At the start of the year we closely tracked the political battle between the White House and military commanders, notably General David Petraeus, over the deployment of additional US troops to Afghanistan. This was nominally resolved at the end of March by a “compromise” agreement (even though the military got almost all of the troop request) in which Obama announced a new strategy of military measures supporting non-military measures to build up the country.
The situation was not resolved, either inside Washington or in Afghanistan, and we are back in another cycle of reports, spin, and power moves over another escalation in the US military commitment. One curious absentee, however, is Petraeus, who has not been far from media-shy in the past. Tom Englehardt digs beneath the surface for the story:
How Top Generals May Trap Obama in a Losing War
Front and center in the debate over the Afghan War these days are General Stanley “Stan” McChrystal, Afghan war commander, whose “classified, pre-decisional” and devastating report — almost eight years and at least $220 billion later, the war is a complete disaster — was conveniently, not to say suspiciously, leaked to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post by we-know-not-who at a particularly embarrassing moment for Barack Obama; Admiral Michael “Mike” Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has been increasingly vocal about a “deteriorating” war and the need for more American boots on the ground; and the president himself, who blitzed every TV show in sight last Sunday and Monday for his health reform program, but spent significant time expressing doubts about sending more American troops to Afghanistan. (“I’m not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan… or sending a message that America is here for the duration.”)
On the other hand, here’s someone you haven’t seen front and center for a while: General David Petraeus. Read the rest of this entry »
Enduring America, 5 September: “Obama history is only repeating itself….A period of intense debate with US commanders pushing for as big a troop increase as possible, and Obama’s advisors spinning back to limit the escalation….The immediate culmination, with a “compromise” of an additional 30,000 American forces (complementing a rise in private “security” units and contractors). You will find it justified by the rhetoric that we must fight Al Qa’eda and extremists in Afghanistan so they will not terrorise us “here” and supported by the promise that this is a combination of non-military and military steps to bring stability and progress to the Afghan people.”
UPDATED 1545 GMT: Washington chatter is buzzing about the initial source of today’s “McChrystal: More Forces or ‘Mission Failure’” story, Bob Woodward of the Washington Post. The pillow fight will be over whether Woodward was right to run with a report leaked to him by a Government insider.
All this will miss the point. Woodward, the reporter of Watergate fame, has become Rent-a-Journalist for whichever side in the Government wants to turn the wind their way on a story. So this summer he was the outlet for the Obama Administration’s insistence that they would ask, “WTF [What the F***]?” on any demand for a troop increase. This time he could be serving those who want to push the military’s case for the boost or Administration insiders who want to uphold the line that they will not be bumped.
Doesn’t really matter. In the end, we’ll get to the settlement which will give the military what it wants while allowing Obama advisors to preserve the image that they have kept a lid on the escalation.
I really can’t be bothered to spill a lot of words on the latest development in US strategy towards Afghanistan. Why bother to go through 400+ pages of a supposed mystery when you’ve seen the “surprise” ending in the final paragraphs? President Obama plays the cautious line, in his media blitz yesterday (here and here and here), of no decision taken yet but tips his hand with the rhetoric of “Must Fight Al Qa’eda”. His military, just to make the President isn’t so cautious that he might actually rule against them in the purported review of strategy, ensure that high-profile US outlets like The New York Timescarry the message today, “General [McChrystal, the top US commander in Afghanistan] Calls for More U.S. Troops to Avoid Afghan Failure”. The White House undoubtedly will put out its response, for tomorrow’s newspapers, that discussions continue under the eye of a President wanting to make sure all dimensions are considered.
And sometime in the next month or two, the “compromise” will be announced of 25,000 more US troops to Afghanistan.
Please, it’s bad enough being depressed about this spin cycle. At least don’t bore me with repetition.
UPDATE 1000 GMT: The Independent of London offers the “exclusive” that the US commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, will ask for 20,000 more troops in his long-awaited report to President Obama.
Regular EA readers won’t be surprised, as only last Sunday we featured the public-relations offensive by two Administration officials pointing towards an increase of 25,000 soldiers. The question: will the US press for some of the increase to come from NATO allies or will it provide all of the additional forces?
