Since not everyone has the time to listen to PJM Political, here are my notes to Saturday’s rant. If Afghanistan is important enough for the President to dawdle over for most of a year, it’s important enough to discuss on a blog. If it’s a little too conversational, well, it was written for radio.
It’s the start of October, so it must be time for a new Afghanistan strategy. The big news last weekend was the leak of General McChrystal’s memo to the President. He says he needs 10,000 to 40,000 additional troops, or Afghanistan is lost. Meanwhile, Vice President Biden says we should be reducing our numbers and concentrating on a simpler counter-terrorism strategy.
And let’s be fair to the President, this isn’t an easy decision to make — big footprint, a surge if you will. Or go small, with just enough soldiers to gather intel and aim rockets at the bad guys.
I’m inclined to agree with Biden on this one. Afghanistan is a lot like Somalia or Haiti. It’s not so much a country as it is a spot on the map where other countries aren’t. There’s no there-there, if you will. If you’re going to nation-build, it helps to have a nation to start with.
Bear with me here, because this gets complicated. But we’ve got to talk a little Grand Strategy.
I can’t stress this enough, but the Taliban is only our enemy to the extent that they provide safe havens for al Qaeda. And even Osama bin Laden is a symptom of what’s wrong in the world today — he’s not a cause. Had he died on 9/11, nothing fundamental would have changed.
The central geopolitical question of the 20th Century was where Germany fit into Europe and the world. And the world suffered two world wars and endured a 40-year Cold War to settle that question. And, really, the fighting started in 1870, during the Franco-Prussian War and didn’t end until the 4+2 conferences finally settled the German Question in 1990. That’s 120 years and tens of millions dead. It was a big, big question. But now Germany, and most of Europe, has settled down in ways we could barely imagine, much less hope for, just 25 years ago.
Now the central geopolitical question of our age is the Middle East’s failure to adapt to modernity. By and large, the Arab World, and the Persians along with it, are stuck in some very bad habits — and thanks to oil money, they don’t have to adapt. In fact, they export their internal, cultural problems in the form of terrorism.
This was the real reason for the Iraq War — our attempt to upset the Middle Eastern apple cart, and try to forge a modern, stable state right smack dab in the middle of the Persian Gulf. The jury on that is still out, but it was at least an attempt to deal with the disease instead of just the symptoms. Why Iraq? Because we had good cause to go to war in Iraq and Saddam had no friends. His number came up, simple as that.
So to me a surge in Iraq made sense. If our strategy was to treat the disease, then the surge had to be attempted. And so long as we don’t piss it away, it still has a good chance of long term success.
But Afghanistan? Afghanistan is just a hideout for Islamic terrorists, and only concerns us to the extent that it becomes or remains one. We could spend trillions of dollars, kill hundreds of thousand of bad guys, totally pacify the place, build strip malls everywhere, and turn Afghanistan into someplace as nice as Wisconsin. But what would change, really? Al Qaeda would still have money, they’d still find weapons, they’d find a new place to hide, and they’d still have this virulent ideology — and thus plenty of recruits. The real change has to come out of the heart of the middle east, starting in Egypt and going east through Iran.
So. I don’t see the point in a surge for Afghanistan, and I think Joe Biden has it exactly right.
Here’s the problem. President Obama has painted himself into a bit of a corner. He couldn’t look like a dove during the general election last year, but he couldn’t win the nomination without painting Iraq as “the war of choice,” George Bush’s war, blah blah blah. So he went hawkish on Afghanistan and called it “the necessary war.” Well, it is necessary — it just isn’t necessary to pacify the entire country.
But Obama promised us a big, big win. He’s already committed 21,000 additional troops — but McChrystal says they aren’t enough for the scope of the mission as defined by Obama himself. So the President can either double down on his campaign promise, on his entire anti-terror strategy, really. Or he can admit to Americans and the world that everything he said before was wrong, and that his former rivals — John McCain AND Joe Biden — were right.
And I’m not picking on Obama in particular here. No President likes to lose face like that. I mean, Bush stuck with a losing strategy in Iraq for three years before he finally authorized the surge — and by then it was a very close thing. It didn’t have to be that way. And for a guy who ran as the Anti Bush, Obama sure seems determined to repeat Bush’s biggest mistake.
