Clearly, it is important for decision-makers to understand fully each potential course of action.  However, you can do strategy reviews until you're blue in the face but at some point you need to make a...]]> Not only is the The White House dithering in its war-time decision-making, as former Vice President Dick Cheney noted the other evening, but it’s also being downright disingenuous about Afghanistan.  General Stanley McCrystal delivered his recommendation to the White House at the end of August.  He was frank in his assessment of the situation in Afghanistan:  Without additional troops, the U.S. will be unable to achieve its mission objectives in Afghanistan.  A satisfactory outcome in Afghanistan will be out of reach for Washington.   

Clearly, it is important for decision-makers to understand fully each potential course of action.  However, you can do strategy reviews until you’re blue in the face but at some point you need to make a real decision.  In the highly acclaimed HBO television series Band of Brothers, Sgt. Lipton, commenting on his inept commanding officer, explains, “Lt. Dike wasn’t a bad leader because he made bad decisions, he was a bad leader because he made no decisions.“  How many troops have lost their lives since McCrystal asked the White House for more troops?  I think upwards of 100.  Sure, at the end of the day history will judge Obama by the outcome of the conflict and not by his decision-making process.  At the same time, he can’t vote “present” like he did so many times in the Illinois Legislature to avoid taking a position on a contentious issue.  This is the biggest decision of Obama’s life and probably his presidency.

Here’s where the disingenuousness comes into play, during last year’s presidential campaign, Obama argued that Afghanistan was the forgotten war and that he’d remedy eight years of neglect, so it’s not like this is a new issue for Obama and his team.  The Obama team made this a core theme of their campaign and took every opportunity to slam George W. Bush and John McCain.  Obama has said that Afghanistan was in dire straights for more than one year, so to act like our current problems in Afghanistan are new just isn’t accurate.  What’s more, the Obama administration conducted a major strategy review on Afghanistan in the spring–and to what end because here we are six months down the road hemming and hawing about what exactly to do.

Obama should either fully support McCrystal’s troop request or we should pull out of Afghanistan altogether because half-measures won’t work and keeping our troops in harm’s way without fully resourcing the war effort is immoral.  Our objective in Afghanistan was to destroy al Qaeda’s ability to plan and launch attacks on the U.S. and its interests.  This campaign has morphed into an underfunded nation-building effort.  If you’re going to engage in nation-building, it must be fully resourced.  Half-measures simply will not work when it comes to nation-building.  George Will recommended adopting more limited objectives in Afghanistan and an approach requiring fewer land forces “… using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikesand small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.”  There are advocates of both the Will school and the McCrstyal school.  These seem to be the most viable courses of action. 

But the decision should rest, ultimately, on our national strategy.  How does the Afghanistan campaign fit into Washington’s overarching national strategy?  Our grand strategy?  Weren’t these questions asked during the strategy review conducted in the spring?  What exactly did the review analyze?  The domestic political implications of the Afghanistan campaign and their impact on the 2012 re-election campaign?  The White House is clearly afraid of a volatile reaction from the far left if he agrees to support McCrystal’s request.  But the far left seems to have given a pass to Obama on Iraq and Afghanistan (save for Cindy Sheehan who’s still going strong, but not getting the media coverage she once enjoyed.  I’m sure it has nothing to do with who’s currently president…)

At the end of the day, Obama cannot vote “present” on Afghanistan.  He’s going to need to make a decision sooner or later.

1. Rosy assumptions on Iraq drawdown:  The plan miscalculates by underestimating the risks associated with the drawdown of U.S. involvement in Iraq.  Should a violent faction lie in waiting for the U.S. to pullout (now they have the timetable and can do so) and the situation in Iraq deteriorates, how does this affect the planned troop increase in Afghanistan?   The probability of such a contingency is not as unlikely as some would have you believe.  
2. Inadequate troop levels given historical ratios:  If you accept the view...]]> Limiting the scope of U.S. objectives is an important step in the right direction.  Still, I see two principle shortfalls with the Obama administration’s “new” strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan:
   1. Rosy assumptions on Iraq drawdown:  The plan miscalculates by underestimating the risks associated with the drawdown of U.S. involvement in Iraq.  Should a violent faction lie in waiting for the U.S. to pullout (now they have the timetable and can do so) and the situation in Iraq deteriorates, how does this affect the planned troop increase in Afghanistan?   The probability of such a contingency is not as unlikely as some would have you believe.  
   2. Inadequate troop levels given historical ratios:  If you accept the view that 1) disrupting, dismantling and defeating al-Qaeda in the Af-Pak region is a top priority U.S. national security objective, and 2) that we have neglected Afghanistan in terms of troops and resources, then it seems to me as though a measly 4,000 trainer and 17,000 combat troop surge is hardly enough.  Some have suggested five brigades but given the difficult terrain, I think it might take even more.  See this RAND report for historical force-population ratios for counterinsurgency campaigns.
   ]]> http://www.hopeisnotaforeignpolicy.org/2009/03/28/new-af-pak-strategy/feed/ 0