Obama must rethink rethinking Afghanistan

[alexey]

McManus doesn't have partisan credentials. He seems to be one of the most credible sources of opinion pieces I've seen posted on the forum.

http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/aroundthetable/mcmanus.html

Good point... I looked up some other articles by him, and they were much more balanced.

Maybe he simply failed to account for a possibility that the administration is deliberately delaying the decision... either way, in light of this new information I no longer see his bias in the original article as partisan

[mardi gras skin]

Maybe he simply failed to account for a possibility that the administration is deliberately delaying the decision...

McManus agrees that Obama is delaying the decision, but the choice to delay is causing problems:

At this point, Obama appears to be hesitating for reasons of both substance and politics. Last spring, he could hope for an Afghan government run by someone other than Karzai; now that hope is gone. He has read the history of the Vietnam War, so he's worried about getting in deeper without an off-ramp in case things go bad. He doesn't think he can sell escalation to skeptical Democrats without that off-ramp.

Eliot Cohen, a military historian who worked in the George W. Bush administration (and who supports sending more troops), described the dilemma this way: "If he goes ahead with this decision, he's basically going to be a war president." That means devoting more budget money -- and even more important, more of his own time and political capital -- to waging the war. It could also mean paring back his domestic agenda, already slowed by economic and political adversity. It's no wonder he's hesitating.

But in the end, he still has to make a choice. When Obama launched this review of his strategy in Afghanistan, it was a good thing. But the longer it goes on, the more costly it becomes.

[Thiebear]

He had a plan in March.

He had 7 meetings with his Generals and on the 8th asks about an end game?

And once again: Obama is doing the Bush Mantra.

Have a plan, GOING to do something, may have already done it...

But in no way shape or form tell the people the basics of what you wish to do and leave it a big miscommunication..

It didnt work for Bush either.

[nonniey]

And this one form David Broder of the WashingtonPost

Make a Decision, Mr. President

" WASHINGTON -- The more President Barack Obama examines our options in Afghanistan, the less he likes the choices he sees. But, as the old saying goes, to govern is to choose -- and he has stretched the internal debate to the breaking point.

It is evident from the length of this deliberative process and from the flood of leaks that have emerged from Kabul and Washington that the perfect course of action does not exist. Given that reality, the urgent necessity is to make a decision -- whether or not it is right.

The cost of indecision is growing every day. The United States and its people, the allies who have contributed their own troops to the struggle against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and the Afghans and their government are waiting impatiently, while the challenge is getting worse......"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/15/the_hand_obama_should_play_99160.html

[Midnight Judges]

The opinion is without merit, be it from Broder or McManus. We've been in Afghanistan for 8 years now. To say Obama needs to venture a decision within a few weeks regardless of whether or not the propositioners can answer key questions strikes me as superfluous, if not foolish.

[PeterMP]

Good point... I looked up some other articles by him, and they were much more balanced.

Maybe he simply failed to account for a possibility that the administration is deliberately delaying the decision... either way, in light of this new information I no longer see his bias in the original article as partisan

The mechanism causing the delay is irrelevant with respect to his point.

Now one could argue that the positives of the delay (which are related to its mechanism) might be more beneficial than the consequences of a delay (e.g. is creating a sense of urgency in the Afghani government to really get things going is greater than any sense in lost of morale that twa claims is happening).

[mardi gras skin]

The opinion is without merit, be it from Broder or McManus. We've been in Afghanistan for 8 years now. To say Obama needs to venture a decision within a few weeks regardless of whether or not the propositioners can answer key questions strikes me as superfluous, if not foolish.

Questioning the merits of the message rather than the messengers. That's an interesting idea.

There is a sweet spot in decision making. Bush was viewed as missing the mark by rushing into decisions, cowboy style. Now we're seeing critiques that Obama is missing the mark on the other side. He deliberates too much, trying to make the decision that will please all of his advisors and constituents. In the void, disagreements have time to become conflicts and his options become less palatable as factions harden their positions.

Broder sums it up well.

When Obama became commander in chief, his course of action seemed clear. He was bent on early withdrawal from Iraq and an increase in resources and emphasis on winning in Afghanistan -- the struggle he repeatedly called "a war of necessity."

