, he's just waffling while our undermanned force sits there, still fighting.

McChrystal gave him an accurate synopsis of the situation on the ground and a summary of what exactly it would take to correct it. Obama's response? "Uh..."

Nobody can accuse McChrystal of being afraid to speak his mind, a criticism that was leveled at much of the brass during the heights of Iraq. He's saying what he really believes. So what's the holdup?

Why rush?

Winter is setting in and fighting season wont start again til the spring - seems to me this is a natural moment that allows for some serious consideration.

[XBoxWarrior]

THEN WHAT ARE WE STILL DOING THERE?

And that is, the 64,000 dollar question...the one that was NEVER asked in the last >7 years. I find it refreshing that he is able to think for himself, ask questions, and make informed decisions. He could have just agreed with the warmonger McChrystal, sent another 40,000, and gave a presser sayin', "I'm the decider".

Personally I hope he chooses to cut bait, put a fork in it, and call it done.

The "War on Terror" can be won with the same efficiency as the "War on Drugs", both brought to you by self-righteous Xtians...;)

[Darth Rotor]

He could have just agreed with the warmonger McChrystal, sent another 40,000, and gave a presser sayin', "I'm the decider".
Fail right out of the (X)box here, since he just apparently pointed out, by responding with "your staff estimate isn't good enough, give me better options." That is what the Deciders do. It is what Presidents do to generals with some frequency.

Your "McChrystal warmonger" is a pathetic jab at a better man than you. XBoxWarrior needs to learn what irony is.

Personally I hope he chooses to cut bait, put a fork in it, and call it done.
Plenty of people share your sentiments. The "War on Terror" can be won with the same efficiency as the "War on Drugs", both brought to you by self-righteous Xtians...;)
Another cup of fail. I guess you are going to reload your save point now ...

[Praktik]

Well I think that last point is probably more valid than his other ones Darth... after all if we take the language of the "war on terror" seriously, then how could you ever defeat a tactic?

Is there really a point where America will no longer be threatened by enemies who lack a state with which to mobilize an army and thus turn to asymmetrical means?

The only thing that will bring that day to fruition is when America, after a long and serious decline, is no longer involved in other countries.

There's a reason the terrorists haven't targeted Luxembourg. When America is like Luxembourg, there will be no need for a war on terror.

[leftysergeant]

Nobody can accuse McChrystal of being afraid to speak his mind, a criticism that was leveled at much of the brass during the heights of Iraq. He's saying what he really believes. So what's the holdup?

Obama is waiting for someone to come up with some other idea than to throw more troops into the meat grinder.

[Darth Rotor]

Well I think that last point is probably more valid than his other ones Darth... [/I]?
Given that it isn't a point ...

The only thing that will bring that day to fruition is when America, after a long and serious decline, is no longer involved in other countries.
There was a small neoisolationist movement in the early 1990's when the Cold War had ended. Libertarians and others seemed to jump on that rhetorical band wagon, which was part of why Bush 41 didn't go into Bosnia. Also why it was so hard for Clinton to go there, and Rwanda.

While its aim wasn't complete withdrawal, the sentiment you can count on resurfacing is "we are not the world's policemen." The two wars President Bush undertook has relit that sentiment in some sectors. You can expect to see a further "we are not the world's policemen" sentiment grow as Obama's administration continues.
There's a reason the terrorists haven't targeted Luxembourg.
Their money is in banks there, as is the money of many a drug lord.


DR

[Darth Rotor]

Obama is waiting for someone to come up with some other idea than to throw more troops into the meat grinder.

Here's one:

The Pentagon announced TODAY the formation of a new 500-man elite fighting unit called the United States Redneck Special Forces
(USRSF)

These gents will be dropped off in Afghanistan and will be given only the following facts about the Taliban and terrorists:

1. The season opened today.
2. There is no limit.
3. They taste just like chicken.
4. They don't like beer, pickups, country music, or Jesus.
5. They are directly responsible for the death of Dale Earnhardt.

The Pentagon expects the problem in Afghanistan to be over by Friday.

Applications are available at your local Wal-Mart sporting goods counter.

Yes, it is an old joke, but I like to recycle, to save the planet. ;)

DR

[Praktik]

There was a small neoisolationist movement in the early 1990's when the Cold War had ended. Libertarians and others seemed to jump on that rhetorical band wagon, which was part of why Bush 41 didn't go into Bosnia. Also why it was so hard for Clinton to go there, and Rwanda.

While its aim wasn't complete withdrawal, the sentiment you can count on resurfacing is "we are not the world's policemen." The two wars President Bush undertook has relit that sentiment in some sectors. You can expect to see a further "we are not the world's policemen" sentiment grow as Obama's administration continues.

No - I'm just taking a long-long-long view of things. When America's power is superceded and it no longer has the capacity to influence things, or has "vital interests" that span the globe, terrorism will not be as much of an issue...

