Afghan Plan Faces Sharp Questioning

The Prof · Dec 2, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/world/asia/03policy.html?_r=1&hp

Defense secretary Robert M. Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and the nation’s top military officer laid out a muscular defense of President Obama’s decision to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan on Captiol Hill on Wednesday, but members of Congress of both parties objected to major parts of the new strategy.

At a crowded hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who last year ran against Mr. Obama for president, sharply questioned Mr. Obama’s plan to begin withdrawing the additional American forces by July 2011.

Senator McCain said it was “logically incoherent” to say that the withdrawal would begin that summer, “no matter what,” but also say, as the administration does, that the exit date would also depend on conditions on the ground.

The answer, after a sometimes tense back-and-forth with Mr. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was that the administration would review the situation in Afghanistan in December 2010 and then “evaluate,” as Mr. Gates put it, whether it would be possible for Mr. Obama to begin withdrawals in the summer of 2011.

“Then it makes no sense for him to announce the date,” Mr. McCain retorted. In short, he said, “that gives the wrong impression to our friends, it’s the wrong impression to give our enemies.”

Later in the session, Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, said, “It strikes me as that the Taliban has been emboldened quite aggressively the last several years without any type of deadline.”

Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the committee, questioned whether sending so many additional troops might keep the Afghans from building up their security forces on their own.

“Where I have questions is whether the rapid deployment of a large number of U.S. combat forces, without an adequate number of Afghan security forces for our troops to partner with, serves that mission,” Mr. Levin said.

In his opening statement, Mr. Gates, who pushed for the 30,000 additional troops and was singled out by the White House as influential in Mr. Obama’s decision, sharply differed with some of Mr. Obama’s advisers who have argued that the United States should focus on rooting out Al Qaeda from Pakistan, and that the Taliban in Afghanistan do not present a serious long-term threat to the national security of the United States.

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the Connecticut independent who heads the Senate’s homeland security committee, said he was convinced that “there is no substitute for victory over the Islamist extremists and terrorists in Afghanistan. A war of necessity must not just be fought; it must, of necessity, be won.”

Mr. Levin said he was troubled by the numbers being floated. In the vitally important Helmand Province, in southern Afghanistan, he said, the current ratio of American to Afghan troops is 5 to 1. “Doubling the number of U.S. troops in the south will only worsen a ratio under which our forces are already matched up with fewer Afghan troops than they can and should partner with,” he said.

When pressed by Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, why the United States had to invest so much military power and money in Afghanistan when Al Qaeda still had the ability to establish safe havens in other countries, Mr. Gates replied that Afghanistan was unique.

Not only was it the place where the 2001 attacks against the United States were launched, he said, it “is still the wellspring of inspiration for extremist jihadism everywhere.”

He said that the “guidance and strategic leadership” for Al Qaeda comes from the group’s leaders who are in the border area with Pakistan, and that there is an “unholy alliance” that has developed in the past year between Al Qaeda, the Taliban in Pakistan and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

“And these people work off of each other’s mythology, off of each other’s narrative, and the success of one contributes to the success of the other,” Mr. Gates said.

He added, “If anything, the situation, I think, is more serious today than it was a year ago because of the attacks of the Taliban in Pakistan on Pakistan, and the effort of al Qaeda in collusion with the Taliban in Pakistan to try and destabilize Pakistan itself.”

Promising that he could “bring this war to a successful conclusion,” Mr. Obama set out a strategy that would seek to reverse Taliban gains in large parts of Afghanistan, better protect the Afghan people, increase the pressure on Afghanistan to build its own military capacity and a more effective government and step up attacks on Al Qaeda in Pakistan.