He sent 21,000 more troops to hold it together through the Afghan election, and named two new generals, Stanley McChrystal to run the war, and Karl Eikenberry to manage the politics and reconstruction from the ambassador's office in Kabul.

McChrystal came up with a new plan of battle, emphasizing protection of population centers and requiring up to 40,000 more troops. Eikenberry, we now know, balked, giving voice to the widespread fear that Hamid Karzai, the carry-over winner of the election the ambassador helped arrange, was too weak and corrupt to govern the country effectively, even with an enlarged American force keeping order.

Their disagreement was echoed and amplified throughout the Obama administration. The secretaries of defense and state came down on McChrystal's side; the vice president and many on the White House political staff with Eikenberry...

...While Obama deliberates, his party in Congress shows increasing reluctance to make an all-out commitment to the war effort. The chairmen of two key Senate committees, Foreign Relations and Armed Services, are arguing for retraining Afghan troops -- if they can even be found -- and turning over more of the burden of fighting to them.

Meantime, events in Afghanistan support McChrystal's prediction that delay in expanding the American troop commitment will almost certainly lead to gains for the Taliban and greater risk for U.S. and allied troops.

The President is creating a position of weakness for himself.

[Thiebear]

The opinion is without merit, be it from Broder or McManus. We've been in Afghanistan for 8 years now. To say Obama needs to venture a decision within a few weeks regardless of whether or not the propositioners can answer key questions strikes me as superfluous, if not foolish.

What is your definition of a Few? 3weeks-5 weeks?

were sitting somewhere around 30weeks. We passed a few 7x ago.

[alexey]

The mechanism causing the delay is irrelevant with respect to his point.

imho if we are talking about a decision to have a deliberate and calculated delay, it has some relevance to a point about indecision.

[twa]

If this is a deliberate and calculated delay,can you tell the the benefit from it?

I don't see one

[alexey]

If this is a deliberate and calculated delay,can you tell the the benefit from it?

I don't see one

There are a number of possible benefits, and I can certainly list some. Please note that I am not interested in arguing for any of these, or discussing whether they outweigh possible drawbacks.

Sending a message to Korzai by keeping him uncertain, setting the proper stage for announcement of decision, buying time for behind-the-scenes negotiations or logistics, distracting critics from heathcare agenda.

[twa]

Good thing you ain't arguing for those

[Elessar78]

I think taking the time to (hopefully) get this right is a good thing. You have to take the long view on Afghanistan, because it's not an easy place to be an occupier. Just ask the Russians.

[SnyderShrugged]

I think taking the time to (hopefully) get this right is a good thing. You have to take the long view on Afghanistan, because it's not an easy place to be an occupier. Just ask the Russians.

Thus the reason for bringing the troops home from there completely.

[twa]

I think taking the time to (hopefully) get this right is a good thing. You have to take the long view on Afghanistan, because it's not an easy place to be an occupier. Just ask the Russians.

Time waits for no man

Funny that O had rather firm convictions and vocal opinions earlier..before he was responsible and things got complicated.

[JMS]

So, your point is that no matter what Obama does, he's going to be attacked. And in your opinion, this says something bad about Obama?

My point is folks who are crisizing President Obama for considering all his options are the same guys who were saying people who critized Bush for not considering any options and not having any plan were unAmerican. My point is folks who are critisizing Obama are really having a knee jerk reaction to any democratic president rather than having substantive issues with what he's doing.

[Thiebear]

imho if we are talking about a decision to have a deliberate and calculated delay, it has some relevance to a point about indecision.

Now if we are talking about a decision to have a delay.

We are right on target.

[Elessar78]

Thus the reason for bringing the troops home from there completely.

On the surface I completely agree. But not being in on those meetings and not having the info they do, I can't confidently say that there's some overwhelming reason why we shouldn't increase our troops.

Like you said, we should get the H out and just keep small units of Osama hunters there.

[JMS]

Larry, simply put his indecisiveness will allow him to be attacked no matter what his decision and being indicisive definately says something bad about Obama. I believe he is a weak president and all indications since he took office support that belief.