I dont think the isolationist view of things will ever have a chance of dominating in America as long as it retains the material capacity and wealth necessary to influence global affairs.

But like all empires, its clock will run out one day...

[Unabogie]

Your "McChrystal warmonger" is a pathetic jab at a better man than you.

That's a very bold statement. On what do you base this on? Do you know XBox personally?

I will say that what we do know about Stanley is not so great.

He participated in the cover-up of Pat Tillman's death. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-05-13-tillman-mcchrystal-parents_N.htm)

The parents of slain Army Ranger and NFL star Pat Tillman voiced concerns Tuesday that the general who played a role in mischaracterizing his death could be put in charge of military operations in Afghanistan. In a brief interview with The Associated Press, Pat Tillman Sr. accused Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal of covering up the circumstances of the 2004 slaying.
"I do believe that guy participated in a falsified homicide investigation," Pat Tillman Sr. said.


As far as I know, the poster you insulted did not participate in a falsified homicide investigation.

Next, Stanley oversaw torture (http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/who-is-stanley-mcchrystal-051909-2).

In 2006, Human Rights Watch released a major report (http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2006/07/22/no-blood-no-foul) based on dozens of interviews with soldiers who had witnessed the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq. "No Blood, No Foul" revealed that the elite forces conducting the interrogations at Camp Nama and two other locations, known (among other names) as Task Force 121, committed systematic abuse of prisoners at other facilities across Iraq, leading to at least three deaths. Whether or not he was present during the actual abuse — and it seems unlikely that he would need or want to put himself in that exposed position — as commander of JSOC, Stanley McChrystal oversaw them.

Perhaps you and I have differing opinions about what makes a person "better" than another, but on planet Unabogie, torturers and fraudsters don't earn the accolades.

[drkitten]

Perhaps you and I have differing opinions about what makes a person "better" than another, but on planet Unabogie, torturers and fraudsters don't earn the accolades.

Evidently on planet Unabogie, people don't understand the idea of comparatives like "better," if you've got a blanket rule that no torturer is "better" than anyone else, at all.

[Sporanox]

Great scott...did you just use the term "planet Unabogie?"

As for the rest of the responses in this thread, here's the only explanation I've seen. Obama's sent his favored man down there, his man brought back a recommendation based on those inconvenient facts on the ground, and finally Obama says "I don't like the sound of that" (commitment) "so I'm going to wait until somebody comes up with a different idea"

Obviously, Obama doesn't have much experience in this regard. That's kind of why he asked for an evidence-based recommendation. Now he's trying to adjust the facts to fit the picture. Wonderful.

[Sporanox]

Why rush?

Winter is setting in and fighting season wont start again til the spring - seems to me this is a natural moment that allows for some serious consideration.

Wars still march on in winter. That's a fact. Besides, he had this information months before, and guess how many times he's met with McChrystal? Around twice so far.

[Praktik]

Wars still march on in winter. That's a fact. Besides, he had this information months before, and guess how many times he's met with McChrystal? Around twice so far.

Yes wars go on in the winter, but my point, which is well understood by experts on Afghanistan and the military and the Taliban, is that the lion's share of fighting occurs in the warmer months when transportation is easier.

Hence every year we've heard about a "Spring Taliban Offensive".

It should be clear that with an approaching winter, the dire necessity of sending more troops is well, not so dire.

Clearly, he should have his decision made and implemented by the spring.

[Praktik]

Great scott...did you just use the term "planet Unabogie?"

As for the rest of the responses in this thread, here's the only explanation I've seen. Obama's sent his favored man down there, his man brought back a recommendation based on those inconvenient facts on the ground, and finally Obama says "I don't like the sound of that" (commitment) "so I'm going to wait until somebody comes up with a different idea"

Obviously, Obama doesn't have much experience in this regard. That's kind of why he asked for an evidence-based recommendation. Now he's trying to adjust the facts to fit the picture. Wonderful.


Where's the evidence that he's trying something so crass as "adjusting the facts to fit the picture?" Sounds to me like you pulled that one out of your _____

You do understand that the general was tasked to give advice on the theater in Afghanistan, but that a President has the whole globe to worry about, right?

Obama has to compare the situation in Afghanistan with all of America's interests and find the right solution that balances it all out...

The advice of the general is coming from a rather narrow perspective when you look at it like that.

[XBoxWarrior]

Your "McChrystal warmonger" is a pathetic jab at a better man than you. XBoxWarrior needs to learn what irony is.
Perhaps you should google up the phrase "double entendre"...then rethink my handle.

I personally hope McChrystal gets handed his retirement papers for going public with his "I need 40,000 more troops, or the sky will fall" BS. Exactly what have we accomplished in Afghanistan in the last 8 years besides installing a puppet leader that leads not?