Some observations:

1. He needs to convince America, our troops, our allies and our enemies he's COMMITTED to victory in Afghanistan.

2. He can't.

3. Because he's not.

4. Equal parts of ESCALATION and EXIT do not a coherent strategy make.

5. At West Point Obama did not once use the word VICTORY.

6. Naturally, he never even attempted to define what victory means (to him).

7. An exit strategy devoid of victory is like a wedding date without a fiance.

8. Most inexplicably, the president devoted 1/3 of his speech to PAKISTAN.

9. We're battling the Taliban in Afghanistan to encourage Zardari to zonk Al Qaeda in Pakistan, explained our perplexed president.

10. Afghanistan is fast becoming the WRONG WAR.

11. Osama and Al Qaeda are next door, in what Obama euphemistically calls the "border region."

12. The wholeness of his plan falls apart, he's incoherent.

13. Furthermore, with America's entire national security at stake, he's transparently impelled by cheaper domestic politics.

14. It took him 90 days and an embarrassing abundance of public hand-wringing and administrative infighting for Obama to arrive at a resolve identical to the policy he first LEAKED 3 months ago.

15. If he's that consumed by politics at this stage of the war, how's he gonna react when the price inevitably increases, when casualties mount?

The Prof

Joe1991 · Dec 2, 2009

The Prof said:
8. Most inexplicably, the president devoted 1/3 of his speech to PAKISTAN.

9. We're battling the Taliban in Afghanistan to encourage Zardari to zonk Al Qaeda in Pakistan, explained our perplexed president.

The Presidents understanding of how the two countries are intertwined was the only thing that gives me some hope in this undertaking.

The Prof · Dec 2, 2009

just some of the notables who've already spoken out against obtuse obama's west point approach, and some of their comments:

maxine waters, last nite on msnbc---i'm "saddened," our "young president" who once offered so much "promise," "it doesn't work for me," "the congressional black caucus will not support" this

dick durbin

russ feingold

lynn woolsey, leader of the house progressive caucus---"majority of dems will vote against war funding"

michael moore

moveon

david obey

chris matthews---"rue goldberg machine," chrissy's the guy who keeps harping about the incoherence of fighting talibans in afghanistan to get at al q's in pakistan

chrissy also last nite made the mad faux pas of saying obama, in visiting the military acadamy, was going into the "enemy camp"

he was referring to the cold, worried, sleepy and silent faces of the cadets

chrissy apologized profusely today at the start of hardball

jack murtha

olbermann---"get out now;" "that way lies vietnam;" "if you liked iraq you'll love afghanistan;" "exit strategy begins by entering still further;" "catch 22;" "lose to win, sink to swim, escalate to disengage;" "disconnect of fundamental logic;" "so much of the change you were elected for has so far been understandably if begrudgingly tabled, delayed, made more open ended, but patience ebbs, mr president;" "while the first 1000 key decisions of your presidency were already made by the economy, this first public, easy to discern, mouse or elephant kind of decision" comes due tomorrow at west point; we "might as well shoot the revivified auto industry or embrace the john boehner health care system;" "you called for change for a better way and we listened, now you must listen---to yourself"

bob schieffer---obama's strategy "isn't logical"

bob herbert---"incoherent"

howard fineman---it's like "hello, i must be going," a marx brothers song

me: afghanistan is killing this president, and it's gonna get a lot worse

carlkay58 · Dec 2, 2009

This just emphasizes Clauswitz's definition of war as politics by other means. The military is in charge of performing the military actions that bring the enemy to where the politicians want them. Unfortunately, our politicians are not sure where they want the enemy, what to do with the enemy when they get there, or even who the enemy is. This has been a problem with more than just the Obama or W. Bush administrations too.

Until our politicians decide what they consider victory and how to get to that point, our military is going to be swinging in the wind. Afghanistan as a nation just does not nor has ever existed. It is a coalition of tribes and must be dealt with as such. Basing all of our efforts and creating a national army there is not going to work. We should be looking at building relations with specific tribes and coalitions and supplying and training them sufficiently to allow them to hold the power in the region. Anything else is most likely doomed to failure.

scottsoperson · Dec 2, 2009

the american people have to be committed to victory. we need a tax hike on the rich to pay for it.

