« Michelle Obama contradicts Barry's "nativity" story | Main | Incredibly, Democrats Vote To Give ACORN Regulatory Authority Over Financial Institutions »
October 28, 2009
Commentary Web Exclusive: Obama's Afghan Strategy 'A Prescription for Tragedy'
Topics: Political News and commentaries
Max Boot at Commentary: "The administration seems intent on doing just enough to keep the war effort going without doing enough to win it" and "it places US troops in harm's way without giving them a chance to prevail":
[...] If media leaks are to be believed, President Obama will attempt to chart a middle way in Afghanistan, sending more soldiers but not as many as General Stanley McChrystal would like. The New York Times describes the emerging strategy as "McChrystal for the city, Biden for the country," a blend of the diametrically opposed approaches advocated by the general (who favors a counterinsurgency strategy) and the vice president (who wants to do counterterrorism operations only). The Times writes that "the administration is looking at protecting Kabul, Kandahar, Maza-i-Sharif, Kunduz, Herat, Jalalabad and a few other village clusters, officials said." In the rest of Afghanistan, presumably, operations would be limited to a few air raids and Special Operations raids. Other media reports suggest that the administration is looking to send 10,000 to 20,000 troops -- not the 40,000 that McChrystal wants.Read it all...To Washington politicians, this no doubt sounds like a sensible compromise. To anyone steeped in military strategy it sounds as if it could be a prescription for tragedy. The administration seems intent on doing just enough to keep the war effort going without doing enough to win it. That is also what the U.S. did in Iraq from 2003 to 2007, and for that matter in Afghanistan from 2001 to today. The ambivalence of our politicians places US troops in harm's way without giving them a chance to prevail.
[...] if the Times report is accurate, senior White House officials are bent on imposing a curious strategy on our on-the-ground commander. Most of Afghanistan's big cities are not seriously threatened by insurgents. Notwithstanding a few high-profile attacks, Kabul is pretty safe, as I discovered for myself during a recent visit. So too with Herat, Jalalabad, Maza-i-Sharif, and the rest. Even Kandahar doesn't have much violence, although the Taliban undoubtedly exert some control over what goes on inside the city limits. The problem lies in the countryside, where the Taliban have been pursuing the same strategy that the mujahideen used against the Soviets in the 1980s -- consolidate control in rural areas and then launch attacks on the cities where foreign troops are garrisoned.
Apparently, as Fred Barnes posited in his piece tilted "A Vain President, or a Weak One?," Obama's stand on Afghanistan during the campaign was merely a cynical device to make him look like a tough-minded foreign-policy strategist and up to the job of commander in chief. Obama's decision on Afghanistan in March, as it turns out, was easy because Democrats were supportive - with crunch time on Afghanistan not coming until last month when McChrystal reported that the war will be lost without more troops. Since that time, Obama has clearly failed the test of leadership by acting more as a politician than a commander-in-chief. Apparently Obama has made a decision to let more troops die in a failed cause than fewer dying to prevail. As much as I hate to use the analogy, it's as though he's determined to turn Afghanistan into his own Vietnam, and employ none of the lessons learned from either that conflict or the Soviets actions in Afghanistan.
As a senior Afghan general in Kabul told Max Boot (c/above-linked article): "It's not enough to hit a terrorist sanctuary or two with Predators and Hellfires and leave the Taliban to breed. That will only prolong the fighting. In my opinion a counterterrorist strategy is not the answer. We need extra forces to cover all the threatened areas, to keep highways open, and to accelerate the growth of the army and police." In other words, Obama's Afghan strategy, at least what we know of it, is indeed a "prescription for tragedy" and defeat.
And as for the question of whether Barack Obama is a vain president or a weak one, more and more we are learning that he is indeed both.
Posted by Richard at October 28, 2009 9:00 AM
Articles Related to Political News and commentaries:
