Obama’s Leadership Troubles the WaPo

The Washington Post just published a devastating editorial on the President's leadership, or lack thereof, on Afghanistan.

There are many reasons why both Afghans and Americans are souring on their alliance, including a few over which this White House has no control. But Mr. Obama and his aides have done much to damage the relationship between the two countries and public morale on both sides. Tuesday's comments were but one more example.

The president came to office pledging a revitalized campaign in Afghanistan. But he began by terminating President Bush's practice of regular personal communications with President Hamid Karzai. Several of his envoys treated Mr. Karzai roughly and disparaged him in public. The U.S. official most able to work with the Afghan leadership, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, was abruptly pushed out of his post because of a hyped magazine article. Mr. Karzai is an erratic personality — but is it any wonder that he has grown increasingly resistant to the Obama administration?

Well, that's our man isn't it? The President was committed to our campaign in Afghanistan. Indeed, back when he was criticizing Bush 43 for the Iraq invasion, one of his points was that Bush neglected Afghanistan. As NPR puts it, during the 2008 presidential campaign

Obama would mention the war in Afghanistan as "the good war," with a direct link to the Sept. 11 attacks. In contrast, the Iraq war was "a war that has not made us more safe, but has distracted us from the task at hand in Afghanistan" — as Obama told a rally in Pennsylvania in April 2008.

It is hardly surprising that President Obama discontinued personal communications with President Karzai. Obama didn't get involved in critical negotiations over the debt ceiling. He has almost no personal relationships with members of Congress in either party. He seems to communicate with his own Administration by means of checking boxes when he is alone, late at night. It is a small wonder, then, that he didn't bother to personally communicate with the leader of a country with whom we are allied in a war.

Okay, so the President isn't a people person. That doesn't excuse his Administration's utter neglect of the Afghan government, let alone his incoherent strategy. Again from the WaPo:

The president reluctantly accepted the advice of his generals that he adopt a strategy of counterinsurgency against the Taliban and send additional troops to carry it out. But he arbitrarily cut the number of troops sought by commanders; set an equally arbitrary deadline for beginning their withdrawal; and rejected the military's advice that the pullout be staged after this year's summer fighting season. Now his aides are reportedly pushing for further troop withdrawals next year, once again against the Pentagon's recommendation. Meanwhile, negotiations with the Taliban are being pursued over Mr. Karzai's head, and sometimes in spite of his objections.

As they watch these moves, Afghans, the Taliban and neighbors such as Pakistan can reasonably conclude that the United States, rather than trying to win the war, is racing to implement an exit strategy in which the interests of Afghans and their government are slighted. Americans, meanwhile, rarely hear Mr. Obama explain the mission or the stakes.

The President imposed arbitrary cuts and arbitrary deadlines. He decided to invest blood and treasure in a counterinsurgency strategy while simultaneously making it clear to everyone including our mortal enemies that we were pulling out no matter what the outcome. Again, that's our man.

Let us remember that Afghanistan was the platform from which Osama bin Laden planned and launched the September 11^th attack on the United States. To be fair, it isn't clear what kind of policy could have succeeded there. That didn't stop the President from making an utter mess of it. The WaPo calls his words "troubling". That is gentle enough, but when a Democratic President loses the WaPo he has lost a lot.

Comments

[larry kurtz]

Hey Zeus! Give you an inch and you take a light-year, Doc. Your armchair quarterback-stabbing ignores the tail growing the dog to wag in the last game.

Your smoke and mirrors are nothing if not hiding defense contractors snorting Koch.

[Bill Fleming]

News today is that Karzai and the Afghan government don't want our soldiers in their villages anymore. Period.
Good. Bring them home then. ASAP.

[Donald Pay]

Karzai and much of his government is corrupt and has little support. Bush looked the other way, propping up a corrupt government without insisting on change. Obama hasn't. Karzai pines for the days of the Bush Administration when taxpayers' money flowed freely down a corrupt rathole where his family skimmed off a good chunk before it filtered down to its intend purpose. Obama understands the limits of the Karzai government. it's a pity you don't.

[Mark Anderson]

Yes, I'm sure that if Obama and Karzai were buddy buddy, you wouldn't have anything bad to say about Afghanistan. At least Obama killed Osama, I like saying that, that's our man isn't it?

[larry kurtz]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/march_2012/48_blame_bad_economy_on_bush_recession_46_blame_obama_s_policies

[duggersd]

"Karzai and much of his government is corrupt and has little support." All the more reason for Obama to cozy up to Karzai. Birds of a feather, dontchyaknow.

[Ken Blanchard]

Donald: what Karzai is or was, we were his ally in a war. The President had the choice to pull a lot earlier and instead he decided on a surge. Maybe it was part of his responsibility to actually talk to Karzai once and a while. Of course, that was not to be expected since the President doesn't bother to talk to anyone.

[Ken Blanchard]

Mark, you amazing man: whatever the difficulties facing us in Afghanistan, and they may be insurmountable, the least one could expect is that the President would do his job. My bias aside, it is the Washington Post I am presenting here. These folks have never voted Republican in their lives.

[Donald Pay]

Really, KB? Conservatives want Obama to talk to Karzai except when he does. Just weeks ago conservatives were criticizing Obama for extending sympathy and apologies to Karzai for civilian deaths caused by American actions. I guess we can talk to our "ally" (your words) as long as we don't express condolence for killing them.

[Donald Pay]

...Or burning their sacred texts....or going on mass murdering rampages...I imagine that the Afghans are thinking, "With freinds like these, who needs enemies."

[Donald Pay]

But Obama must not talk about such things, according to what passes as conservative wisdom. So, KB, let's hear your list of approved topics that Obama must talk to Karzai about, and what he must not talk to Karzai about. Also, please specify how often he must talk to Karzai and by what means. I'm calling bullshit on all this nonsense.

[Ken Blanchard]

That's right, Donald. Between the extremes of apologizing over and over and not communicating at all, there is no middle ground. Such is the logic on Planet Pays.

[D.E. Bishop]

Well KB, it does seem difficult to know just when/where/how/who Obama ought to communicate.

You've complained about him being "in the bubble", but when he talks with non-political folks, that's wrong. You want him talking to political folks who reside "in the bubble."

Now you want him to talk to Karzai, except when he shouldn't talk to Karzai. It's not unreasonable to ask you what he ought to talk to Karzai about. And when? Should he resume weekly conversations?

On the other hand, you have been quite clear about your fiscal conservatism, yet when money disappears into Afghanistan, that's irrelevant. The money ought to keep flowing.

KB, you are hard to follow on some of these issues. I'd certainly appreciate a little more detailed clarification.

[Donald Pay]

Yeah, if you hang round this blog long enough you start to recognize that KB has these 2-3 memes that he recycles in slightly disguised from. This one is "Obama doesn't talk to X." Generally the echochamber provides "X", and usually it's some Republican obstructionist that Obama is avoiding. This time he seemed to get it from the Washington Post editorial page, and it turns out to be a Karzai, who is always whining about not being stroked enough as his family steals our money. Whatever.

[Mark Anderson]

Ken, the Washington Post is a neo-con, centrist newspaper, it has changed since Nixon.