Afghanistan: The US Military to Obama - Make a Decision Now; Obama to Military - No

Throughout yesterday afternoon, the military leaks to the media and the Pentagon public statements began to fill the in-box. Several officials began putting out the story that the Joint Chiefs of Staff would soon give a secret report to President Obama. This would advise the President "to focus on ensuring regional stability and eliminating Taliban and Al Qaida safe havens in Pakistan, rather than on achieving lasting democracy and a thriving Afghan economy".



This recommendation in one respect is a smokescreen. As we noted when Secretary of Defense Robert Gates spoke in the same vein before Congressional committees last week, the US has always sought "regional stability" in Afghanistan, even if it hasn't done very well in achieving it.

Much more important, when you decode, are these demands in the recommendations. Continue the airstrikes in Pakistan, whatever the domestic political cost. Let others worry about Afghan "democracy" and the "economy", i.e., the US will concentrate on military efforts rather than nation-building.

And, Mr President, immediately approve our request in full for more troops to Afghanistan: one brigade already sent, three more in the next weeks, a fifth in the summer.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell wrapped all of this up in a lot of jargon for reporters yesterday:

There needs to be established a baseline of security. We need to reverse the trend that we are seeing in some parts of the country in terms of a deteriorating security situation. That is accepted as the foundation on whatever the president decides to develop in terms of a further strategy.

Meanwhile, the White House is countering the military by leaking its own evaluation. In an article in today's Washington Post, Administration officials set out a 60-day timeframe for a decision, tied to the 3 April NATO summit. And they are making that it is Obama who is the Decider, not the Joint Chiefs of Staff or Secretary of Defense Gates:

The president . . . wants to hear from the uniformed leadership and civilian advisers as to what the situation is and their thoughts as to the way forward. But he has also given pretty direct guidance.

Just in case you missed that signal, the article shouts it out later:

Officials described Obama's overall approach to what the administration calls "Af-Pak" as a refusal to be rushed, using words such as "rigor" and "restraint." "We know we're going to get [criticism] for taking our time," said a senior official.

And there is even a clear hint that Obama is not on the same page as the Gates-military emphasis on Pakistan as a safe haven for Afghan operations:

Senior administration officials described their approach to Pakistan -- as a major U.S. partner under serious threat of internal collapse -- as fundamentally different from the Bush administration's focus on the country as a Taliban and al-Qaeda "platform" for attacks in Afghanistan and beyond.

Why the US Surge Will Fail in Afghanistan: The Joint Chiefs of Staff Leave Clues

Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke to the Reserve Officers Association yesterday about Afghanistan. In the process he --- inadvertently of course --- exposed two flaws in perception which could undo any US "surge" this year.

Mullen, like Secretary of Defense Robert Gates last week, framed the US mission in Afghanistan as one against Osama bin Laden's boys: "We cannot accept that al-Qaida leadership which continues to plan against us every single day — and I mean us, here in America — to have that safe haven in Pakistan nor could resume one in Afghanistan." That outlook seems to miss the point that the actual US military confrontation is with Afghan insurgent groups such as the Taliban and that the political challenge has nothing to do with Al Qa'eda.

The second error in Mullen's thinking is even more egregious. US involvement in Afghanistan will not repeat the Vietnam disaster because "we are not an occupying force". He might not think so, but his opinion isn't the important one here.

As Juan Cole points out, the US denied that it was an "occupying force" in Vietnam. But, in Vietnam and in Afghanistan, how do you think most of the local people regarded their American visitors?

No More War On Terror

Over the weekend the AP noticed that under President Obama, usage of the term 'war on terror' was fading out:

Since taking office less than two weeks ago, President Barack Obama has talked broadly of the "enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism." Another time it was an "ongoing struggle."

He has pledged to "go after" extremists and "win this fight." There even was an oblique reference to a "twilight struggle" as the U.S. relentlessly pursues those who threaten the country.

But only once since his Jan. 20 inauguration has Obama publicly strung those three words together into the explosive phrase that coalesced the country during its most terrifying time and eventually came to define the Bush administration.

Only once, during his speech to the State Department on January 22 has Obama used the words 'war', 'on', and 'terror' consecutively. This is good news if, like me, you think the idea of a war on an adjective is unwinnable. But the shift from a war on al-Qaeda to an "enduring struggle" against a network of loosely-affiliated extremist groups is a pretty big one, in word if not deed. Don't expect the 'war on terror' to be over any time soon.