[Darth Rotor]

That's a very bold statement. On what do you base this on? On what it takes to lead SOF units, versus internet warriors.
I will say that what we do know about Stanley is not so great.
"We" is a curious royal pronoun, in this case, oh most noble "King of Planet Unabogie."
He participated in the cover-up of Pat Tillman's death. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-05-13-tillman-mcchrystal-parents_N.htm)
Really? That's an interesting take. Gen McChrystal was CJSOTF at CENTCOM when Tillman died in Afghanistan. I've followed the Tillman case, and was never happy with how the Army handled it in re the public affairs angle. I'll take another look at Mr Tillman's comments later, and Pat Tillman's chain of command.

Perhaps you and I have differing opinions about what makes a person "better" than another,
Indeed.

Obviously, President Obama, and the Congress, who had a good hard look at this man's record before they chose him to replace General McKiernan a year or more early, disagree with you, and do not find him to be a "torturer," nor much of anything else unsavory. They had plenty of people to choose from, to include leaving the commander at the time in command.

The King of Planet Unabogie isn't in that loop, nor does he have the facts on what qualities General McChrystal display that makes people respect him.

Nor are you interested, apparently.

What various SOF TF's did in Iraq I won't comment on, thence lies derail.
I personally hope McChrystal gets handed his retirement papers for going public with his "I need 40,000 more troops, or the sky will fall" BS. Exactly what have we accomplished in Afghanistan in the last 8 years besides installing a puppet leader that leads not?
Your non sequitur is noted, between sentences one and two.

As to his walking papers, this is more ignorance and hyperbole. McChrystal's comments in an approved media event were not the sort of insubordination that MacArthur laid on Truman. I have my own opinions on how PR events should and should not be run, but I am not in charge. I am also not convinced this "controversy" wasn't deliberately set up (I am looking at you, Secretary Gates ;) ) as a trial balloon to see what would float, politically, for the President's strategic choices. You may note he hasn't made them yet. (Glad he's not in a rush).

You see what you want to see.

DR

[Unabogie]

Great scott...did you just use the term "planet Unabogie?"

As for the rest of the responses in this thread, here's the only explanation I've seen. Obama's sent his favored man down there, his man brought back a recommendation based on those inconvenient facts on the ground, and finally Obama says "I don't like the sound of that" (commitment) "so I'm going to wait until somebody comes up with a different idea"

Obviously, Obama doesn't have much experience in this regard. That's kind of why he asked for an evidence-based recommendation. Now he's trying to adjust the facts to fit the picture. Wonderful.

My goodness, did you just use the term "great scott"?

So, you made up a story for which you have zero evidence, and then conclude that your story depresses you?

It seems to me from the evidence at hand that President Obama asked for an assessment from all quarters and then used that assessment as a jumping off point for further analysis, because it's his goal to not stay in Afghanistan forever. Apparently, there are those who never want to leave, otherwise, they'd never be upset about formulating goals and plans to ever leave. Apparently, some people, like Thomas Friedman, think that “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” Apparently to you, thinking things through is a sign of weakness. While jumping in without looking is strength as long as you talk tough and "show the world we mean business".

Odd.

[Darth Rotor]

Wars still march on in winter. That's a fact. Besides, he had this information months before, and guess how many times he's met with McChrystal? Around twice so far.
There are teleconference and satcom capabilities in the CENTCOM AOR. The President need not meet in person to have a face to face with his various commanders the world over.

FWIW: In 1995 I was involved with a Telecom (from the European AOR) that reached the elephants in DC. I was glad to be a horse holder, not a primary briefer. The topic was Bosnia. (The pres wasn't in that one, but Sec Def was). The year is 2009. :) Things are easier, comms wise, than way back then.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

It seems to me from the evidence at hand that President Obama asked for an assessment from all quarters and then used that assessment as a jumping off point for further analysis, because it's his goal to not stay in Afghanistan forever.
Looks that way.

Apparently, there are those who never want to leave, otherwise, they'd never be upset about formulating goals and plans to ever leave. Apparently, some people, like Thomas Friedman, think that “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” Apparently to you, thinking things through is a sign of weakness. While jumping in without looking is strength as long as you talk tough and "show the world we mean business".
Who are you talking to here, Sporanox, Thomas Friedman, or your subjects on Planet Unabogie? :confused:

Focus would be nice.

[XBoxWarrior]

As to his walking papers, this is more ignorance and hyperbole. McChrystal's comments in an approved media event were not the sort of insubordination that MacArthur laid on Truman. I have my own opinions on how PR events should and should not be run, but I am not in charge. I am also not convinced this "controversy" wasn't deliberately set up (I am looking at you, Secretary Gates ;) ) as a trial balloon to see what would float, politically, for the President's strategic choices.

Sounds all conspiracy like sir....and also, really. [/palin]

If McChrystal truly believes that adding 40,000 + troops is the one true answer, then either he gets fired, or he resigns with dignity, but he should not be the one running a show that he disagrees with.

Either way Obama is the CIC and he gets to make the call, and I'm glad we have a CIC that can actually think...and doesn't cut brush. ;)

[Unabogie]

Looks that way.