Again exactly why is Obama "indecisive" when he's boosted military deployment from 20k, to 70k; in his first year in office? Why was Bush a strong leader for deploying 8-12-20,000 soldiers to Afghanistan with no mission for nearly a decade, and firing any general who questioned his policy. But Obama is week and indecisive for quadroupling the troop levels, but failing to double them again when faced with conflicting advice from top advisors?

Why was Obama wrong to seek a better outcome to the election in Afghanistan than American supporting a leader who most Afghanistans thinks is part of the problem, a leader widely assumed to have stolen the election?

This is how we got stuck with President Diem in Vietnam before we had him killed. Seems to me taking ones time and coming up wiht a plausible plan of action is the least we can expect from our commander and cheif.

[alexey]

Time waits for no man

Funny that O had rather firm convictions and vocal opinions earlier..before he was responsible and things got complicated.

Stating the principles vs applying the principles... also campaigning vs governing.. I do not think that Obama was surprised by differences between these.

[JMS]

If this is a deliberate delay why not declare it as such publicly?

Seems simply a excuse to put off a tough choice,while leaving our troops and allies hanging.

There is a huge debate going on in the military. Do you fight a insurgent war like we did in Iraq, wich will take a minimum 5-8 years and 150,000 Troops, or do you set achievable goals and only commit the forces to achieve those goals. Destabalize the Talaban, Supress Al Quada, Capture Osama Bin Laudin... etc.

The commander in charge of Afghanistan McChrystal says we should fight an insurgent war. We need to commit 140k immediately... maybe more latter; and oh by the way I can't say we will be sucessful. Supporting a corrupt dispised leader in Afghanistan is a strike against us.

McChrystal predisessor, current Ambasidor to Afghanistan General Eikenberry thinks we should persue the latter strategy with a better more predictable outcome.

Obama has to weight the decisions. We've been in Afghanistan for 8 years with about 20% of the current troop level. Obama's got time to figure out where we go from here.

[twa]

How long JMS?

I've been both patient and supportive there...both are running out

[DeanCollins]

Not much talk about hitting the Taliban where it hurts, by wiping out the poppy fields. I know that, initially, it would hurt the farmers, but they'll learn that their fields won't get bombed if they grow food instead of drugs. hard to grow anything in craters. :evilg:

[JMS]

How long JMS?

I've been both patient and supportive there...both are running out

Patient? You gave George Bush nearly a decade at troop levels of 20k or below allocated to Afghanistan. Obama who more than triples troop deployment to Afghanistan though in his first year to about 70,000 men is indecisive?

The entire indecisive characture of Obama on Afghanistan is political posturing and rooted in politics not reality. A typical GOP issue.

If Obama doesn't commit 140,000 men to Afghanistan he's a wimp, a weak leader and indecisive. How about GW's track record in Afghanistan? Why wasn't he weak, indecisive and a general boob for only committing 20k and not even giving them a strategy? As I remember you were a pretty big supporter of Bush's Afghan policy. Why is Obama who's doing so much more than Bush ever did, all the sudden suspect in your eyes?

My thought, If we could bag Osama Bin Laudin, tomorrow, we leave Afghanistan to the Afghans the very next day. to my mind we are there for only one thing.

One more thought, when the country has a war to win, We turn to the Democrats. The last war a Republican won was the Civil war. Last War a conservative won was???? No conservative has ever won a war as President... Granada? Maybe the Mexican American War?

[JMS]

Not much talk about hitting the Taliban where it hurts, by wiping out the poppy fields. I know that, initially, it would hurt the farmers, but they'll learn that their fields won't get bombed if they grow food instead of drugs. hard to grow anything in craters. :evilg:

General . McChrystal who wants to double US forces in Afghanistan, is saying we should be running an anti insurgent war. Which means winning hearts and minds. So he's not about to hit the poppy fields. You don't win a farmer's heart or mind by destroying his crop....

So I'm guessing you are a supporter of General Eickenberry, formmer commander in Afghanistan current Ambassidor to Afghanistan who wants smaller US footprint and wants to target US forces for narrower more achievable goals. An argument for reducing the number of troops, not increasing them.