The Prof · Dec 3, 2009

sure, the people need to commit

even as their incoherent commander in chief is all over the place

absolutely, that's the way it's supposed to work, the amorphous mob imposing its will on single minded leadership

LOL!

meanwhile, any kind of tax to fund afghanistan is a non starter

the white house has already shot it down

you'll note at west point the prez said not a word about how his ESCALATION was to be paid for

congressional dems will never support a tax for war

republicans won't support a tax for anything

obey's call for a war tax is just like rangel's bluff about a draft

a shot across the bow of wannabe warmongers from congressional libs

hello

Joe1991 · Dec 3, 2009

The Prof said:
even as their incoherent commander in chief is all over the place.

Seems a much more definitive policy than the the previous 8 years of bumbling, but we both know no policy put forth by this President was going to garner your support. :yawn:

The Prof · Dec 3, 2009

nor chris matthews'

nor olbermann's

nor ms waters'

nor schieffers', obey's, feingold's, moveon's, the progressives', the cbc's...

American · Dec 3, 2009

Joe1991 said:
Seems a much more definitive policy than the the previous 8 years of bumbling, but we both know no policy put forth by this President was going to garner your support. :yawn:

What did you put in your koolaid, LSD? Bumbling for 8 years? You don't like Bush, that's fine...but that man was decisive unlike your current little dumbo-eared boob and Bill Clinton.

Dutch · Dec 3, 2009

I have two problems with this "surge." It's months late. We have now informed the taliban and al qaeda exactly when we will withdraw win, lose, or draw. He's bulloxed the whole thing with this one speech.

Yeager · Dec 3, 2009

scottsoperson said:
the american people have to be committed to victory. we need a tax hike on the rich to pay for it.

There is no such thing as "Vctory" for the U.S. in any situation like Iraq or Afghanistan. Keeping our troops there only makes us the enemy. We need to come home & take care of our own country.

Councilman · Dec 3, 2009

Joe1991 said:
Seems a much more definitive policy than the the previous 8 years of bumbling, but we both know no policy put forth by this President was going to garner your support. :yawn:

Yes it's a brilliant move by the Anti-American terrorist apologist Obama to tell the enemy your plans.

Any damn fool who gives the enemy an outline for the enemies victory is a major idiot in the first (expletive) degree.

Thank God the Taliban and Al Qaeda are not smart enough take full advantage of what they now know.

The other idiot who did this Bush dodged a bullet when he did almost the same thing over Iraq.

You never tell the enemy how to win. My God I can't believe people will still claim this imbecile is the smartest guy to come along,

If you were the enemy wouldn't the cheapest surest way to win with no risk of further loses or expenditures of lives or money is to do nothing. Don't attack, bomb, or even show your existence and grow your own forces until the lamebrain pulls almost all the troops out them just take over.

Obama is not only a fool but one or two words can't begin to express how I feel about this, ass, birdbrain, blockhead, bonehead, boob*, bore, buffoon, clod, clown, cretin*, dimwit, dolt*, dope*, dumb ox, dunce, dunderhead, easy mark, fair game, fathead, goose, halfwit, idiot, ignoramus, illiterate, imbecile, innocent, jerk*, lamebrain, lightweight, loon, moron, nincompoop, ninny, nitwit, numskull, oaf, sap*, schlemiel, silly, simpleton, stooge, sucker, turkey, twerp, twit, I think about covers it adequately.