Who are you talking to here, Sporanox, Thomas Friedman, or your subjects on Planet Unabogie? :confused:

Focus would be nice.

I thought it was clear that I was talking about a mindset which certain people have. Among the group with that mindset would be the both of them, but of course it is not limited to them.

I'd answer your other post, but you really made a mess of the quote tags. (ETA: You fixed them! Nice.)

Also, I'm glad everyone got a kick out of "Planet Unabogie".

[Unabogie]

Your non sequitur is noted, between sentences one and two.

As to his walking papers, this is more ignorance and hyperbole. McChrystal's comments in an approved media event were not the sort of insubordination that MacArthur laid on Truman. I have my own opinions on how PR events should and should not be run, but I am not in charge. I am also not convinced this "controversy" wasn't deliberately set up (I am looking at you, Secretary Gates ;) ) as a trial balloon to see what would float, politically, for the President's strategic choices. You may note he hasn't made them yet. (Glad he's not in a rush).

You see what you want to see.

DR

This isn't my quote you're refuting, which would explain the non sequitur.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I heard a radio caller a week or so ago say something like Obama is like a green-horn lieutenant questioning the judgement of a career general on military matters. (The caller was, IIRC, an army sergeant or similar non-com rank.) One of the radio panelist quickly responded that of course the caller has the chain of command backwards. The POTUS is the commander-in-chief of all the armed forces, so Obama is clearly McChrystal's superior officer. The reason for placing this high rank on a person who is elected for a relatively short term (and who may or may not have military experience) is to avoid the likelihood of a military dictatorship).

Since American Government is a required course in all U.S. high schools, I wonder how the caller managed to achieve her rank without a diploma. You'd think someone in the army would at least know the command structure.

Sadly, I think McChrystal's thinking is very similar to that of the caller.

Also, I wonder how many current McChrystal fans were the same people who said things like, your president, right or wrong, deserves our full support and obedience during the Bush misadministration.

[Giz]

Yes wars go on in the winter, but my point, which is well understood by experts on Afghanistan and the military and the Taliban, is that the lion's share of fighting occurs in the warmer months when transportation is easier.

Hence every year we've heard about a "Spring Taliban Offensive".

It should be clear that with an approaching winter, the dire necessity of sending more troops is well, not so dire.

Clearly, he should have his decision made and implemented by the spring.

Hmmm, sounds like we should attack them while they have difficulty in redeploying... i.e. in the winter

[XBoxWarrior]

Also, I wonder how many current McChrystal fans were the same people who said things like, your president, right or wrong, deserves our full support and obedience during the Bush misadministration.

But wait.....Bush was, "The Decider", he made the 'decisions' that Cheney told him to, and his followers never doubted.

I find it surprisingly refreshing to have a CIC that cares about more than politics in this case. Clearly sending more fodder was a politically 'safe' move (even us anti-war peeps would have understood), yet he chose to 'think', or as some would say, "dither".

[Sporanox]

It should be clear that with an approaching winter, the dire necessity of sending more troops is well, not so dire.

It is interesting how you belittle the conditions there. Not so dire, indeed. Where are all the "Afghanistan isn't so bad now" articles?


Obama has to compare the situation in Afghanistan with all of America's interests and find the right solution that balances it all out...

What is the pressing outside factor that would merit such waffling?

I thought it was clear that I was talking about a mindset which certain people have. Among the group with that mindset would be the both of them, but of course it is not limited to them.

Problem is, those who would like to send more troops aren't jumping feet first into the unknown. We're following up on one of the most thorough assessments made since this war began some eight years ago. Your mischaracterization is noted.

Also, I wonder how many current McChrystal fans were the same people who said things like, your president, right or wrong, deserves our full support and obedience during the Bush misadministration.

Sure, we're going to obey him, and those of us that support our armed forces won't just let them dry up. Nobody said we have to be in lockstep with him.

[Thunder]

I voted for Obama...twice.

I think he is a good President. A million times better then Bush and a thousand times better then McCain would have been.

I totally support his efforts for health-care reform, reducing nuclear arms, and regulating the banking industry.

...however, I believe that General McCrystal's advice and judgemant should be respected. I do not support Obama's rejection of expert military requests.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I find it surprisingly refreshing to have a CIC that cares about more than politics in this case. Clearly sending more fodder was a politically 'safe' move (even us anti-war peeps would have understood), yet he chose to 'think', or as some would say, "dither".
I remember listening to someone criticize someone else's praise for Dubya. He pointed out that the praise was strictly for being "decisive" and not for making good decisions. He said it's like praising Bush for the fact that he didn't once blink while driving us all head-on full speed to collide with a wall.

Nobody said we have to be in lockstep with him.
I'm sorry but that's not true. I distinctly remember people (I'm thinking in particular of yahoos calling into a radio program and the counter demonstrators I met on the street) saying exactly that. I also remember being accused of committing treason and of being a terrorist for expressing criticism or disagreement with Bush's decisions.