–
The post-election situation drags on in Afghanistan, with the result of the Presidential vote descending into a protracted delay amidst allegations of fraud. The electoral commission has now suspended daily briefings, and stories have emerged of a heated row between President Hamid Karzai and President Obama’s envoy Richard Holbrooke, apparently over the attempt of the Karzai camp to alter the vote so the President would be re-elected in the first round.
Our suspicion has been that, for many in Washington, this political quagmire would merely be the backdrop (and indeed the pretext) for an intensified military campaign. Robert Dreyfuss of The Nation shares our fears. Particuarly notable in his account below is the large presence of Bruce Riedel, who helped design the Obama strategy of intervention in Afghanistan at the start of 2009.
Afghanistan Apocalypse
Yesterday afternoon at the Brookings Institution, four analysts portrayed a bleak and terrifying vision of the current state of affairs in Afghanistan in the wake of the presidential election. All four were hawkish, reflecting a growing consensus in the Washington establishment that the Afghanistan war is only just beginning.
Their conclusions: (1) A significant escalation of the war will be necessary to avoid utter defeat. (2) Even if tens of thousands of troops are added to the US occupation, it won’t be possible to determine if the US/NATO effort is succeeding until eighteen months later. (3) Even if the United States turns the tide in Afghanistan, no significant drawdown of US forces will take place until five years have passed. Read the rest of this entry »
Earlier this year we paid close attention to the conflict between White House advisors and military commanders over the latter’s request for increased troop levels to “win” Afghanistan. The dispute was resolved in the short-term by a compromise plan to send more than 20,000 additional personnel, and it has been overshadowed recently by the change in command in Afghanistan. It was only a matter of time, however, before the bottom line — is a force level of more than 60,000 (compared with 38,000 at the start of this year) going to be enough? — was going to be resurrected.
Today it appears that the Obama camp has made a move to pre-empt additional military demands. Read the rest of this entry »
We’ve noted since Day 2 of the Obama Administration the dispute between the President and the military over Obama’s 16-month timetable for withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq. This is shaping up, however, to be more than a contest over Iraq policy; it could be a symbolic showdown of who calls the shots in Barack’s White House.
Gareth Porter, one of the best investigative reporters around, has updated the story (the full article is reprinted below). General David Petraeus, head of Central Command, tried to back down Obama at a 21 January meeting, pushing a scheme to relabel US combat troops as “support troops”. The President held firm: “He wanted [Secretary of Defense Robert] Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan.”
George W. Bush won’t use the word. Dick Cheney won’t, even in his farewell defence of all the methods of “coercive interrogation” used by US authorities since 11 Setpember 2001. Now, however, a serving official in the US Department of Defense has used it — without any quote marks.
Brad Reed’s piece, reprinted from AlterNet, is an unashamedly partisan, angry, and at times darkly comic review of the last eight years. It’s also an ideal conversation-starter for readers to chip in, either with low-lights that Reed underrated or that occurred after he wrote this in July (say Bush’s “the economy is strong” statement in October).
All in all, then, an excellent good-bye gift for our 43rd President
The 10 Most Awesomely Bad Moments of the Bush Presidency
In a lot of ways, choosing the Bush administration’s 10 greatest moments — disastrous failures, all — is about as pointless as picking out your 10 least favorite hemorrhoids: There are entirely too many of them, and taken together they all add up to a throbbing mass of pain. But unfortunately, history demands that we at least make the effort so that future generations will understand why we perform voodoo rituals cursing Bush’s memory before we go to bed every night.
At the start of the year we closely tracked the political battle between the White House and military commanders, notably General David Petraeus, over the deployment of additional US troops to Afghanistan. This was nominally resolved at the end of March by a “compromise” agreement (even though the military got almost all of the troop request) in which Obama announced a new strategy of military measures supporting non-military measures to build up the country.
Enduring America, 5 September
UPDATE 1000 GMT: The Independent of London offers the “exclusive” that the US commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, 
Earlier this year we paid close attention to the conflict between White House advisors and military commanders over the latter’s request for increased troop levels to “win” Afghanistan. The dispute was resolved in the short-term by a compromise plan to send more than 20,000 additional personnel, and it has been overshadowed recently by the change in command in Afghanistan. It was only a matter of time, however, before the bottom line — is a force level of more than 60,000 (compared with 38,000 at the start of this year) going to be enough? — was going to be resurrected.
Entries (RSS)