There’s another danger here — and that’s if we stick it halfway in. Two many troops, too many casualties, for an anti-terror mission, but too few troops to wage a counter-insurgency. I’m afraid if we overcommit the mission but under-commit the deployments, then the Democratic base, and even middle America, is going to lose patience in Afghanistan, and we’ll have to bring everybody home. And that would cost us intel and our best little kill zone for disposing of bad guys.
Then again, the President is the Commander in Chief, and it’s his job to make the call. If he determines that it’s in our national interest to pursue a surge-like strategy in Afghanistan, then we’ve got to support that. That’s the most important thing we pay him for — figuring out how best to kill folks who would try to kill us. If he need a few weeks to decide, he should take the time.
But he’s got to start talking to his generals. And he’s got to stop dithering in public. Right or wrong, you knew where Bush stood on the war. What we have from Obama so far is an apparent lack of focus, and it’s gotten so bad that somebody felt compelled to leak McChrystal’s memo last week. So, Mr. Commander in Chief — issue some commands and I think you’ll be amazed at how well they’re followed.
Well done. I’ve been conflicted on Afghanistan, myself. Unable to decide how important it is and feeling we should put training programs into high gear in an effort to give it back to the Afghanis as quickly as possible. Don’t solve their problems for them, but try and give them an opportunity to do it themselves.
But you make a good case that Afghanistan at this point is too peripheral to our interests to make a high priority.
Now Obama should “take the time”? What was that comprehensive strategy review back in March all about? McChrystal says the situation is urgent. How did Obama go from http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/afghanistan_pakistan_white_paper_final.pdf to where he is now? Sorry, I haven’t read McChrystal’s entire 66-page report, but I bet he’s effectively addressed the anti-surge argument.
(hope the damn tags work)
Why not leave the war to the generals who are professionals at this? The 0 has no military experience and he is listening no one who has any real military skill or experience. Biden? The fact that he came up with anything should be your first warning sign. Make the fcuking choice..out or in but no action is not only irresponsible but deadly to our troops. Personally, I want hte US to wage war that is a war..no quarter. These people understand nothing but an ass kicking..If you dont do it…they will be back and worse than ever.
Geo –
Leaving war “to the generals” is, well, unconstitutional. Congress declares war (or “use of force” authorization, as has become fashionable). The President decides the strategy. And the generals execute it.
It’s not a perfect system, but no system is. And its flaws tend to protect us rather than harm us.
As I understand this particular instance, the President has decided on (or mostly decided on, or is in the process of deciding on, or is thinking of starting a decision-making process at some point) a counterinsurgency strategy. And Gen. McChrystal has told him that in order to wage that kind of war, he requires and additional 10,000-40,000 troops.
And the President should listen to that request, and listen very hard.
But McChrystal does not get to choose a different strategy from the President’s. He may only wage the war the President has decided on and which Congress has authorized.
Stephen–
Yes sir I agree with you that the generals could not wage an unrestricted war with no oversight… that is unconstitutional and with good reason–good point. That is not what I was trying to impart.
I do not agree that a president decides the strategy for a war. He might set policy and have sign off on stategy, but does not set the strategy. He states what he wants done endgame and it is up to the generals to get it done. Look at Carter or LBJ setting military strategy. Too much input and bad stuff happens. A president with NO understanding of how the military operates, what it can do and the outright hardships the troops must endure should be listening to those that do know about these things–the generals who have been trained for and “been there and done that”. This president has surrounded himself with those civilian advisors who fully have an ingrained disrespect for the US military (democrats) and has failed to come up with a comprehensive military policy.
I was under the impression that 0 had already told Gen McC what he wants to do months ago but has failed to properly authorize troops/resources for such a fight and is now thinking/rethinking/backpedaling on what to do. He asked for input/assessment, got it and has failed to do a damn thing with this info for political reasons.
Leaving a decision to the advice that he got from Biden is a catastrophe waiting to happen. He has once again voted “present”. Would you want the miltary following a plan set out by “the sheriff”. I sir would not..I would be scared shitless. If the prez has set out a policy..then give the generals the men and equipment to make it happen. No more rethinking.
For example: Mike Yon has reported that we need more helos in theater..has been saying this for months..why have we not been given those birds? Make up your mind mr prez..in or out but dont kill our people while you dither.