Sorry--I think I instigated a derail here. I'm merely pointing out that people's attitude toward the authority of the president as commander in chief have sure changed since Obama was elected.

[JoeTheJuggler]

...however, I believe that General McCrystal's advice and judgemant should be respected. I do not support Obama's rejection of expert military requests.
So you think the president has to obey the wishes of the generals? Surely it is his duty to make the decisions, even if that means rejecting the "expert military requests" of some members of the military. In other words, if you think Obama always has to accept these requests, they're actually orders and not requests, and again the chain of command is upside-down. (I for one don't want a career general to become the effective commander-in-chief.)

At any rate, I think the problem Obama had with McChrystal was not so much his request or his advice, but the fact that he went public with his opinions on the matter in an attempt to force Obama's hand.

[Thunder]

So you think the president has to obey the wishes of the generals? .

nice job putting words in my mouth.

no, I do not believe that it is the President's role to kow-tow to the Generals.

but I believe that the requests of a proven, successful, and highly distinguished General should be respected.

I let the politicians deal with politics..and the Generals deal with war.

[JoeTheJuggler]

nice job putting words in my mouth.
You said:
I do not support Obama's rejection of expert military requests.

So that means you think Obama ought not reject these requests. How does that differ from saying he ought obey them?

no, I do not believe that it is the President's role to kow-tow to the Generals.
I never said anything about kowtowing. I only pointed out that the president is the commander in chief, and therefore he is McChrystal's superior. It is McChrystal who must obey Obama's orders and not the other way around.

but I believe that the requests of a proven, successful, and highly distinguished General should be respected.
OK--so does "respect" mean "obey"? If not, what does it mean?

You said above that you don't support Obama's rejection of these requests. If he ought not reject them, then doesn't it follow that he ought obey them?

I let the politicians deal with politics..and the Generals deal with war.
Surely you're not saying that there is no politics in war?

At any rate, what you're suggesting is contrary to the U.S. Constitution which clearly states in Article II Section 2:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices,

[Praktik]

It is interesting how you belittle the conditions there. Not so dire, indeed. Where are all the "Afghanistan isn't so bad now" articles?

What is the pressing outside factor that would merit such waffling?

Yet more evidence that engagement with you is probably not worth the effort.

Why would you deem my comments "belittling"?

Of course, the overall situation may be deemed dire, but you betray your ignorance of realities in Afghanistan if you are scoffing at the fact that every year since the war began fighting during the winter tapered off before resumption in the spring. Your willingness to mischaracterize my words speaks not only to a lack of understanding on how warfare in Afghanistan is conducted, but to a disengenuous and unwillingness to engage in this discussion with good faith.

I was speaking not to the overall Afghan situation as "not dire', but the immediate need to send troops right away.

As for other "outside factors"? How about everything else in the whole world!

The President of the United States has to worry about Somalia, Iraq, Pakistan, the interplay of other powers like India, China, Russia and Europe and the ways they may help or hinder American interests. There's North Korea, the need to maintain American preparedness for future action due to unknown contingencies. Budget worries, strain on the military... the list goes on and on. He has to worry more generally about what American interest is being served in Afghanistan and how best to serve it - and what other interests may be jeopardized by escalation there.

it was really a very simple point and most people with a minimal awareness would be able to grasp it: President = Big Picture, the general = narrow focus on Afghanistan.

As such the General's advice with respect to the narrow issue of Afghanistan should be counterweighted with a bird's-eye view of global issues and protecting American interests everywhere.

Sometimes these perspectives will diverge.

[Darth Rotor]

Sounds all conspiracy like sir....and also, really. [/palin]

If McChrystal truly believes that adding 40,000 + troops is the one true answer, then either he gets fired, or he resigns with dignity, but he should not be the one running a show that he disagrees with.
You presume that this interactive process is over. You presume wrongly. Play is continuous. President Obama wants this guy to run the show, but that doesn't mean President Obama has to give the general everything he asks for. The general is right to ask, and when asked his candid opinion, he is right to offer it. But he doesn't have a right to expect that all he asks for will be granted, nor do I find any evidence that he does.

Either way Obama is the CIC and he gets to make the call,
Yep, President Obama is now the Decider.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

This isn't my quote you're refuting, which would explain the non sequitur.
The non sequitur observation was a response to xboxwarrior, IIRC.

Sounds all conspiracy like sir
No, politics and strategy. Play is continuous.

DR

[XBoxWarrior]

I let the politicians deal with politics..and the Generals deal with war.
The problem in this case is, there is No War...just an idea, that called 'terror' that we are fighting. No one can surrender, no one can win/lose, only people can continue to die for naught. We have no defined objective in this mess, never have, never will...it's time to come home. The ghost of Bin Laden will forever haunt the American people, but neither McBush nor McChrystal will be serving up his head on the American platter of 24hr news.

