.Afghan war divides Congress and a nation
Hunkered down in the White House this week, top US officials thrashed out options for Afghanistan in a dispute that has split the administration and could decide the future of the fight against al-Qaeda and President Barack Obama’s hopes of a second term.
The likely outcome of that debate – which has pitted General Stanley McCrystal, the administration’s handpicked commander in Afghanistan, against war sceptics in Congress and at the highest levels of government – is coming into view.
Officials, diplomats and analysts say Mr Obama will probably authorise more troops, though not perhaps the 30,000-40,000 sought by his generals, that a substantial proportion are likely to be trainers as well as combat forces and that, because of other demands on the US military, the extra boots on the ground will not arrive until next year – and only over time.
But such observers and participants add that the more important debate is not about troop numbers but overall strategy.
“What we are seeing is that the people who were sceptical of the Afghanistan strategy in the winter are now reopening the argument,” says Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer who chaired the administration’s last review of Afghanistan-Pakistan policy, which the president endorsed in March. “Pretty much six months has since gone by without a rigorous implementation of what was agreed to and that has only made a bad situation worse.”
The sceptics, both then and now, have been led by Joe Biden, vice-president.
During the earlier review, Mr Obama agreed to send an additional 21,000 troops, bringing the total US contingent in Afghanistan to 68,000 and Nato forces to about 100,000 – despite Mr Biden’s warnings of the risk of an escalating conflict.
This time around, the vice-president has argued that the US should refine its goals – focusing on hitting al-Qaeda bases in Pakistan rather than an ambitious counter-insurgency policy to protect the Afghan population from the Taliban.
Polls show the war is increasingly unpopular. In the face of a resource request by Gen McChrystal, who favours the broad counter-insurgency strategy, Congressional Democrats want the US to speed up training Afghan forces instead of sending more combat troops.
But few observers believe that a Biden alternative of focusing on a narrow counter-terrorism mission is going to win the day – not least because of the influence of Robert Gates, the defence secretary, who publicly insists the war cannot be fought “remotely”, with drones just hitting al-Qaeda targets.
“Gates is certainly staring Biden down: he’s not going to take the Biden approach,” said a US official. “But he’s not necessarily all the way with McChrystal either.”
Indeed, many observers argue the debate has been unduly centred on military resources, because of the administration’s sense of drift and lack of focus on Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, Richard Holbrooke, Mr Obama’s representative for Afghanistan, told a conference just before Afghanistan’s August election that, until the contest was over, he could not focus on “vitally important” issues such as fighting corruption, improving governance and an amnesty for insurgents. The chaos that followed that fraud-stricken event has only complicated his task.
Washington insiders add that at Wednesday’s White House meeting Mr Obama showed his own annoyance at the slow implementation of the current strategy.
“I think the McChrystal report is right on the mark,” says Mr Riedel. “We have a disaster. In order to address it quickly we need shock therapy.” Such shock therapy is also all but certain to need a stronger personal commitment from Mr Obama himself, who on Friday met Gen McChrystal.
“He’s going to have to make clear to the American people that stabilising Afghanistan could take as long as a decade,” said Stephen Hadley, the former US national security adviser. “We can get it to where the casualties are low sooner than that.”
Meanwhile, there is frustration within the administration at the pace of the current review – expected to take several more weeks – and Mr Obama’s deliberate, professorial style.
“We have troops on the ground and allies and the Afghan government waiting,” said the US official, who nevertheless conceded the momentous nature of the choice: “This decision could ultimately determine whether or not Obama gets a second term.”
FT
The likely outcome of that debate – which has pitted General Stanley McCrystal, the administration’s handpicked commander in Afghanistan, against war sceptics in Congress and at the highest levels of government – is coming into view.
Officials, diplomats and analysts say Mr Obama will probably authorise more troops, though not perhaps the 30,000-40,000 sought by his generals, that a substantial proportion are likely to be trainers as well as combat forces and that, because of other demands on the US military, the extra boots on the ground will not arrive until next year – and only over time.
But such observers and participants add that the more important debate is not about troop numbers but overall strategy.
“What we are seeing is that the people who were sceptical of the Afghanistan strategy in the winter are now reopening the argument,” says Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer who chaired the administration’s last review of Afghanistan-Pakistan policy, which the president endorsed in March. “Pretty much six months has since gone by without a rigorous implementation of what was agreed to and that has only made a bad situation worse.”
The sceptics, both then and now, have been led by Joe Biden, vice-president.
During the earlier review, Mr Obama agreed to send an additional 21,000 troops, bringing the total US contingent in Afghanistan to 68,000 and Nato forces to about 100,000 – despite Mr Biden’s warnings of the risk of an escalating conflict.
This time around, the vice-president has argued that the US should refine its goals – focusing on hitting al-Qaeda bases in Pakistan rather than an ambitious counter-insurgency policy to protect the Afghan population from the Taliban.
Polls show the war is increasingly unpopular. In the face of a resource request by Gen McChrystal, who favours the broad counter-insurgency strategy, Congressional Democrats want the US to speed up training Afghan forces instead of sending more combat troops.
But few observers believe that a Biden alternative of focusing on a narrow counter-terrorism mission is going to win the day – not least because of the influence of Robert Gates, the defence secretary, who publicly insists the war cannot be fought “remotely”, with drones just hitting al-Qaeda targets.
“Gates is certainly staring Biden down: he’s not going to take the Biden approach,” said a US official. “But he’s not necessarily all the way with McChrystal either.”
Indeed, many observers argue the debate has been unduly centred on military resources, because of the administration’s sense of drift and lack of focus on Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, Richard Holbrooke, Mr Obama’s representative for Afghanistan, told a conference just before Afghanistan’s August election that, until the contest was over, he could not focus on “vitally important” issues such as fighting corruption, improving governance and an amnesty for insurgents. The chaos that followed that fraud-stricken event has only complicated his task.
Washington insiders add that at Wednesday’s White House meeting Mr Obama showed his own annoyance at the slow implementation of the current strategy.
“I think the McChrystal report is right on the mark,” says Mr Riedel. “We have a disaster. In order to address it quickly we need shock therapy.” Such shock therapy is also all but certain to need a stronger personal commitment from Mr Obama himself, who on Friday met Gen McChrystal.
“He’s going to have to make clear to the American people that stabilising Afghanistan could take as long as a decade,” said Stephen Hadley, the former US national security adviser. “We can get it to where the casualties are low sooner than that.”
Meanwhile, there is frustration within the administration at the pace of the current review – expected to take several more weeks – and Mr Obama’s deliberate, professorial style.
“We have troops on the ground and allies and the Afghan government waiting,” said the US official, who nevertheless conceded the momentous nature of the choice: “This decision could ultimately determine whether or not Obama gets a second term.”
FT
posted by madtom at 10:20 PM
1 Comments:
His Oliness has got to start being President and stop running for President. Sort of hard to do when you unambiguously lied and promised impossible things to get elected.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6259582/Barack-Obama-furious-at-General-Stanley-McChrystal-speech-on-Afghanistan.html
I don't know if you saw this, but things are getting really testy between the WH and the Men in the Pentagon. McChrystal may be setting the stage for his departure. Petraeus may be thinking about running for office. Get ready for the media to start sliming them both. I read an op ed over the weekend warning of a coming military coup of sorts, so they are getting warmed up.
Post a Comment
<< Home