Afghanistan and Resolve from the Commander in Chief

The President's speech at West Point this week seemed to solve a tricky political problem for him. It didn't alienate his base too much, and it didn't give Republicans cause to call him out as a limp-wristed liberal breaking his only national security campaign promise. Polling indicates that slight majorities of Dems, Repubs, and Indies all sort of approve of the new strategy, so clearly this was political brilliance. Democrats are glad there is a timetable for withdrawal, Republicans that there is most of a surge.

I heed Dean's call for support for the President's policy; but I must object to particulars nonetheless. Obama's safe speech reminds me of the football coach with a slim lead who punts late in the game and goes into the prevent defense against Peyton Manning. Few will fault him for the safe play calling, but his team loses anyway. In the same way, Obama is signaling his preparation for failure. His lack of enthusiasm and his very quick pronouncement that the surge will only last 18 months are not signs of a man committed to victory, a word that did not enter his speech. McChrystal asked for 40,000 troops for a reason; maybe that reason is that he needed 30,000 and figured he'd never get all he asked for so better to aim high. But by fudging the number to appease his base, Obama looks like a man not fully committed to the strategy he himself laid out last March. Further, the Taliban believe that they are in it for the long haul; by setting a timetable, he has given them cause for greater resolve; they just need to wait this guy out. As George Washington proved over 200 years ago, the key element to winning an insurgency against a remote power, is to keep you army in the field. The insurgent can suffer loss after loss, but as long as his forces continue to demonstrate the capacity to strike back, the war is not over.

Promising to withdraw when you know that the real outcome in Afghanistan depends on how shifting alliances with local warlords work out, only gives incentives to the locals to not cooperate. This single failing of his speech could be his undoing, even if he later changes his mind and argues that "conditions on the ground" dictate a longer engagement, he will have needlessly prolonged the war by giving hope to the enemy and planting doubt in our allies.

Our battle tested armed forces have learned a great deal about conducting counter-insurgency operations in the Middle East, so there is a good likelihood they will succeed. But they could sure use a little more boldness and inspiration from their leader.

The Commander in Chief and Afghanistan

I will be the first to admit to some prejudices about the political nature of war and the need for both a thoughtful strategy and civilian control of the military. I often quote Clausewitz' rhetorical remark about war being politics carried out by other means. However, the President, as Commander in Chief, is playing a dangerous game in Afghanistan. To set the stage let me quote what the President said in March (only six months ago):

So let me be clear: al Qaeda and its allies – the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks – are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the U.S. homeland from its safe-haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged – that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.

The President was correct. Meanwhile, the situation on the ground has worsened, but not yet deteriorated, contrary to what the NYT is reporting. General McChrystal is asking for more troops to prevent Afghanistan reaching a tipping point, where the war can not be won without huge expenditure of blood and treasure. Sound familiar? Indeed, it was allowing the situation in Iraq get to a dangerous tipping point, starting with a failure to control the looting after the initial defeat of the Hussein regime that caused that effort to drag on and cost

But the President and his defenders are now whining that he needs time to re-think the strategy. But I ask, what has changed strategically since March, for crying out loud? The only difference is that we underestimated the troop level needed to carry the fight to the enemy. How in the world does that change the geopolitical nature of the threat that Obama so clearly spelled out in March? The fact that the elections appear tainted changes nothing in the assessment. (I mention this because it is the only semi-plausible argument in an entire NY Times article on the President's decision making process. Note the prominence given to Joe Biden's strategic thinking as well.)

The President is supposed to LEAD! By dithering and hand wringing, poll watching and whining that he needs more time, he demoralizes the troops in the field and strengthens the position of the Taliban. Our Islamofascist enemies read the news just as much as we do. They are probably using Obama's lack of decision to rally their troops, telling them that an extra push now could achieve victory. That might be correct.

History is full of examples where insurgencies won by outlasting a larger more well equipped forces, starting with our own American Revolution. In some cases, perhaps, it is not in the long term best interests of the more powerful nation to stay in the fight. Some argue that Vietnam is one such example. I do not necessarily agree, but if Democrats and Republicans alike take the President at his word about the consequences of failure in Afghanistan, then he should have sent more troops yesterday.

Did you guys hear the one about Obama concentrating on al Qaeda instead of the Taliban?

Real Loss of Liberty

Dean, more so than I, has framed the health care debate as a loss of liberty issue. Unfortunately, while we were debating, women in a far off land without much health care are in danger losing that and all the people losing what freedom they do have all at once. I am speaking of course, of Afghanistan. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, ADM Mike Mullen had this to say:

Speaking on CNN's "State of the Union," Adm. Mullen said the situation in the country has been getting worse as the Taliban gains strength. "I've said that over the last couple of years, that the Taliban insurgency has gotten better, more sophisticated," he said. "Their tactics just in my recent visits out there and talking with our troops certainly indicate that."

Meanwhile on Iraq:

Adm. Mullen said he also was "extremely concerned" about rising violence in Iraq, which left hundreds dead or wounded last week. "I think everybody was, and the key is whether this is an indicator of future sectarian violence," he said. "Certainly, many of us believe that one way that this can come unwound is through sectarian violence."

So what's the administration's response? As reported on BwD:

This is especially curious in light of the fact that Attorney General Eric Holder has just hired a special prosecutor to examine nearly a dozen cases in which CIA interrogators, Panetta’s own men, may have violated anti-torture laws.

Let's really crush morale at the CIA when we need them the most.

Meanwhile in the Senate, the Democrats are being predictable:

Senator Russ Feingold, a Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, criticized President Barack Obama’s strategy of sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan and called today for a timetable to bring forces home.

A word of warning to the President. These are your wars now, sir. This isn't baseball where the relief pitcher isn't responsible for the runs that are already on the basepaths. Americans, right and left and center, expect you to defend our interests, that includes not letting Iraq and Afghanistan become havens for terrorists.