It's over.

[richardm]

...the lion's share of fighting occurs in the warmer months when transportation is easier...It should be clear that with an approaching winter, the dire necessity of sending more troops is well, not so dire.

Clearly, he should have his decision made and implemented by the spring.

Sorry if this was sarcasm that I'm missing, but here's a serious question anyway: If the Taleban have trouble moving around in winter, is this not the perfect time to be putting the boot in? Assuming that we remember to remind the extra troops to pack their thermal underwear, I'd have thought that our ability to get out-and-about would be better than the average Toyota pickup used by the Taleban.

[Fiona]

That would be true if the Taliban were a regular army, perhaps. However that is not entirely the case. I can only go on press reports here following the shooting of 5 soldiers by an afghani they were training as a policeman: and those reports may not be reliable. But what they have said is that the Taliban have reasonably wide support in the general population and that it is possible that some (or many) of those who are in training for the afghani police or military are in fact taliban sympathisers and/or operatives.

If that is true then what you have is essentially occupation without consensus: and where that is true you have no visible or identifiable enemy on whom to "put the boot in"
Compare Ireland and Vietnam. In that type of situation, then when they are not fighting they are not actually there, in any meaningful sense: they melt into the population and you have no target

[Sporanox]

Of course, the overall situation may be deemed dire, but you betray your ignorance of realities in Afghanistan if you are scoffing at the fact that every year since the war began fighting during the winter tapered off before resumption in the spring.

This isn't my problem. There is a disconnect between acknowledging that fighting is worse after winter and making the leap to "that's an acceptable excuse for dithering."


The President of the United States has to worry about Somalia, Iraq, Pakistan, the interplay of other powers like India, China, Russia and Europe and the ways they may help or hinder American interests. There's North Korea, the need to maintain American preparedness for future action due to unknown contingencies. Budget worries, strain on the military... the list goes on and on. He has to worry more generally about what American interest is being served in Afghanistan and how best to serve it - and what other interests may be jeopardized by escalation there.

it was really a very simple point and most people with a minimal awareness would be able to grasp it: President = Big Picture, the general = narrow focus on Afghanistan.

Poor overworked President. Would that lefties cut Bush some slack for the same reason. After all, every one of these issues existed at the time that the Iraq War effort was reaching the height of incompetence. Might that have accounted for the much-maligned "staying the course" strategy he used up until the surge?

I don't know what you think of Bush's time. But I will make it clear that I disagree with the excuse you are trying to give Obama. He's had plenty of time up until now to consider the options with the enhanced strategic awareness granted to the CIC. Other Presidents had their share of crises to deal with. He is no different.

[Sporanox]

There are teleconference and satcom capabilities in the CENTCOM AOR. The President need not meet in person to have a face to face with his various commanders the world over.

FWIW: In 1995 I was involved with a Telecom (from the European AOR) that reached the elephants in DC. I was glad to be a horse holder, not a primary briefer. The topic was Bosnia. (The pres wasn't in that one, but Sec Def was). The year is 2009. :) Things are easier, comms wise, than way back then.

DR

Forgot to mention: thanks for the correction.

[Darth Rotor]

The problem in this case is, there is No War...just an idea, that called 'terror' that we are fighting. No one can surrender, no one can win/lose, only people can continue to die for naught. We have no defined objective in this mess, never have, never will...it's time to come home.
Welcome to 4th generation warfare, that isn't conducted the way your Xbox games are.

On one thing I agree with you: it seems that the political aims of this war are undefined, poorly defined, or non existent. Your "never have" is wrong, as the initial aim was to unseat the Taliban, initially accomplished. Another aim was to replace Taliban with something else, which happened. That the aim was for something else to be "good" and "acceptable" and "legitimate" and "better" ... well, has that happened? As to "never will" you are attempting to engage in fortune telling. I'd not do that on a forum peopled with skeptics, since fortune telling is mostly derided as woo and nonexistent. As to Fourth Generation Warfare, the war isn't over, since we see another political body, the Taliban, using various levels and types of force to return to political power. The war is still on. It has changed form. It is a civil war. We happen to be on the side of "the government" of Afghanistan. Are we backing a courser or a nag?

Now, if your blathering is meant as hypberbole to achieve a reaction, rather than as pure fortune telling, the core questions remain:

1. Are there political objectives that the military means (and other) are intended to achieve? There may be aims that we are unaware of. I suspect that such war aims as exist smell strongly of nation building, something which President Bush declared early on in his career as a task he was not interested in. Any objective analysis will conclude that such has been the aim for years. I'll further suggest the President Obama and his Secretary of State are keen on nation building as a virtue.

2. What are the goals that General McChrystal is attempting to achieve, goals that require another 30-40k in troops? It is unclear to me. It may be unclear to the President.

DR

[NoZed Avenger]

No, politics and strategy. Play is continuous.