Thanks for listening Stephen. I do enjoy your blog.
“Solving” Afghanistan will take at least a generation, probably two or three, and it’s not guaranteed. The country seems to consist of a toxic brew combining tribalism, Islam, poverty, illiteracy, and the lack of any tradition of rule of law. Making a modern state out of this mess would be difficult enough with the cooperation of the world. But, we’ve got major players like the Chinese, Iranians, and Russians lined up against us on this one.
Very daunting – and, IMHO, not worth the candle. Biden may be a puddin’ head, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
The big problem is that Pakistan is the new (mostly) non-battlefield in the old war in Afghanistan. No matter what strategy we pursue in Afghanistan–surge, pull back and let drones do the work, status quo (whatever that is,) total withdrawal, or even buy off the warring parties and let them handle things–the Pakistani border will still be the home to a bunch of father-raping sphincter-headed ingrates who will still make the region unstable and home to a bunch of anti-American lunacy. Winning in Afghanistan is almost irrelevant in the big picture now that Pakistan is the new home base for Al Qaeda and is nuclear and is to some degree unstable.
What’s probably needed is a face-saving presence in Afghanistan and a lot of small and very focused operations that are definitely not happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In other words, what’s happening now but without as many troops officially “there”. This is a politically-questionable thing as it is a “flip-flop” from the campaign plan, but it’s also something that is militarily possible to do while also letting Afghanistan get its own house in order. And no, I don’t expect that to happen very well.
I don’t really care all that much about what Obama decides, as long as he decides and then stands behind his decision. If he decides to pull most or all of our troops out of Afghanistan there will be a major slaughter of all the Afghans that supported us. Those little girls going to school now? Dead. So, if he decides to go that way, he needs to own it. and the results.
What we have right now can become the biggest mistake since Viet Nam. Just a few days ago we had eight soldiers killed and an unknown number wounded in some outposts around Kamdeysh, an outpost they say we want to abandon but can’t because the Afghans don’t want us to go and because we lack the heavy lift helos to make the retreat. Worse, these outposts are on low ground with the bad guys able to tiptoe through the tulips on the slopes above shooting down on these effing fishbowls.
Our troops should not be stuck in punchbowls where any passing idiot can just drop turds on. We are sitting around with about forty bazillion auto workers out of work, eating government cheese while we don’t have enough helos. Is it THAT much different between assembling a helo than a car? The unemployment is worst among young men, yet we don’t have enough troops? We need to either get out, and face those consequences, or quit fiddle farting around and fight.
Peter nails it. The problem is, I’m not sure the president can make a decision, let alone stand behind it. Ever since he discovered that our national problems are immune to his personal charisma, he looks increasingly like a deer in the headlights. Where this will lead is anyone’s guess.
…I think Joe Biden has it exactly right.
These words will come back to haunt you.
I dunno what to do about Afghanistan, but I am disinclined to pull out of there before Osama’s head is mounted on a pike.
If I had any doubts about an Afghanistan pullout being a stupid idea, I note that Jon seems to think it’s an okay idea.
Al Qaeda attacked on 9/11 because the US lost in Vietnam. They believe Americans were driven out of Vietnam by vastly superior guerillas. There are video clips of Americans running for their lives, clambering on to helicopters from the roof of the US embassy.
The total rout of the Americans in Vietnam inspired Al Qaeda to make their attacks on NYC and DC.
The Viet Cong won in Vietnam because, obeying Clauswitz, they opened a second front in the US and won the battle over public opinion. Then they opened a third front in DC and took control of the house and senate and eliminated funding for the war.
Al Qaeda has followed the Viet Cong strategy. They are winning public opinion by “proving” no foreign power has ever won in Afghanistan. They are winning in congress. The president agrees that he does not believe in “American Exceptionalism” — which means that as long as he is president, America will not be the exception to the rule that “Foreigners Can Not Win in Afghanistan”. America will not win in Afghanistan.
If we try to quit, we will see those scenes from Vietnam re-enacted in Afghanistan as American will once again flee from the roof of the American embassy because the Taliban will give Obama no noble way to surrender.
To lose to Al Qaeda is to inspire and embolden another generation of men, dedicated to terrorism and Islamic extremism, to plan and launch a nuclear attack on several US cities.