The Prof · Dec 3, 2009

obama's obfuscating afghanistan policy is not going over well day 2

joe klein of time called it "crazy"

nyt's thomas friedman on matthews' hardball said---"the dots don't connect"

the grey lady, cbs, the LA times and the usa today each went into far more devastating detail

usa today---"dems doubtful, republicans critical;" hillary before senate armed services testified the admin has "not locked itself into leaving"

Afghanistan plan leaves Dems doubtful, Republicans critical - USATODAY.com

but obama, according to cbs' white house correspondent chip reid, directly contradicted mrs secty of state

"the president always has the freedom to reevaluate his decisions," garbled gibbs at the beginning of his daily briefing

but reid, according to reid, challenged the spokesperson in the brady room, "i asked gibbs if senators were incorrect calling the date a 'target'"

the question was apparently too problematic for the press secty:

"After the briefing, Gibbs went to the president for clarification. Gibbs then called me to his office to relate what the president said. The president told him it IS locked in – there is no flexibility. Troops WILL start coming home in July 2011. Period. It's etched in stone. Gibbs said he even had the chisel."

White House: July 2011 Is Locked In for Afghanistan Withdrawal - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

complete chaos

la times:

Reporting from Washington - President Obama's timetable for rapidly expanding and then shrinking U.S. force levels in Afghanistan, a central feature of his new war strategy, raised questions from critics and supporters alike Wednesday, and left top administration officials struggling to explain the plan.

The war plan presented by the president Tuesday night, which fixes the beginning of troop reductions in July 2011 but does not set an end, was the subject of widespread confusion as lawmakers, diplomats and others debated whether it meant that American forces were headed for a hasty exit or a protracted military engagement.

Afghanistan timetable raises questions -- latimes.com

probably even more worrisome is the lady---"obama plan rattles nerves in afghanistan and pakistan," sabrina travernise and carlotta gall

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — President Barack Obama's timetable for U.S. forces in Afghanistan rattled nerves in that country and Pakistan on Wednesday, prompting diplomats to scramble to reassure the two countries at the center of the president's war strategy that the United States would not cut and run.

In Afghanistan, Foreign Minister Rangin Dadfar Spanta, the only minister who commented on the speech, said the announcement that American troops could begin leaving in 18 months served as a kind of shock therapy, but caused anxiety.

In Pakistan, Obama's declaration fed long-standing fears that America would abruptly withdraw, leaving Pakistan to fend for itself.

Many in Islamabad, Pakistan's capital, argued that the short timetable diminished any incentive for Pakistan to cut ties to Taliban militants who were its allies in the past, and whom Pakistan might want to use to shape a friendly government in Afghanistan after the U.S. withdrawal. "The most serious issue, as far as we see it, is the exit date," said a senior Pakistani security official who spoke anonymously because he was not allowed to speak publicly. "It will have serious implications."

zardari and kharzai, notably, offered no comments

but others sure did

"Is it in Pakistan's interest to antagonize the Afghan Taliban now, if they will be in power two or three years down the road?" said Ahmed Rashid, author of "Descent Into Chaos," explaining the thinking in Pakistani political and military circles. "Will the Americans actually deliver after the withdrawal, when the value of Pakistan decreases?"

Pakistani analysts and security officials expressed skepticism that America would be able to achieve in 18 months what it had failed to do in eight years, and they said they considered the military buildup to be more resources poured into what was essentially a losing strategy.

"Pakistanis are not convinced that another military surge will address the issue," said Maleeha Lodhi, a former Pakistani ambassador to the United States. "This is bombs and bullets bereft of a political strategy."

Obama plan rattles nerves in Afghanistan and Pakistan - San Jose Mercury News

the msm, as typified by the ny times, la times, time mag, the today and cbs, are beyond skeptical, they're nonplussed

as are afghans and pakistanis largely

they are asking questions of clarification as aggressively as is rush limbaugh

it is what it is

American · Dec 3, 2009

We could have done a cooler surge with B-2's and B-52's.

Afghan Plan Faces Sharp Questioning

The Prof

Joe1991

The Prof

carlkay58

Member

scottsoperson

The Prof

Joe1991

The Prof

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

Dutch

Yeager

Councilman

The Prof

American

Trump Grump Whisperer