And this is what I have trouble understanding (not your statement, but the seeming belief that long-standing rules of politics have suddenly ceased to exist exhibited by one or more other posters). I am just using your quote as a jumping-off point.

A politician -- any politician, not narrowing it down to one anyone likes or dislikes -- makes a public statement on something like this, and the *words* are immediately hailed as a breath of fresh air and a sign the air is just a bit fresher, the bidsong a tad sweeter, the call girls younger and more enthusiastic, etc. etc. etc.

Newsflash: A politician has *said* something. This does not always mean anything; it *certainly* does not mean he is saying: (1) what he thinks; (2) what his administration thinks; (3) that what he says he wants has any possibility of ever happening in the real world.

Sometimes politician say things to help their image or shape opinion, knowing they are putting out crap. "Politics and strategy," as the man says.

Shocking, I know.

Did that happen here? I don't know. We probably won't know (if ever) until we see when action is actually taken and what that action is.

[Policenaut]

2. What are the goals that General McChrystal is attempting to achieve, goals that require another 30-40k in troops? It is unclear to me. It may be unclear to the President.

DR

I believe I heard somewhere that he said the mission would fail without more troops. Here's a link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/6213324/Nato-mission-in-Afghanistan-risks-failure-without-more-troops-says-Stanley-McChrystal.html

[drkitten]

I believe I heard somewhere that he said the mission would fail without more troops.

Unsurprisingly, that's not an answer.

If we don't know what the goal (i.e., the mission) is the the first place, then statements that the mission would fail should be taken with a certain degree of suspicion.

From your own link:

Apart from more resources, General McChrystal says what is also needed is a new strategy that is credible and sustainable for ordinary Afghans. Instead of concentrating on "seizing terrain" and "destroying" insurgents, the objective must be gaining the support of the population.

In other words, General McChrystal doesn't yet know what he wants to accomplish or the set of steps by which he will accomplish it --- but he does know that he needs more resources to do it, or the undefined-thing-that-he-wants-to-accomplish will fail?

I think it's perfectly reasonable to figure out what the hell the troops are supposed to do and then how many troops it takes to do that (as opposed to the bass-ackwards approach of "we now have a quarter of a million troops, what can we do with them?") And I think the winter -- the off-season, if you will -- is a good time to do that figuring. And step one in doing that figuring is NOT giving General McC a blank check.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I believe I heard somewhere that he said the mission would fail without more troops.

Which mission?

To catch Bin Laden? To remove evil from the face of the Earth? To establish a stable, liberal democratic government (you know like in Egypt!) in Afghanistan? To stop opium/heroine traffic?

ETA: Winning the hearts and minds of the population? (And how do you measure that? And why is that goal worth loss of life?)

I think Darth's point is valid:

2. What are the goals that General McChrystal is attempting to achieve, goals that require another 30-40k in troops? It is unclear to me. It may be unclear to the President.

[Sporanox]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're aiming for a stable, democratic government, the constitution for which has already been created, free from a resurgent Taliban.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're aiming for a stable, democratic government, the constitution for which has already been created, free from a resurgent Taliban.

There are plenty who would disagree with that. (In fact there are many who think the U.S. should not engage in "nation building".)

If that is the goal, why is it? And should we stop at Afghanistan? Pakistan isn't exactly a "stable, democratic government", and they even support at least one flavor of Taliban . . . and Pakistan has nukes.

[Praktik]

This isn't my problem. There is a disconnect between acknowledging that fighting is worse after winter and making the leap to "that's an acceptable excuse for dithering."

Except I'm most definitely NOT making that leap, you are.

Any 5th grader could understand: since fighting is heading to the same lull it always has since the start of the conflict, the difference between getting the extra troops there in December or February is minimal.

This is not an "excuse for dithering", this is a natural window that decision making on escalation can take advantage of.

Poor overworked President. Would that lefties cut Bush some slack for the same reason. After all, every one of these issues existed at the time that the Iraq War effort was reaching the height of incompetence. Might that have accounted for the much-maligned "staying the course" strategy he used up until the surge?

I don't know what you think of Bush's time. But I will make it clear that I disagree with the excuse you are trying to give Obama. He's had plenty of time up until now to consider the options with the enhanced strategic awareness granted to the CIC. Other Presidents had their share of crises to deal with. He is no different.

This isn't an "excuse", its a stone cold fact. It may be, that in deciding amongst these competing and sometimes diverging interests, that Obama decides that other interests win out totally, and that the whole mission be redesigned and troop levels reduced drastically.

So it isn't about "multitasking", or Obama being "overworked" (a preposterous and rather silly formulation) it is about the reality that McCrystal decides on what's needed in Afghanistan, and Obama decides if the policy in Afghanistan even continues - because the push and pull of other factors may mean that pursuing the course in Afghanistan actually damages other American interests to such a degree that draw-down and mission redesign is preferable to escalation.

Again, pretty basic stuff I see you are unable to process without mischaracterization and knee jerk armchair generalship.

