The President makes Policy on Afghanistan

It is tempting to rake the President over the coals once again on the duration and many false starts of his decision making process. How many weeks did it take to decide that troop withdrawal would begin in July of 2011 as opposed to June or August? But beyond that, I will resist the temptation.

The Speech

I haven't had time yet to go over the speech in great detail, but it looks pretty good to me. It begins as it certainly should have with the central fact: the United States was attacked by forces operating in Afghanistan and intertwined with the Taliban government. I especially liked this part:

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them - an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 - the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda's terrorist network, and to protect our common security.

Republicans have pointed out that the bad faith of Congressional Democrats on the Afghan war. While Bush was President and Iraq was going poorly, the Democrats constantly referred to Afghanistan as the war we should be fighting and complained that our commanders in that theater were starved of troops because of the Iraq war. Once those two facts changed, the core of the Democratic Party in both houses suddenly opposes sending in more troops.

Obama rightly points out that, in the only expression of sentiment that really matters, Congressional support for military action in Afghanistan was nearly unanimous.

He also did a good job of reconciling his opposition to the Iraq war with a justified praise of our troops and their achievement in Iraq.

The Policy

The President's policy was no surprise.

I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.

The President is going to increase troop strength in Afghanistan by 30,000 soldiers, bringing the total American commitment to about 100,000. This force will concentrate on securing vital areas in the center of the country, and aggressively targeting insurgents in the border areas. He also announced, rather vaguely, that we will begin withdrawing troops a year and a half from now.

The first thing I notice is the President's vindication of George W. Bush's surge policy, which he and his party opposed. The spectacular success of that policy made no impression at all on Congressional Democrats, but Obama is now Commander in Chief, and he cannot afford to so blithely ignore reality. Obama is engineering a virtually identical policy in Afghanistan.

This puts the President at odds with his party in Congress and with the activist base of his party at large. I don't think that Barack Obama is nearly so comfortable doing this as was Bill Clinton; and that, I think, is largely why it took him so long to reach a decision. This might be the first time in his life that he has intentionally departed from the party line.

His difficulty in doing so has real consequences for his policy. Why send in 30,000 troops rather than the 40,000 General McCrystal requested? I don't know which number is the right one, but I doubt that anything in his lengthy policy review process would justify the reduction. He needed to show that he was bending a little to the left of his generals.

Likewise, the schedule for withdrawal looks political rather than strategic. Can he really predict that 18 months is the right amount of time to accomplish all that he says must be accomplished? If so, that was some awesome strategic review he conducted. That bit is another salve for the Left. I doubt that it will be very soothing, for no one here can believe it. It doesn't commit him to much of anything either, unless you think that all our troops will pack and board planes on the second next Independence Day. All he has to do is "begin" withdrawing on that date.

The real risk in the speech is that our foe will see the sops to the Left as signs of weakness. Critics like Charles Krauthammer will seize on that, but I don't think it matters much. What will matter is the effectiveness of our troops on the ground. At least for now the President is acting Presidential. Who knows, but it might grow on him.

Comments

[George Mason]

KB old friend; I believe you have it mostly correct. The point you may have over looked are the international political implications. Obama wants NATO to make a greater commitment while he is shorting his own commander. What is that message?
Obama could have marched a long way toward victory by upping McChrystals request to 45000 troops. He would have put himself in a position to lean on NATO and to state to the Pakistanis that we are standing shoulder to shoulder with them to defeat our common enemy. Instead he indicates a commitment that is wavering at
best and at worst is providing the bad guys with a strategy for the next 2 years.
Obama's idea that war can be fought on a timetable is another indication of a lack of experience and/or terrible advice. What he has produced here could well be a timetable for disaster.

[Tom]

One of President Bush's failures when he was running the wars was that they were open-ended and his administration was constantly vague about goals and timelines. I think President Obama has learned from that mistake and it's a great decision to put an end-date on this troop increase. It's also risky for him because it means he might have to break his promise if this strategy doesn't accomplish its goals.

Also, where did the idea come from that the President, a.k.a. the Commander in Chief, must do exactly as his generals say? The generals are supposed to answer to the President, not the other way around.

[Ivan]

Let's see Tom, who knows more about war, a General or a person that has made two decisions now as president. Just remember his only other decision was pardoning the thanksgiving turkey.

[George Mason]

Tom; Bush had clear goals, destroy the safe havens of the terrorists, punish their accomplices and eliminate their sources of funding. Wars do not run on a timetable. Generals understand this, Obama does not. The larger implications are that Obama is not giving our allies, including the Afghans, the incentive to stick it out until the Taliban are destroyed. This is why Bush's strategy in Iraq was successful. He made the commitment and stuck with it. As a result the Iraqi's were willing to turn on Al Quaeda and the other malefactors in their midst. Additionally in the process we effectively bankrupted Al Quaeda and greatly reduced their numbers and their ability to recruit new members. If we can drive the Taliban back into their caves and convince the Afghan's that we are going to provide the type of protection we did the Iraqi's we will have another victory as well as another counterpoint to Iran.
Ivan you definitely made your point.

[GeneK]

A couple of thoughts. From my experience in military plans commanders ask for all the resources (men, bullets etc.) that they project that they need to accomplish the mission. However resources are never unlimited--so a vetting occurs as to what is available to achieve what missions. I suspect that something like this occured in determining the number of troops that would be deployed. This is a collaborative process between civilian and military leaders.

I had some initial reservations with the timelines President Obama layed out--but as I thought about it--it may be what is needed. Military commanders in the field are always given objectives and a timeline to accomplish the mission. I have never observed or been a party to a commander being told he has unlimited time. The other point to note is President Obama was talking to the people and I think Americans at this point want to know when this commitment will end.

[George Mason]

Gene; You are certainly correct that no commander has unlimited time. Commanders who delay acting ultimately are fired. All battles are launched with a timetable.
The timetable is usually the first thing that goes out the window (as it does in any fluid situation or process). The Pentagon just announced that they believe the timetable to be flexible. We will wait to see how rigid Obama will be with that. The point is that success in Afghanistan will be achieved when the Taliban is destroyed or effectively neutered so that a level of stability will be established to allow the Afghans to develop a functioning system of government.