Way to be resolute and Churchillian there tough guy!

[Praktik]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're aiming for a stable, democratic government, the constitution for which has already been created, free from a resurgent Taliban.

The plain fact is that if America stays there another 10 years, and the best of all possible outcomes occurs, then stable democratic government in Afghanistan = Pakistan @ 30 years ago.

Thats how far behind they are in internal development.

Best outcome: Pakistan of 30 years ago.

[Praktik]

RORY STEWART: I try all the time. And I think maybe one way of looking at it is to say, "Look, maybe I can't change your mind today. But let's at least sketch out an alternative strategy." What I would say is, a strategy which is more modest, a strategy which tries to think very, very clearly about what we're going to achieve over the long term and how to resource it. Unless you understand what a frankly low base that country's starting from — a country where 60 percent of civil servants don't have a high school education, where maybe 40 percent of the population can't read and write, where maybe a quarter of teachers are illiterate. Unless you get that, you don't get why you can't build that amazing thing that you're trying to build. And people keep coming back and saying, "Oh, all you're saying is we need to be realistic in our expectations." And my response is, "Yeah, but you don't quite get how realistic I mean. I don't just mean drop it from Jeffersonian democracy to vaguely stable state. I mean, even that vaguely stable state is a pretty distant dream. That you can't--

LYNN SHERR: You're saying these people need water– they need the simplest things before they can even think about the larger issue?

RORY STEWART: Right. Absolutely. And that you can invest 20-30 years in Afghanistan. And if you were lucky, you would make it look a bit like Pakistan. I mean, unless you understand that Pakistan is 20-30 years ahead of Afghanistan, you don't understand where we're starting from. And Pakistan is still not an ideal state. But the Pakistan army, the police, the civil service, the financial administration, the education are whole decades ahead of the Afghan. So, our whole model is broken from the beginning. Because you could put all this investment in, you would make Afghanistan look a bit more like Pakistan, but that wouldn't achieve whatever your national security objectives seem to be.

link (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09252009/transcript1.html)

[JoeTheJuggler]

The plain fact is that if America stays there another 10 years, and the best of all possible outcomes occurs, then stable democratic government in Afghanistan = Pakistan @ 30 years ago.

Thats how far behind they are in internal development.

Best outcome: Pakistan of 30 years ago.

And of course by that time Pakistan could be roughly as bad as Afghanistan right now (except with unguarded nukes).

[Praktik]

Interesting article in The American Conservative last month on the Taliban's profits from extorting the supply chain: (http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/nov/01/00020/)

In late August, McClatchy News reported that the Taliban now controls districts in two key northern provinces along the new major supply route coming in from Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, running through the Hindu Kush mountains and toward the U.S. military’s massive Bagram Air Base.

Yet supplies are getting through. Reports suggest that contractors big and small are paying the price for secure delivery, then off-loading that cost to their clients—the military, USAID, or whatever Western aid organization is footing the bill.
..
“Virtually every major project includes a healthy cut for insurgents. Call it protection money, call it extortion, or, as the Taliban prefer to term it, ‘the spoils of war,’ the fact remains that international donors, primarily the United States, are to a large extent financing their own enemy,” wrote Jean MacKenzie, Kabul correspondent for the GlobalPost, in August.

MacKenzie is one of the few reporters who have tried to run the numbers: the manager of an Afghan firm with “lucrative construction contracts with the U.S government” builds in a “minimum” charge of 20 percent for Taliban payouts, she writes. He tells his friends privately that he makes upwards of $1 million per month, $200,000 of which goes to Taliban heavies.

“It adds up, of course,” says MacKenzie, estimating that the “outside limit” of the Taliban’s extortion earnings comes to roughly $1 billion a year. Add to that other sources of corruption in Afghanistan—whether it is the police, the politicians, the elections, or abusive Western contractors—and the picture of the Af-Pak effort starts to look pretty bleak.More troops means more supplies, which means more opportunity for extortion. More investment in projects means more profits for Taliban extortion.

Ironically, escalation therefore means more money for Taliban coffers.

[Sporanox]

This is not an "excuse for dithering", this is a natural window that decision making on escalation can take advantage of.

Pure semantics.

because the push and pull of other factors may mean that pursuing the course in Afghanistan actually damages other American interests to such a degree that draw-down and mission redesign is preferable to escalation.

When asked to name some of these factors, you have produced a list that you cannot in any way prove Obama is considering. Perhaps if a little more information comes out about his decision process, or if someone here can rationalize some direct consequences of a 40k troop infusion related to these factors, I will understand him a little better.

I won't cut Bush any slack for his awful performance on Iraq during Rumsfeld's tenure simply because there are a series of "outside factors." I keep the same standard for Obama.

More troops means more supplies, which means more opportunity for extortion. More investment in projects means more profits for Taliban extortion.

Ironically, escalation therefore means more money for Taliban coffers.

No, not necessarily. More troops may result in better security along supply routes.